Lately global warming has been getting more attention, which I am happy about. However, recently Kristof in the NY Times, Al Franken, numerous senators the other day, and of course our dear leader W yesterday have been pushing nukes as a partial solution. Low greenhouse emission is of course true; you can find scholarly articles in well respected journals noting that the lifetime carbon dioxide output associated with nuclear power rivals that of wind energy and photovoltaics. However, lest we run off with this fine notion, I want to use the diary forum here to point out some less obvious problems than the usual suspects in the news (namely, bad economics, terrorist attacks, the China Syndrome, and the politically and scientifically difficult problem of high level nuclear waste storage). The bottom line points are these: nukes will likely have a demise on the same time scale as oil, and the safest new nuke design will only hasten this and give terrorists new toys.
Check out the flip side if you are interested.
First, there is the problem of naturally occurring fissile material. The amount of fissile U235 in high grade ore would generate electricity at current usage for something like 60-100 years. Yes! That is right! The same as oil or natural gas! Obviously, ramping up the use will only hasten the depletion of fuel. Nuclear physics allows a `solution': plutonium is in fact generated when some of the fission reaction produced neutrons are captured by U238, the abundant isotope, and plutonium is as we know, fissile. Theoretically, you can extend the lifetime of nuclear power into the thousands of years if you exploit this, because it is actually possible to produce more plutonium through this `breeding' process than the U235 you consume (essentially because you produce 2-3 neutrons per split U235, and only need more than one on average to go split more U235 to keep the chain reaction going).
Fine. The problem is that (i) reprocessing is more or less a once through deal without breeding, and we have no active reprocessing here since the 70s. Carter killed it because of real concerns about nuclear proliferation. (ii) To really extend nuclear power's horizon, you need breeder reactors. There are no commercial breeders in the world today.
Second, there is the issue of the promised shining star of future nuclear power, heralded in Cheney's famous task force report: modular pebbles, a neat design with small fissile particles embedded in a matrix of carbon and silicon, with each fuel module about the size of a tennis ball. The coolant/heat exchange for power is helium gas. The idea is to have a farm of small modular pebble reactors, each about 1/10 the size of a big modern commercial reactor, and each having tens of the modules. A great thing about these reactors is that they seem to really avoid the China Syndrome (meltdown) by design, and there may be advantages in waste storage. These are really experimental at this point.
However, what is never discussed about modular pebble reactors is this: (i) the embedding in the carbon/silicon matrix really complicates the reprocessing/breeding part (compared to the current uranium/plutonium dense fuel rods), and thus locks us into the ``end of oil'' time scale. (ii) tennis size modules sound like great components for dirty bombs. Easy to grab with less risk to the thief.
I say put the $$$ into developing the blend of wind, solar, geothermal, small hydro, and alternative energy produced hydrogen that will get us more reliably and sustainably into the future. Let nukes continue their current direction into the graveyard of technological white elephants.
Email me if you want sources for any of the points made in the post.