Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Decrepit? We’ll See About That

In a story about new nuclear technologies at Fortune, Mark Halper makes a formulation that defines what seems a, shall we say, critical mass in the nuclear energy business:

A host of startups are experimenting with different approaches including the use of liquid fuel, the use of solid fuel with different shapes (such as bricks or pebbles), and the use of alternative coolants and moderators such as salts and gases. Many of the designs draw on ideas that politics suppressed decades ago. Some, like Bill Gates-chaired TerraPower in Bellevue, Wash., are designing “fast reactors” that don’t moderate neutrons. Some envision using the element thorium instead of uranium.

Between them, they portend leaps in safety, cut way down on nuclear waste, use “waste” as fuel, minimize weapons proliferation risks, slash costs and tremendously boost efficiencies. Many fit the “small modular” form that enables mass production and affordable incremental power. (Oregon startup NuScale Power recently secured $217 million in federal funds to develop a small but comparatively conventional reactor.)

We can discuss the “politics suppressed” bit some other time – another way to see it is as “decision making” – but what Halper does is recognize that a lot is happening in the nuclear energy sphere and, by so doing, he heartily rebuts the argument that nuclear energy is a decrepit technology tottering into the grave.

Nuclear power, once the cutting edge of technological progress, is now a dinosaur, all the more anachronistic when one looks at the price of renewables, whose costs have plummeted over a decade and will, say experts, continue to decline as technology improves.

Like that. This next one is a favorite.

They emerged from the philosophy of the 20th century and waste large amounts of energy.

So 20th century, nuclear energy, as outmoded a philosophy as fascism (this was written by a German, who ought to be better aware of what constitutes bad philosophy.)

Halper, who pins the first part of his story to fusion (which means he can write the same story five years from now), does turn to  the more grounded world of fission and picks up a good quote:

There is a growing market pull for innovation in the nuclear space, so you’re beginning to see a blossoming of startup companies doing different things in nuclear,” says Simon Irish, CEO of startup Terrestrial Energy, Mississauga, Canada, which is developing a “molten salt” reactor (MSR) based on liquid fuel.

Halper wrote more about Terrestrial Energy here, so he knew where to get his quote. Molten salt reactors are not new technology, as Terrestrial is the first to admit – and does, right on its home page – but Halper covers a few other ideas, too. Still, Irish is exactly right – Terrestrial, TerraPower, NuScale, etc. are doing “different things in nuclear.” The article is well worth a look.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Halper, not Halpin?
Charles Barton said…
I was the 33rd member of the energy from Thorium discussion group, the only open discussion group devoted to nuclear power in 2007, At that time Molten salt nuclear technology was virtually unknown, even in the small nuclear community. We started out as a grass roots effort, and look at how much we have accomplished in the last 8 years. Not too long ago, thorium was even discussed in The House of Lords. In 8 more years the movement may have MSRs nearing sales in North America, while in China a Thorium Molten Salt Breeder may be nearing completion.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...