Peter Jones: We’re wrong to reject the reactors

Published on Tuesday 21 February 2012 02:50

Renewable energy has a role in reducing carbon emissions, but the greenest solution may yet be nuclear, writes Peter Jones

Nuclear energy, received Scottish wisdom as purveyed by First Minister Alex Salmond tells us, is unsafe, unreliable, and yesterday’s technology. But what if nuclear reactors were designed that could not melt down, produced little waste, or even consumed existing waste as fuel? If they were economic, might they not become a highly desirable technology of the future?

This isn’t a fantasy. And a race is developing to make it a reality. The genesis of a joint UK-French bid to get into it was made last week when Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicholas Sarkozy signed an accord to get new nuclear power stations built in the UK.

The prospect of much safer and cleaner nuclear generation which can supersede existing technology is why many governments, despite the dreadful accident at Fukushima and the public hostility to nuclear power created by it, are willing to bet a lot of taxpayers’ money on nuclear power.

There are several different approaches which are exciting attention in different parts of the world. On some calculations (which, admittedly, we heard in the 1960s at the start of the nuclear age) the electricity such new technology reactors produce could be extremely cheap, cheaper indeed than renewable energy.

But first, the Scottish Government looks to be in a minority in believing that nuclear energy is finished. Yes, Germany, after Fukushima, decided that it would wind down its nuclear industry. But 18 other countries, from Turkey to Thailand, are planning to start up.

Around the world, there are just over 440 nuclear electricity-generating plants. Another 62 are under construction, and a further 158 are planned (ie, projected to be working by 2020). China, as you might expect, is one of the biggest atomic investors. It has 13 reactors, a further 27 under construction, and 50 more are planned. Just this month, America’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved construction of two new reactors in the state of Georgia, and consent for four more will be sought later this year.

Most, if not all, of these will be existing technology reactors which, we are told, are dirty and dangerous. Odd, therefore, that they are going to be built. And even odder when you consider that those reactors nearing completion – in Finland and France – are over-budget and late.

Perhaps some of these new reactors are going to take advantage of a prospective new type of fuel. A Canadian company has been working on coating uranium pellets with an oxide made from beryllium, a non-reactive metal. One of uranium’s disadvantages is that it is a very poor heat conductor, so you have to achieve very high temperatures in the reactor core to get enough heat to the coolant which is then used to generate steam.

But beryllium is an excellent conductor. That means you can operate a reactor at much lower temperatures but achieve the same heat output from the coolant. It doesn’t completely solve the problem of potential meltdown, but it makes it a lot less likely.

It also doesn’t solve the waste problem. But there are reactor designs, classified as fourth-generation, which may well deal with the waste issue. One, which has convinced Bill Gates that it is worth spending some of his billions on, is called the travelling wave reactor. It is so called, because the reaction starts at the core and then gradually moves outwards to the edge.

In theory, once switched on, it could run for decades without the need to pull out fuel rods. And the fuel can be depleted uranium, currently a waste by-product of enrichment processes that create conventional nuclear fuel. In effect the reactor makes its own fuel and then consumes it, leaving relatively little waste.

Lots of engineers see plenty of problems. None has been built, but a private company is busy developing one, backed, somewhat unusually, entirely by private money. And the Chinese are extremely interested.

Also exciting interest is the idea of using thorium as a fuel. It was thought about in the 1950s, but uranium was favoured because early reactors produced material for atomic weapons. Thorium is about three times more abundant than uranium, and, while radioactive, is not fissile. To make thorium usable as a nuclear fuel, you have to add a neutron to each thorium atom, converting it into a fissile form of uranium. One rather intriguing way of doing this is to put it into a reactor and fire neutrons at it. A reaction then takes place, producing heat for electricity generation. But if you turn off the particle beam, the reaction slows and stops.

Had the Fukushima reactor been a thorium one of this type, the main problem – loss of power which caused the coolant to stop circulation – would have shut the reactor down, and no meltdown could have occurred. India is doing a lot of research on such reactors.

Finally, GE Hitachi have a design of reactor called Prism. It works in much the same way as a conventional uranium-based reactor but, rather excitingly, can use uranium and plutonium waste as its fuel. It’s a development of a reactor which has been operating in the US for about 30 years, and the UK government has recently become very interested.

That’s because the UK has about 100 tonnes of plutonium and 35,000 tonnes of depleted uranium which nobody knows what to do with. So there are thoughts that a couple of these Prism reactors could be built at Sellafield and use these stockpiles as fuels.

This has also got some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, very excited. Although the Prism reactor does produce waste material, it stops being radioactive after a few hundred years. And when it uses and destroys current waste which stays highly radioactive for thousands of years, that is quite a big environmental gain.

