How? Because 4th generation sodium fast reactors burn nuclear waste, generating carbon-free electricity, reducing the radioactivity of waste to 500 years compared to millions of years for waste today, and cannot meltdown like a conventional reactor.
Won't it take a long time to build that many reactors? No, because they can be mass-produced, shipped via rail, and installed next to existing coal-fired plants. Converting them from producing lots of carbon to zero.
GE has developed a modular sodium fast reactor system called PRISM, they can be mass-produced in a factory, transported by rail, placed next to existing coal-fired power plants, the number of reactors required to run the plant are "ganged" together, and we don't have to spend billions and decades building new nuclear power plants. It's probably best explained in a "Best and Brightest" article in Esquire magazine, December 2009.
Meet the Man Who Could End Global Warming - Eric Loewen
This sounds like the Holy Grail to me, yet we seem to not want it. I've been reading about sodium fast reactors elsewhere for months. But very few dairies here, the last by mark louis back in November:
The American Energy Future
Given how concerned this community is about global warming, there are dairies on it every day, I'd would think we'd be on this like white on rice.
Recently the Obama administration has finally given the go-ahead to more nuclear energy, the first in decades.
Obama's nuclear power plant push
But it's for a new plant, and not to retrofit an existing coal plant. It will use a new fast breeder reactor, although it's not clear what type.
Why We Should Build an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Now
But shouldn't we install SFRs next to existing coal plants, and hooked up to their electric turbines, rather than build new nuclear plants? This way it would be a three-fer: we bring a nuclear plant on-line faster at less cost, stop burning coal in a existing plant, and recycle the coal plant's turbine and infrastructure.
No doubt the coal industry is lobbying heavily against this - and appears to be winning (GE, I'm sure is lobbying for it's solution too.)
If converting coal plants to SFR means sense to you too, how can we raise the visibility of this solution? Perhaps move ahead with both solutions? I don't think we can afford the time luxury to try solutions serially. Where possible we need to move in parallel.
btw, this would fall into the domain of Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Update: The combination of a fast reactor plus waste processing is known as a Integral Fast Reactor (IFR.) The fast reactor used today in a IFR is typically a fourth generation sodium-cooled fast nuclear reactor (SFR.)