Good thinking for considering and supporting nuclear. I know people have been afraid of nuclear for over 30 years since Chernobyl. But Chernobyl was a very different reactor design from our reactors today, i.e. it had positive feedback once it deviated from the target operating conditions. Three Mile Island resulted from a misfuctioning valve and bad interpretation by the operator. But it was settled without any injuries and only a small amount of radioactivity leakage. And we learned from this accident, so that reactors are even safer now. So I think the safety issue is well in control now. Another way to look at it, we started commercial air travel about the same time we started building nuclear reactors. So we should compare the number and severity of nuclear accidents with the number and severity of commerical air craft accidents. We are still making more planes and flying more routes inspite of the many accidents.

Sodium loops do need to be handled safely against contact with air and water. But the Japanese are building a Gigawatt size sodium cooled nuclear reactor. The leakage risk can be reduced with the use of double-piping, as is done with poisonous gases at Intel, with sensors between the pipes. The Japanese have learned from their sodium accident and are moving on. I am sure many new technologies have to go through the learning phase. Even recently we hear of natural gas line leaks and consequent fires. But we have not stopped using natural gas.

As I understand it, the biggest hinderance to nuclear power now is the high initial capital cost. But I heard there is a design called “Right Size Reactor” which would generate about 100 MW of electricity for an estimated cost of about 300 million dollars (instead of 3 to 5 billion for present day gigawatt reactors). These, like the TerraPower reactors would operate for a long time (30 year time frames) without the need to refuel. So once the utility puts the first one in at a site and generates income, it can put in more as the profits come in.

Developing countries could operate these right size reactors as closed systems leaseed from the U.S. so when the time comes to refuel, there would be accounting of fissile materials, thus addressing the proliferation issue. It would also burn up the actinides which have the long half-lives.

The smaller size also is more appropriate for developing countries which do not have the per capital usage that we have. Even the developed countries in Europe only use 1/2 the per capital energy that we in the U.S. do (so I am a strong proponent of reduced energy usage and increase efficiency as well).

As I understand, we have about 40 years of petroleum and 100 to 200 years of coal at present day usage rates. Natural gas may be somewhere in between. But nuclear using breeder reactors could carry us to several hundred and perhaps even a couple of thousands of years. Because the breeder takes the non-fissile U-238 to make fissile species, it really should be considered to be a renewable fuel.

I also agree with Bill that CO2 capture or sequestration would be difficult and costly to implement. We are better off to put the money into improving the power cycle such as retrofitting power plants with a closed loop Brayton cycle for nuclear or a combined gas cycle for coal, both of which could increase power cycle efficiency from the present 33% to 50% heat to electricity.

About wind – we think of wind as being more natural, but we need to consider that per megawatt of power capacity, wind mills take about 10 times the amount of steel and 10 times as much concrete as a 70′s style nuclear power plant. And with the new nuclear designs, those ratios will increase.

So my top choices for where to put the money for energy security and environmental management are:
1. Conservation – use less (live in a smaller house that
shares a wall with a neighbor, drive a small car, use a
bike, walk)
2. Efficiency improvements in power production
3. Right Size Nuclear Breeder reactors

Thanks again for all your thoughts, efforts, and financial support.

Wu-Ching Cheng
Environmental Engineer
Albuquerque

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet…

SEE: http://energyfromthorium.com/2008/03/27/liquid-sodium-reactors/

On the other side, I don’t understand if this will create a problem of waste or at least of maintenance, but if benefits are obvious in the quite immediate timeframe, on the problems side we are moving the problem to future generations and this is nor fair nor smart.

Another possible problem could arise from those having access to this technology and, more in general to nuclear activities. This could be overrun by limiting the market by regulating it very strictly.

Overall I’m positive on this solution, while I think a set of measures should be put in place to ensure a sustainable and safe approach is guaranted.