I would differ in that the “main obstacle” is not the measurable expense but the fact that nuclear is dirty and dangerous, which is hard to quantify in dollar terms, but were it to be, it would exceed the capital and fuel cost issue.

Thank you all for the discussion.

I observed that the main obstacle for nuclear power expansion is its high capital cost, which is not going away, but can be offset if carbon sources are penalized (which they should be in any case). FSB concurs that the high costs are the major obstacle to nuclear power expansion.

And I pointed out that the argument that there simply isn’t enough uranium to supply a large expansion is false, which FSB now concedes in a round about way.

However FSB is right in pointing out conservation that I omitted from my short list of energy options – it is indeed the cheapest way to “expand” our energy supply.

Botkin’s figures (those he chooses to mention that is) are correct. Note that FSB picked the most extreme scenario Botkin offered, but Botkin does acknowledge that known terrestrial reserves are six times larger (35 million tons) at higher price levels. Of course the possibility of exploiting sea water uranium is not mentioned at all since his argument would collapse at that point.

To make breeder reactors “go away” as a possibility he plays games with time lines. There aren’t any now, so they cannot “reduce our dependence on fossil fuels now or in the near future” and then parlays that in his next sentence into his conclusion that thus: “there is no way that nuclear power can play a dominant role in the world’s energy supply.”

This conclusion should be footnoted: *If one first discounts all approaches in which it could play a dominant role.

My mention of the India plan was to show that thorium can be directly used in a cycle to produce super-grade plutonium – thus removing any proliferation resistance value to it’s use.

you say:

“I’m sorry. But I don’t buy Mr. Botkin’s figures in his NY TIMES op-ed. I see various estimates of global uranium reserves and — though, honestly, none of them are fully convincing — they don’t accord with his account. Rather, Mr. Botkin’s and your own comments seem to start from the a priori assumption that nuclear is bad.”

Fair enough — please send me the references for your figures that disagree with those I quoted.

And, yes, nuclear power as has been practiced, is bad.

Bad w/r/t waste, safety and security.

Theoretically, it is a good energy source, but not practically.

Nuclear power, as it has been practiced for the last decades, is not a solution to climate change as its risks far outweigh the risks of climate change itself.

Supporters argue that nuclear power is soft on the environment and that it can provide large sources of affordable power, ready for use when needed. These claims are misleading and highly disputable. There are many reasons why more nuclear power is not a good idea – especially given the existence of viable alternatives in the forms of energy conservation and renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, ethanol, biodiesel, etc.).

The list of shortcomings regarding nuclear power is long. Here are the highlights:

Nuclear waste — from actual existing nuclear reactors, not theoretical future Th ones — are radioactive for millennia, with no solution for permanently storing these wastes. Without a permanent solution to storing this waste, nuclear proliferation concerns will never be laid to rest.

Further, the fact that a fifty-year old industry requires billion of dollars in subsidies and government-backed insurance – as provided by the federal 2005 Energy Policy Act – suggests that nuclear power, a mature industry, cannot stand on its own two feet. That people who otherwise consider themselves conservative republicans support such a wasteful government handout industry is especially disturbing.

Nuclear energy is historically very expensive. A significant reason for deregulation in California was the high cost of utility-owned nuclear power generation. Construction costs of nuclear power plants were far more than anticipated, causing nuclear power to be the most expensive electricity in California for many years. Now that the construction costs have been paid off, it may appear that the state’s two nuclear power plants are producing power relatively cheaply, but construction costs cannot be simply swept under the rug and forgotten. Be wary when proponents for the new round of nuclear plants argue that capital costs for new plants will be lower. Many of the same arguments were made during the 1970s – and have been shown by history to be patently wrong.

Proponents argue that nuclear power offers a quick way to substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. While it does produce fewer emissions than coal or natural gas-fired power plants, the emissions are not negligible. One report by Dutch researchers found that nuclear power plants that use high-grade ore (for which supplies are diminishing) emit about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of a natural gas power plant, from ore refining and plant construction.

As uranium ore quality decreases, the greenhouse gas emissions rise because it takes more fossil energy to refine the ore. Ditto for Carey’s seawater extraction idea.

If the renewed interest in nuclear power leads to many new nuclear power plants, these supplies will be exhausted even sooner, leading to steep cost increases for uranium.

Breeder reactors, used in Europe and Japan, can help extend limited supplies of uranium, but such plants can be unstable and generate the fissionable materials for nuclear weapons.

To those who advocate nuclear power as an opportunity for greater energy security, I would remind them that nuclear power stations are highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Any time a highly concentrated fuel source is created and confined, it gives rise to safety concerns. But nuclear power presents an even greater risk because of its incredibly concentrated nature and the existence of nuclear power plants near population centers – like Diablo Canyon, located near many towns in San Luis Obispo County and endangering also Santa Barbara County. Additionally, it didn’t take terrorists to cause the accidents at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island – it simply took human error.

It’s time to become smart about our energy policy and realize that long-term energy policies require that we use technologies that are sustainable and don’t damage the environment. Nuclear power does not fit either of these criteria. Energy conservation and renewable energy are here today and can provide cost-effective power that has none of the very significant downsides of nuclear power.

