RSS Feeds
Fuel Rod Vitrification Enables Nukes, Hydrogen Vehicles
-- Design News, August 21, 2008
Thanks for the August Dodge Report in Design News. It was good except for the statement about "...no good solution for fuel rod disposal."
The nuclear power industry has worked out a solution. It involves recycling the material, incinerating most of it, and treating the little residue so that it decays to a benign state in about 100 years. That makes on-site storage rational.
France, Japan, etc., have been using this technology for some years. Their enthusiasm for it is reflected in the fact that they use nuclear power to produce something like 80% of their electricity. France has reduced its nuclear waste by two-thirds by means of these "modern," i.e., waste-recycling, nuclear plants.
For reference, here are a few pertinent URLs:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/10/from-an-areva-p.html
this is about a doe contract
awarded to study recycling nuclear waste
http://www.eponline.com/articles/63785/
environmental protection article
on auburn university's work on waste storage and
recycling
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf
advantages of fast neutron
nuclear reactors
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/541256/
researchers developing new
technologies to store and recycle nuclear waste
http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/
prof. ruggero santilli's
stimulated decay of nuclear waste - companies storing waste want to prevent
recycling
http://www.planete-energies.com/getContent.aspx?directory=4_4_1_radioactive_waste
recycling as done in
france
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4252294.html
new plants pave the way for clean
nuclear power
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html
what is in nuclear waste and what
to do with nuclear waste
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
waste management in the nuclear
fuel cycle
If the U.S. were to do as France, Japan, etc., have done - i.e., use "modern" nuclear power to produce the bulk of our electricity, starting by replacing oil and natural gas power generation - the power available at night could be used to produce large volumes of low-cost hydrogen.
That, in turn, could be used to supply most of our transportation needs, especially automotive, urban buses, etc. Importation of oil would drop precipitously.
Then, whether our own oil reserves amount to 500 billion barrels or 800 billion barrels, wouldn't matter much. Our oil consumption would be reduced by at least an order-of-magnitude. Production, in environmentally safe processes, has been demonstrated and proven. Heck, the hurricaines that have ravaged the Gulf in recent years haven't even caused a spill.
There is no justification for continuing to prohibit production. There is also no justification for continuing to obstruct nuclear power plant construction.
In fact, it would help if several "standard" designs were developed (for a range of outputs) so that power companies could bypass much of the regulatory process by adopting accepted power plant designs. Then we might have "modern" nuclear power in five or 10 years, instead of 20 or 30 years.
We DO also need to pass H.R. 25, The Fair Tax Act, to remove much of the incentive for oil companies to import oil, rather than produce it here.
American companies are "saddled" with a federal tax burden that adds 25% or more to their total costs, for any oil (or anything else) produced here. But they can import oil tax-free, because most foreign countries waive (or rebate) their federal taxes on their exports. Needless to say, shipping a barrel of oil here is MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE than that.
Our screwball "tax system," and the runup in the price of oil, are major reasons our trade deficit could hit $1.5 trillion this year. The Fair Tax also solves Social Security funding, illegal immigration, and a number of other problems.
"Renewable energy," by and large, is like the "Sky Hook," or the fountain of youth. Those are attractive ideas, but have yet to be proven practicable. We shouldn't be using food, for humans or for animals, as an energy source. That just runs up the price of food.
We already use the vast majority of the potential hydroelectric power in the U.S. Wind and solar power, because they are not constant, require conventional backup systems to maintain input to the grid when the wind dies and the sun sets. That means the investment is doubled, which makes wind power economically practicable in only a few mountain passes.
Solar power still has major problems with efficiencies, cell longevity, etc., and the need for that double investment in power generation systems. The one you want ot use (solar) is really productive much less than half the time.
With decades of government subsidies behind us, wind and solar power generation still account for less than 1% of our consumption. At some point, the subsidies have to stop.
Also, our energy consumption continues to increase, even on a per-person basis, whereas wind and solar power potential have fixed limits. We need to continue researching such sources, but it is silly to depend on them for a major portion of our energy.
Thanks again for the column.
Talkback
DN's Resource Center Get Free Information, Made Easy
-
Understanding a Modular Instrumentation System for Automated Test
National Instruments | White Paper
Request Item -
Advanced Features of High Speed Digital I/O devices : White Paper Series
National Instruments | White Paper
Request Item
