Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy, Terrestrial Energy: WSJ

Terrestrial EnergyIn the Op-Ed pages of The Wall Street Journal today, William Tucker provides as normalizing an explanation about nuclear energy production as I've seen in the general interest press.
If we are now going to choose nuclear power as a way to resolve both our concerns about global warming and our looming energy shortfalls, we are first going to have to engage in a national debate about whether or not we accept the technology. To begin this discussion, I suggest redefining what we call nuclear power as "terrestrial energy."

Every fuel used in human history -- firewood, coal, oil, wind and water -- has been derived from the sun. But terrestrial energy is different.

Terrestrial energy is the heat at the earth's core that raises its temperature to 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the surface of the sun. Remarkably, this heat derives largely from a single source -- the radioactive breakdown of uranium and thorium. The energy released in the breakdown of these two elements is enough to melt iron, stoke volcanoes and float the earth's continents like giant barges on its molten core.

Geothermal plants are a way of tapping this heat. They are generally located near fumaroles and geysers, where groundwater meets hot spots in the earth's crust. If we dig down far enough, however, we will encounter more than enough heat to boil water. Engineers are now talking about drilling down 10 miles (the deepest oil wells are only five miles) to tap this energy.

Here's a better idea: Bring the source of this heat -- the uranium -- to the surface, put it in a carefully controlled environment, and accelerate its breakdown a bit to raise temperatures to around 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and use it to boil water. That's what we do in a nuclear reactor.
The likelihood of "terrestrial energy" catching on as popular phrase? Not very. (BTW, would nuclear fusion be considered extraterrestrial?) That said, Tucker's Op-Ed, Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power, is well worth reading.

Extra Bonus: The author has built his own site, Terrestrial Energy.org, to promote his forthcoming book and comes complete with a good-looking and informative slideshow.

Comments

Joffan said…
A pretty good op-ed, but I tend to agree that the "terrestrial power" tag is unlike to catch on. Perhaps it's just a little too vague. If the continental motion could be harnessed - now that would be terrestrial power.

Maybe we should call fission "Oklo power".

Perhaps then nuclear fusion would be "jovial power" on the grounds that deuterium fusion is what happens in brown dwarfs and giant planets (ie Jupiter).
Anonymous said…
Jupiter doesn't have enough mass to generate the necessary gravity to cause deuterium fusion to occur.
Joffan said…
There's some variation on that opinion... Jupiter certainly doesn't fuse like a star but there may be a trickle of deuterium fusion.
Luke said…
Certainly solar energy would be "extraterrestrial power" - but fusion of terrestrial materials, like deuterium, on earth would still be "terrestrial power".

Jupiter has enough mass to cause deuterium fusion to occur. If a gas planet the size and mass of Jupiter was made of deuterium, then it would 'ignite' nuclear fusion, and it would be a star.

The reason that is not the case, however, is that it is not made of enriched deuterium. Out there in the cosmos, there is no mechanism of deuterium enrichment - all the deuterium is evenly distributed, diluted amongst the vast quantities of hydrogen.

I don't know anything about it, but I suppose it's plausible that there could be a very small rate of DD fusion events inside the heart of the planet.
Joseph said…
I suppose tidal power would be lunar energy.
Joffan said…
I'm willing to avoid the argument by proposing "superjovial power" as the name for fusion.

;-)
ondrej said…
nuclear - supernova power
Rod Adams said…
Can anyone help me understand if Martin Herdon's georeactor theory hangs together?

It sure makes sense to me that fission in the center of the earth is far more likely than fusion in the center of Jupiter.

Of course, what do I know - I am just an English major pretending to know something about physics and thermodynamics.
Charles Barton said…
There is already an alternative brand, "Thorium Power", or "Thorium Energy". Those of us who see the many advantages of the thorium fuel cycle, are, in effect, promoting the thorium brand.
Anonymous said…
Rod, you were a submarine nuclear engineer. No one can contest your knowledge of things nuclear.

Now as for politics, history, Iran, the Dem-onaics and so on - that's a different matter.
Charles Barton said…
anonymous, most of us in the nuclear camp are a little strange. Rod is one of us. Don't mess with him, ya hear.
Finrod said…
Bah! I still like my suggestion of 'archaeonic power' for power derived from nuclear interaction (of either the fission or fusion ilk), although possibly only because it was me who thought of it...

As for the georeactor theory, I chanced to listen to the Atomic Show episode where Martin Herdon was given his say, and a question occurs to me: If the suggestion that protostars have their fusion process initiated by fission reactions in their cores, what mechanism was responsible for initiating fusion in the first generation of stars to form in the universe, before heavy nuclei formed in supernova explosions could possibly have existed?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …