Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Given that there are two sides to every argument with advantages and disadvantages of the continued use of nuclear energy, and given the risks versus the benefits of nuclear power as presented in the lecture and the reading material thus far: Are you concerned with the continued use of nuclear power in our US energy portfolio? Why or Why not?

After reading about nuclear energy I find that having nuclear power has value and should continued to be included in the U.S. energy portfolio.

Today, the U.S. currently has over hundred nuclear power reactors in several states that generate nuclear energy for electricity for homes and businesses; most of these stations are located in the Midwest and along the East Coast, with just four located on the West Coast (earthquakes?). We all read about the catastrophe at Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant back on March 11, 2011 in which the Tohoku earthquake disrupted the plant and the entire plant had to be shutoff. However, like more statisticians would say, what are the risks of that happening to the U.S. or elsewhere in the world so soon afterwards (EIA 2012)? 

According to the World Nuclear News (2012) China is not afraid and is installing nuclear reactors as 27 new reactors will be online by 2015. The EIA (2012) mentions that the U.S. was the top nuclear generating country (out of 31), making nearly 800 billion KWh in 2011. This means economic profit for this country so the concept of shutting down is highly unlikely due to political input. Nuclear waste may be hazardous but not if stored and processed accurately; most of the commercial waste is (stored in water pools or dry casks not buried at the site) near the nuclear site. On the positive side of nuclear energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) reported receiving applications to create 27 new reactors, which will provide over 15 gigawatts of nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2035.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA 2012) mentions that the global population is currently at over six billion people and will reach nine billion by 2050; as the population grows, energy supply must also. Fossil fuel is dirty and unsustainable, while nuclear energy is cleaner energy. As alternative and renewable energies are researched, the technology is improved, safety features are enhanced, and operating procedures are documented and regulated making nuclear energy safer to use.

References:

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. What is the status of the U.S. nuclear industry? http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/nuclear_industry.cfm (accessed June 13, 2012).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2012. The central challenge: decarbonizing energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.html (accessed June 13, 2012).

World Nuclear News. 2012. Latest Chinese nuclear milestone. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Latest_Chinese_nuclear_milestone_1306121.html (accessed June 13, 2012).

Nuclear Reactors

The type of nuclear reactor that is used today to generate electric power for industrial and residential consumption is based on many factors: public acceptance after a lengthy approval process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, economics of the electric power company that invests in building the power station, the availability of cooling water for the power plants, transportation of supplies needed to furnish the power plant to keep it operational, nuclear waste repository on site, work force availability to build and to operate and maintain the nuclear plant for its life time, and many other factors too numerous to cover in their entirety. 


There are several types of reactor designs currently used around the world and several new generation reactors planned for the future. 


If you had a choice, given where you currently live which design would you favor to generate electric power for the industrial and residential power consumption in your locale? Why? 


Nuclear power is not favored as an energy alternative in the State of Colorado and only one power plant has existed for 20 years (1970s and 80s): Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Generating Station in Platteville, Weld County, Colorado. The power plant was one of two high temperature gas cooled (HTGR) power reactor located in the United States. While the HTGR was successful, potential engineering mishaps was blamed for using a new, high-complex (instead of low-complex) steam turbine helium circulator with multiple fluid bearings.


I would use the HTGR design as above, high temperature gas cooled thorium breeder reactor, for the industrial and residential power consumption except use the appropriate equipment to fit the power plant. However, the power plant would use technology that has a proven success rate, as the plants located in the United Kingdom (UK) where they have over 20 reactors, France with eight, Italy, Japan, and Spain with only one. The HTGR would use a simple, commercial, low-complexity electric motor-based helium circulator, such as the electrical coolant circulators. This method is considered safe, affordable, highly adaptable, efficient, scalable, flexible, recyclable, and important nuclear technology due to commercial testing.

Helium is used as the primary coolant when transferring heat to a water based secondary coolant system that drives steam generators because helium is an inert gas and does not react to other chemicals or is radioactive. The HTGR is more efficient than modern light water reactors, reaching a thermal efficiency of 39-40%, which is excellent for a steam-cycle power plant. This design can satisfy the electrical power demand load, making the reactor fuel efficient. The HTGR is flexible and recyclablre as the fuel that is removed from the core can be reprocessed and fed back into the rector along with U-235. Handing of fuel, storage, and transportation is simpler with the HTGR as the fuels can be stored for six months prior to being shipped and no severe issues of fission decay during shipment. It tends to produce less radioactive waste of energy due to being high thermal efficiency and high fuel burnup, which means less plutonium is produced (FSV Folks 2012; U.S. NRC 2012; Shropshire and Herring 2004).


References:


FSV Folks. 2012. Fort. St. Vrain power station history.
http://www.fsvfolks.org/FSVHistory_2.html (accessed June 20, 2012).


Shropshire, David, and J. Stephen Herring. 2004. Fuel-cycle and nuclear material disposition issues associated with high-temperature gas reactors. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL).