{"id":1398,"date":"2013-02-25T15:21:38","date_gmt":"2013-02-25T23:21:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=1398"},"modified":"2013-02-25T15:22:30","modified_gmt":"2013-02-25T23:22:30","slug":"atomic-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2013\/02\/25\/atomic-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Atomic America"},"content":{"rendered":"

     Despite the call for practical “green”\/carbon free energy sources to fill our growing energy needs, most of the emphasis has been on unreliable wind energy or highly costly and inefficient use solar panels<\/a>. \u00a0While the hydrocarbon boom brought on by fracking<\/a> may very well lead us to an energy independent future<\/a> with cheap affordable energy, it is not the only option available that the we have towards this goal.<\/p>\n

     The one “alternative” energy source that is cost-effective, and has less<\/em> impact on the environment than hydrocarbons, solar panels, or wind turbines, is nuclear energy.\u00a0 Unfortunately, due to the obviously necessary government oversight, combined with the inevitable red tape, bureaucratic drudgery, and the\u00a0 inconsistency of policy from administration to administration, the United States is losing its capability to compete.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

     We are already at the point where recycling nuclear energy is decades off<\/a>, thus leaving us no option but to just bury the used nuclear fuel.\u00a0 Only Finland and Sweden do not recycle their nuclear waste in any way, and they have already planned proper storage facilities, while the question of Yucca Mountain in Nevada is perpetually unresolved. The greater concern is that the United States is running out of nuclear scientists<\/a> and technicians.\u00a0\u00a0 Nuclear scientists, engineers, and technicians are retiring at a rapid rate and it has been difficult just to replace them in the critical jobs they are doing, let alone be able to innovate or even expand.\u00a0 This problem is decades old<\/a>, but continues to accelerate.<\/p>\n

     The reasons to set a course towards nuclear energy are manifest:<\/p>\n

     Our energy needs would be best served by an energy source that is inexpensive, is clean and releases little to no pollutants or CO2<\/sub> into the atmosphere, and can be widely used.\u00a0 The only proven energy source that fits all three criteria is nuclear power.\u00a0 Nuclear energy is relatively inexpensive and similar cost-wise more to coal then to solar or wind farms.\u00a0 Nuclear power plants are also not limited geographically like hydroelectric or wind farms are at present.\u00a0 Most importantly, nuclear fuel has the potential to be recycled, leaving only a modicum of waste left behind, which is under strict control at all times, thus eliminating the problem of pollution.<\/p>\n

     For example, a single oxide pellet has a diameter of 8 mm, weights 7 to 8 grams and can produce as much energy as a ton of coal without releasing any pollutants into the atmosphere.\u00a0 The use of 200 million pellets each year can reduce CO2<\/sub>\u00ad emissions by 1 billion tons of CO2<\/sub>.\u00a0 The power from 1g of plutonium is the same as up to two tons of oil.<\/p>\n

     At present, the U.S. does not reprocess, and is only one of three countries in the world that have this policy (Sweden and Finland are the others).\u00a0 96% of used fuel rods can be reused as mixed-oxide fuels (MOX).\u00a0 This policy originally had to do with concerns with reactors making fissionable material (e.g. plutonium) as side products, but some reactors can now burn these up.\u00a0 Little advancement or improvement in U.S. reactors for actual use is happening, though, due to their being very difficult to get built.<\/p>\n

     Most counties recycle their waste, with France alone having a capacity of 1,600 t\/year, and the U.K. with 2,700 t\/year.\u00a0 Many new waste separation processes are under investigation outside of the U.S.\u00a0 The vitrification (inclusion into a solid matrix with long chemical and materials stability) of the remaining ~4% of the waste material is another area in need of newer and improved study.\u00a0 Medium term storage (to allow the more radioactive isotopes to decay), and long term storage are already done outside of the U.S. (e.g. La Hague in Europe).\u00a0 This recycling massively reduces the amount of waste generated by nuclear power plants:\u00a0 in France, the total amount of waster per person per year is 20 grams!<\/p>\n

     India and the People\u2019s Republic of China are increasing their nuclear energy capacity and are taking the global lead in this area.\u00a0 India uses innovative technology that they have been developing domestically, and peaceful nuclear cooperation can help our two democracies, and the environment.\u00a0 The People\u2019s Republic of China also is investing heavily, with 100 plants scheduled to open by 2010 and 130 by 2030.\u00a0 These reactors are newer generation reactors, and they are attracting investment and innovative technologies from around the world, including the U.S.<\/p>\n

     While new recycling R&D is done in the United States, implementation is slow to non-existent.\u00a0 The U.S. also has a dearth of new nuclear scientists.\u00a0 With little to no new construction, and shifting of funding, we are losing the intellectual capability to expand our use of nuclear power plants, or even to maintain what we have now.\u00a0 This is a critical loss that endangers our own domestic industry, but also endangers our national security.\u00a0 While public-private partnerships exist, both these and private enterprise alone are limited by the security need to limit access to materials as well as heavy regulations and application processes.\u00a0 Newer generations of reactors that promise to be safer and more efficient are planned, but the development and implementation is being developed abroad, with the People\u2019s Republic of China being a critical example.\u00a0 At present the U.S. has the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), with projects involving universities, national laboratories, and the industry, and is part of the U.S. Department of Energy\u2019s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, where all our nuclear technology and capability is held under civilian hands.<\/p>\n

     The biggest problem is that the U.S. has no long-term vision or policy.\u00a0 Different administrations and policies can make long term planning almost impossible.\u00a0 Having a long-term plan and structural pathway to the use and innovation of nuclear power is critical for the energy needs of the U.S.\u00a0 While other energy sources should not be excluded for use or for research, we should not exclude the clean and affordable use of nuclear energy.\u00a0 There is great potential in solar energy and perhaps other technologies that we not yet envisioned, but we should not invest exclusively in expensive technologies that, while they show promise, are not yet affordable and reliable.<\/p>\n

     In summary, nuclear energy plays a critical role in our energy needs, and provides clean and affordable power for millions of Americans.\u00a0 The difficulty in building new plants, and the limited investment in improving this technology due to the disincentives created by our often contradictory policies.\u00a0 The prohibition on recycling and the limit on research and development endanger the continued availability of the only<\/em> power source that is clean, affordable, and reliable.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

     Despite the call for practical “green”\/carbon free energy sources to fill our growing energy needs, most of the emphasis has been on unreliable wind energy or highly costly and inefficient use solar panels. \u00a0While the hydrocarbon boom brought on by … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[36,26,27,86],"class_list":["post-1398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science","tag-energy","tag-green","tag-nevada","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1398","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1398"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1398\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1592,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1398\/revisions\/1592"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}