Once again, Fuel For Thought is back, focusing again on nuclear power--but with a twist or two. Pebble bed reactors, nuclear industry smoke-and-mirrors, new power plant emission rules in the works in California, lots of excellent dKos energy diaries, and more--after the bump!
OPINION |
RANT OF THE WEEK |
BIGGEST LITTLE NEWS STORY |
DKOS ENERGY DIARIES |
NOTABLE TRENDS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION
Pebble Bed Reactors: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Since the beginnings of the Atomic Age, there have been two competing designs for harnessing the power of nuclear fission. The one most people know today is based off a design used by the US Navy in their submarines--the fuel rod design. The main advantage of this design, as I see it, is that it is a relatively straightforward design. The disadvantages, however, are huge--namely, if exceptional attention is not paid to safety, a reactor can melt down, exposing a large area to a fantastic amount of radiation. The possibility of meltdown exists because fuel rods are very dense, meaning a reaction can continue even if carbon control rods are in full use.
The second type of reactor design has been getting more press as of late, especially as China gears up to build thousands of these reactors. This type is called a pebble bed reactor, and they solve the meltdown problem in a very ingenious way. Simply put, rather than dense fuel rods, the reactor core uses tiny pellets of uranium encased in a relatively thick shell of graphite. The reactor uses helium rather than water as a coolant, which means you don't have to worry about water contaminating the reactor core and you don't have to worry about expensive pressure containment. But the strongest point of the reactor is that, as the reactor core heats up, the graphite shells expand. At a certain point, the shells will expand so far that the neutrons which sustain the reaction can no longer strike uranium as well, causing the core temperature to drop. In short--and in theory--the reactor core cannot melt down.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Well, yes, as long as you accept the "in theory" caveat above. However, there are still quite a few problems:
- Graphite burns. While the shells used in pebble bed reactors are supposed to be rated to temperatures of 1650 degrees Celsius--hotter than the reactor core should ever get--flaws in the shells could conceivably lead to a fire that can spread radiation. So far, manufacturing flawless graphite shells have eluded us. While using helium as the coolant should also help reduce the chances of fire, it is possible for the helium to escape, to be replaced with air--thus increasing the risk.
- Since the graphite shells are the size of billiard balls, and since you have to dispose of the whole shell along with the encased pellet, you have more volume of waste, although--as a whole--it is less radioactive than use spent fuel rods. Still, unless the transport of both fresh fuel and waste is handled perfectly, accidents--and subsequent disasters--could happen.
- Pebble bed reactors require constant handling of fuel, both to load fresh fuel and to remove spent pebbles. This introduces another point of failure in which fuel rod reactors actually have an advantage.
- Finally, one of the pebble bed reactor's strengths can be a weakness here. Fuel rod reactor sites are gigantic and monolithic, which means that the distribution of fuel and removal of wastes is limited to select sites, and also that security concerns can be restricted to a specific site and the fuel/waste routes. In contrast, pebble bed reactors are meant to be small and modular--you could build just one to provide electricity to a large neighborhood or small town, and add more as needed. But the small size and scalability of pebble bed reactors means that there would be much more dispersal of both fuel and waste. In addition, having many more reactors means having many more security headaches.
That covers the Good and the Bad of pebble bed reactors. For the Ugly, read on....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RANT OF THE WEEK
Because a little outrage is good for your soul
From today's TomPaine.com, calling BS on the energy industry's attempts at retaining dominance through nuclear power:
Nuclear power advocates are avoiding the transparent and market-friendly "X percent reductions by Y date" formula to hide the weakened position of their industry. The reason is simple. They cannot promise any reductions for at least a decade, perhaps longer. Nuclear power in the United States has been on the verge of collapse since the accident at Three Mile Island killed new construction. With aging reactors needing retirement, in the current regulatory environment the nuclear industry will soon have to shut down its heavily subsidized and privately lucrative power plants. Any new reactors built in the next 10 years would merely replace aging reactors, doing nothing to reduce our oil dependence. In essence, the industry is merely fighting to preserve its 20 percent share of the domestic electricity market.
To do that, the industry is employing a cynical 'bait-and-switch' campaign. Industry advocates are promising the safety, cost and oil-replacing potential of generation-after-next "pebble-bed" reactors, but these designs still need years of research and development. In the meantime, the nuclear industry is working with its congressional allies, like Sen. Domenici, to lift the restrictions on and deliver the subsidies for less-competitive, more expensive 1980s-era nuclear designs to merely replace 30 and 40-year old reactors. These subsidies will cost the taxpayer $8 billion. It's all smoke and mirrors.
In reality, we won't see pebble-bed reactors replacing oil for 20 years--which may be the Bush administration's goal. Oil companies are making record profits from high oil prices right now--profits that are possible only so long as America sees oil as a commodity worth fighting for. That requires continued dependence. Yet those companies also recognize that Asian economic growth will, within 20 years, drive oil prices through the roof, making alternatives unavoidable. It all adds up to a well orchestrated hand off from one powerful industry to another. Markets be damned.
There are better answers. Technology and design advances have opened up a new way to organize our energy grid that encourages high-quality energy and healthy markets. Right now, small natural gas turbines combined with better grid design can capture much of the wasted energy by distributing clean generating capacity closer to consumers. Instead of putting one massive power plant tens of miles from the customers and taking five years to build, 'distributed' micro-turbine power plants of any size can drop in incremental capacity onto the grid where it's needed when it's needed. Since they're affordable, they eliminate the need for market-corrupting and deficit-worsening subsidies.
The resulting vision is quite elegant. Build a new building or housing development, and you can put a clean new power source with it. And it's not only dependent on natural gas. Wind turbines already allow rural communities to buy a town-sized wind farm and make money when they sell excess power back to the grid. As solar cells become more efficient, middle-class homes and urban rooftops could be generating--and selling--their own electricity. If that were to happen, big centralized plants couldn't compete with a network of distributed power generators. David will have killed Goliath.
The nuclear industry wants to abort that vision of a clean, efficient and distributed energy future before it is born. With the help of George Bush and Pete Domenici, they might just succeed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BIGGEST LITTLE NEWS STORY OF THE WEEK
If you missed it the first time, look again
California Mulls New Rules For Power Plant Emissions:
Why little? Because I haven't seen anything about this in the mainstream. Why big? Because California is the largest state economy in the United States, and because they remain pioneers in environmental concern. So when the California Public Utilities Commission is looking into the best way to implement environmental regulations on the state's energy producers, while it's not the best the US can do, it's a step in the right direction--regardless of what Bush's oil buddies might think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DKOS ENERGY DIARIES
Other Kossacks speak up
Check them out:
2020 Vision (Part 1) by Devilstower: With currently available technology, we could cut our oil consumption by 75%. How? Plug-in hybrid cars. And your Prius can be converted to a plug-in model easy.
Budget Plan Will Raise Energy Costs in Northwest
by mtfriend: Bush's budget calls for Bonneville Power Administration to sell electricity at market rates, rather than wholesale. Gee, just what the economy needs--more bills.
Research and development budget near a 50 year low.
by Boppy: Bush cuts funding for scientific research--including energy research. Gee, thanks.
The Nuclear Option by dancecommander: Gee, that subject looks familiar. There's some great discussion in the comments, too.
A real energy plan for the future
by byoungbl: Tax breaks for those who consume renewable energy and more research for alternate energy sources could save the day.
Eurokos - not in US news... Headlines/Hostages/China&Energy
by Jerome a Paris: Great International news, with a regular feature on China's growing energy needs. This week: China embraces pebble bed reactors!
Eurokos - Special energy edition (w/poll)
also by Jerome a Paris: Apparently the Financial Times is discussing energy a lot lately. A lot.
Corporate Crime Update: ENRON (poll)
by skrymir: We know how slimy Enron was. Now it's starting to become mainstream, and many, including my own Senator Maria Cantwell, are demanding something be done. Why, what's wrong with letting an energy trader bilk consumers out of money while denying them power? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Global warming effects: comprehensive timetable revealed ...
...and 'How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth'
by Plutonium Page: Excellent articles on global warming, just in case you aren't convinced that global warming isn't a problem. (Plutonium Page has just regained the Wonkiest Diary Ever title, and then earned it again. That's just the way she is, bless her data-crazed heart!)
And, for the hell of it:
Webster's Dictionary adopts "Nucular" pronounciation
by sinistral: I can beat that--many wingnuts pronounce "global warming" as "hoax".
While this isn't technically an energy diary, SeattleLiberal's Nerd Network News includes an energy section. Your brain will feel three hat sizes bigger after reading it, guaranteed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTABLE TRENDS
It Dares You To Make Sense Of It All
Solar Power Demand to Soar in Coming Years Thailand is expecting an increase in solar energy from 1% of the energy supply to 8% by 2011. And I'd be tickled if the US got to 1%.
CO2 gases may be buried at sea: Oil companies want tax credits from the British government to pump carbon dioxide into nearly spent oil and gas wells, thereby driving more oil and gas out of the well to be turned into... carbon dioxide. Wait a moment....
3rd World urged to act on environmentalism: A Nobel Peace Prize winner says that developing nations should not wait for the industrial nations to save the environment. I don't think I should have to wait, for that matter.
Many nations far from meeting Kyoto goals: Hard data in a rather hard-to-parse format, but it still remains rather grim reading.
Global warming: a threat to world security?
Look--the Christian Science Monitor cites the Daily Kos' own gfactor in pointing out Dr. Rajendra Pachauri's statement that the world's CO2 levels were already dangerously high. YOU GO G! Read more here.
Rural Communities Switching to Renewable Energy
'Clean Coal' A Myth Say Greens: A New Zealand article that points out that the US has spent $4 billion (US or NZ not clear) researching environmentally friendly ways to burn coal, and has yet to find anything useful.
Cleaner Fuel, Less Terrorism More talk on the neo-cons geo-greens embracing environmentalism as a way to get back at those filthy towelheads terrorists. I guess someone should've told their daddies not to give money to despotic regimes--oh, silly me! Someone had!