Nuclear Energy – A nation hungry for more clean power

By Anthony DeAngelis - Updated 1 year ago

A need for more nuclear energy in the USA

I totally support nuclear energy. I think it has been unfairly hamstrung in this country by myopic environmentalist who do not understand what compromise is. We are fast coming to a point where we either say good bye to using it and become more dependent on other sources of energy or push forward and get back into the game. We now lag far behind China, Europe and India in our nuclear technology and there is no excuse for allowing this to happen.

Take a look at this picture:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html

We have about 104 nuclear reactors spread throughout the USA providing us with about 20% of the energy we use. A new reactor has not been built since the 1970’s. If you notice in the chart there are age indicators for those facilities. Nuclear power plants are licensed for around 40 years. After that time period they can put in for an extension which usually lasts 10-20 years. After that they have to be shut down.

I have no issue with shutting them down; my issue is with the fact that we have an entire nation of aging nuclear reactors with nothing in the wings to replace them. We need to start building now or watch energy production from nuclear power substantially drop off. The problem is it is both costly and politically complicated getting these things built. It required government guarantees and a confidence that laws and regulations will not change in the future. The Obama administration has pushed for new reactors to be built and we are seeing licenses finally being issued. Unfortunately, these projects have stalled and we still have not seen construction increased.

Now there is some debate about which direction to go when it comes to nuclear fuel. The DOE is pushing for the use of spent fuel as a way to reduce waste, but it has problems, mainly increasing fissile material. Some also say it does nothing to reduce the amount of waste. Now I am all for anything that would increase the amount of nuclear energy in this country so if the DOE wants to go this route I will support it, but let’s at least look at alternatives.

Thorium has been around for a long time. It was originally looked at as a nuclear fuel, but uranium became the standard. It was both cheap and plentiful, but things do change. With the run up in uranium prices and the politically nasty issue of dealing with nuclear waste there has finally been a renewed interest in this forgotten fuel.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf

Thorium has many benefits including being much more abundant than uranium (3-4x). It produces less waste and the waste it does produce is less toxic. Disposal and storage is more simple and safe then with uranium and it reduces or nearly eliminates worries of proliferation. Now there are issues, mainly the fact that thorium generates more heat during the nuclear reaction process and reactors need to accommodate for this, but all in all it looks like a great replacement. As of recent there has been a legislative push to examine the use of thorium and it is currently being studied.

Whether we focus on thorium, reprocessed fuel, or advanced reactors, all I know is we have to do something. Nuclear energy is both clean, reliable and a proven source of renewable energy. Calmer heads must prevail so we can begin building new reactors and increasing the role of nuclear energy. There is no reason that it cannot provide 25% of our energy needs or potentially even more. The quest for energy independence and clean fuel will mean not one energy source winning, but a joining of forces among all renewable fuels. Nuclear energy must be a part of this and I just hope that this renewed interest is for real, not just some passing fad. The time has come where we must decide which direction this country will take and I hope that the choice is made to stick with nuclear energy.

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758/page2/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

http://energyfromthorium.com/

Tags: Anthony DeAngelis

Anthony,

Your articles are really interesting and you do a rather good job researching them. But I’d recommend slowing down. You have a new article every couple days. I think each one has had a few grammatical and/or spelling errors. Try to slow down and proofread more. I think you have quite a flair and would really benefit from just sitting on each article a little longer.

Just my opinion though at the end of the day this is your blog!

physecon, 1 year ago

Physecon,

Thanks for the comments. I have no doubt there are some grammar errors. Please PM me or point them out. I always appreciate being corrected (never was one a strong English major).

As for the pace of my blogging I try and put something out at least once a week. I am trying to make it more relevant to this site, but when I was asked to blog I was told to do whatever. I have a variety of interests (finance being one) so I post on whatever. My main goal is not to reinvent the wheel, but to take a topic I feel strongly about and provide a synopsis on it. Hopefully those who read my blog will learn a little and think about the topic.

I see many bloggers, but very little blogging.

Anthony DeAngelis, 1 year ago

Yes, your blog is your personal corner where you can write what is interested to you, and hopefully to our readers. I feel like you are going through a calibration process right now where you write a bit to the left, bit to the right but the end you will end up writing relevant and insightful articles.
You can gauge how much people like your articles by the number of Facebook “Likes” it receives.
Blogging is hard, no doubt. Having material and ability to express them are rare. There are so many blogger wannabes out there but only a few can write it on a consistent basis.
That said, I’m sure Anthony and any writer here would appreciate if their oversight in grammar can be notified.

Andy, 1 year ago

Andy Nguyen, 1 year ago

Just to be clear, I have no problem with the wide scope of your topics. I rather enjoy it as it brings quite a bit of variety to my regular quantnet readings!

Thanks Physecon!

I will readily admit my grammar is not at the level I would like. It might seem silly, but I still struggle with the than/then issue. I’ve looked online for some hard and fast rules, but I end up going by the way it sounds. I learned how to read with phonetics vs whole word so it tends to be a crutch.

Going forward I will try and make my articles more focused towards the site. A lot of the things I feel strongly about tend to be more social/geopolitical, but I feel that they also have strong market implications. For example, hedge funds ran up the price of uranium a few years back much to the dismay of energy companies. This renewed interest in uranium cake has spurred interest in both new mines and reopening closed mines. In fact, the price of uranium is directly resulting in interest in other sources.

India tends to be the leader in pushing thorium and I am sure the fact that they sit on one of the worlds largest deposits of thorium has a something to do with it.

But please, everyone, feel free to point things out and offer suggestions. I like to keep an open mind and will happily alter or completely change my viewpoint if enough information is presented. Last thing I want to be is pigheaded and stick to a viewpoint only because I am afraid to be wrong.

Idaho National Laboratory’s Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor is designed for management of high-level wastes and, in particular, management of plutonium and other actinides.

http://www.inl.gov/research/sodium-cooled-fast-reactor/

Tom Fields, 1 year ago

Nuclear Energy – A nation hungry for more clean power

11 Comments

Leave a Comment