Carey,

you say “I want to emphasize the extremely strong claim FSB is making. He is asserting that the necessary amount of exploitable uranium to power a large fraction of the world’s economy for more than a few years simply does not exist and this obstacle cannot be overcome.”

No, I never said that at all. I am saying that current U reserves (i.e. not including expensive, fossil fuel intensive sea-water extraction that you mention) at even reasonable multiples of current U prices, severely limit the power nuclear can supply going into the future. Minus the large subsidies, nuclear power is already uneconomical.

The fantasy that nuclear power can be a silver bullet needs to be demolished.

You say:

“Now my scenario means that nuclear power is not going to conquer global warming, or replace oil, during this century by itself. No technology can do this. But it can take up a fair chunk of burden, along with wind, solar, and biomass (other prospects seem dim)”

I have a better idea: zero-out the expensive, subsidy-heavy, dirty, unsafe and dangerous nuclear part of the equation and replace it by conservation.

Good day gentlemen.

I’m sorry. But I don’t buy Mr. Botkin’s figures in his NY TIMES op-ed. I see various estimates of global uranium reserves and — though, honestly, none of them are fully convincing — they don’t accord with his account. Rather, Mr. Botkin’s and your own comments seem to start from the a priori assumption that nuclear is bad. Given that, you neither know nor feel you need to know anything about developments like new reactors or cleaner fuel cycles.

Truly identifying in that respect, for instance, is your assumption that Th-232 to U-233 fuel cycle is some fantasy of mine. No. I wish I was that smart, but it’s been around for decades and has been done in a variety of forms. The USAF bomber’s thorium reactor in 1954 used the molten salt approach, but thorium fuel cycle-based systems are also doable via pebble bed reactors and now, after some Japanese experiments last year, via the ADS (Accelerator Driven Systems) approach.

Why didn’t we take this path before if the designs have already been developed? Primarily because the thorium fuel cycle is a terrible approach if you’re interested in also making nuclear weapons and all your initial expertise in nuclear technology has been aimed towards that end, using uranium fuel cycles. And this was the case with the U.S. and the other 20th century nuclear-capable countries.

Which brings us to the heart of the problem. The historical fact is that the anti-nuclear activist movement grew out of the nuclear disarmament movement, then was taken up by Greens and other activists across the board. I understand that wasn’t unreasonable under the then-prevailing circumstances. But I would also submit to you that if now an entire generation cannot accept the single energy technology with a proven track record suggesting it could be a solution to global warming and the world’s energy problems, it’s because to do so would entail an almost unbearable recognition: that a very large part of their lives’ work has been fundamentally, disastrously wrong, and by obstructing the transition to nuclear back in the 1970s, they bear direct responsibility both for global warming and the millions dead from coal-related pollution since then.

Maybe by 2050 the economics will favor some investment in Th technology over U reactors. Good probability that humanity will have extinguished itself by then, in large part due to not abandoning the magical lure of (U-based) nuclear power.

Thanks for the paper by Kanga & Hippel. It’s great work and I hadn’t seen it before.

But this “all the world’s energy” criterion is a bit of a red herring (it is a useful yardstick perhaps but not a real scenario). Let us remind ourselves of the time frame in which terrestrial uranium resources would actually be depleted (“peak uranium”). At current consumption rates and yesterdays prices (the long term contract price for uranium has been above the IAEA/OECD benchmark for over three years now) we have an 80 year supply. Doubling world nuclear capacity in 10 years seems impossible (the capital and industrial constraints, and project time lines), and quadrupling it in 20 similarly seems improbable. Replacing all the world’s existing electricity production in 30 years seems very optimistic to me, but even so terrestrial resources alone should support this (with the certain reality of higher prices) for 60 years. So real depletion is several decades off which is a lot of time to shake the bugs out of seawater extraction and build plants. But it won’t happen as long as cheaper sources exist, or until some proliferating country with a coastline wants to slurp up some uranium on the sly (I am betting this is where the technology first sees industrial scale deployment).

Now my scenario means that nuclear power is not going to conquer global warming, or replace oil, during this century by itself. No technology can do this. But it can take up a fair chunk of burden, along with wind, solar, and biomass (other prospects seem dim).

BTW – I want to emphasize the extremely strong claim FSB is making. He is asserting that the necessary amount of exploitable uranium to power a large fraction of the world’s economy for more than a few years simply does not exist and this obstacle cannot be overcome. Instead it seems that only a single successful industrial process, a cost-effective uranium ion sponge, is needed to demolish this claimed barrier. This is a far less radical assumption than supposing that commercially viable breeder reactors will appear (and they very well may in time). Like the gas centrifuge before it, one single industrial process really transform the nuclear power and proliferation landscape.

U-232 and the Proliferation-
Resistance of U-233 in Spent
Fuel

Most interesting is the point they make that a weapon’s core of U-232-contaminated U233, when nestled within a lead (or uranium) tamper/reflector, is a rather small emitter of gamma radiation.

A second point (not discussed in the essay) is the India-style fuel cycle. U233 and/or reactor grade Pu is used to fuel fast-breeder LM reactors which are used to create super-grade plutonium laundry in the breeding blankets. (plus more U233 in the radial blanket).