Sure, lots of work will have to be done and lots of money spent before any of these ideas become commercially viable. But if they do, they may bring the biggest environmental gain of all – electricity and heat being produced with relatively little in the way of carbon emissions.

And while I don’t doubt that wind, wave, and tidal power have an important role in achieving that goal over the next half century, it is also possible that fourth generation nuclear power is the long-term answer.

Comments

There are 28 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 2

• 1
• 2
• Next >
• Show all

28

Brit-free

Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 01:14 AM

Jones is married to one of those instantly forgettable labourite ex ministers now no longer representing her [particular sack of ferrets at Holyrood .....when he writes anything at all , it should be seen thru that particular prism ....of course he supports Nuclear ...its opposed by the S N P ......the mass sell out of the vile labourites to the sugar daddies of nuclear lobbying is just one example of their wafer thin principles and the ease with which they can be corrupted

• Report Unsuitable

27

tartantt

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 11:32 PM

I remember being on my first protest march in the seventies. It was led by the late robin Cook, & it was organised by SCRAN. (the Scottish Campaign to resist the Atomic Menace) I had been a simplistic believer in nuclear power being a panacea for all ills, until I was made aware that we would be landing future generations with the frightening toxic waste problem. Now, if, as this article implies, a solution has been found, then marvellous, but we have heard all this before. It is like walking around with a bomb in your pocket. (And it is real, & not a comic book scenario, that some people seem to go by these days.)

• Report Unsuitable

26

samcoldstream

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 07:44 PM

State owned Electricitie de France(EDF), owners of British Energy, are desperate to start building the next generation of nuclear power stations in England and Wales.

• Report Unsuitable

25

Anagach

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 06:10 PM

Nuclear fission has some wonderful benefits over coal, gas and oil. They may well be the safest systems engineered by humanity. The newer designs produce less waste. On the other side, they are actually horrifically expensive to build, run and decommission, only Finland has anything resembling a solution to all the accumulating nuclear waste, and dispite being 'safe' when something does go wrong you can kiss goodbye to a large land area for a couple of generations. Nuclear fusion looks to be impractical with our current level of engineering.

• Report Unsuitable

24

wee-scamp

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 05:17 PM

#5 Shale gas isn't cheap. Companies in the USA are losing money because oversupply has driven prices down. Drilling is now being cut back and the small shale companies are selling up............. New generation nuclear is a long way in the future. Thorium etc are all great idea and satisfy most concerns related to waste and safety. Pity really then Gordon Brown sold the UK's one reactor builder Westinghouse to the Japanese a few months before declaring the need for UK nuclear new builds. I've often wondered why he did that because it could of course become involved in new tech development.

• Report Unsuitable

23

MarcAnton

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 03:59 PM

Comment removed by moderator

22

Irritatingly Intelligent Chauvinist

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 02:28 PM

21 Simple, anti aircraft missiles.

• Report Unsuitable

21

douglas-home rule

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 02:11 PM

#20--how do you stop a terrorist flying a jumbo into it and destroying a county sized area for 10 generations?

• Report Unsuitable

20

Irritatingly Intelligent Chauvinist

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 01:12 PM

Nuclear is the way forward. It can guarantee supply of electricity and is a proven technology. How typical it is of this country to prove the feasibility of a technology and then disregard it. Nuclear reactors are safe, reliable, produce a tiny amount of waste compared to the energy produced and in the case of the fast reactor have an almost unlimited fuel supply.

• Report Unsuitable

19

HeneageDundas

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

18

George Coutts

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Then we can fly the waste to the MOON you moron!

• Report Unsuitable

17

George Coutts

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Well Peter take your Dog for a walk at Dounray beach, then! bang your gums about that disasterous stuff. Scotland can have the biggest Hydro dam in europe but ofcourse Iceland holds that trophy, The Karanuga Dam is megga on that Nucliar free land. No No No mor Nuke Juke!!!!!!!!!

• Report Unsuitable

16

PeteRowberry

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Lots of "what ifs" in Mr Jones' article. Let us talk about the "safe nuclear reactor" when we see some proof of concept, not before. The prospect of having a safe thorium reactor in the future is even more reason not to invest in old technology uranium fuel cycle reactors now. Over the full lifetime of a current reactor, including the mining of pitchblende, production of fuel, disposal of waste and decommissioning, nuclear power is far more carbon intensive than any renewable source, producing 6 times more carbon than onshore wind and 5 times more than offshore and at least twice as much as hydro projects, even large scale dams and barrages.Are we just pro-nuclear because they are low carbon over the generating cycle, where our carbon targets are measured, but high carbonn elsewhere or are we really serious about reducing absolute amounts of carbon pollution over the whole life of projects? Scotland, Italy and Germany are shining examples in moving to a renewable energy future which is far more sustainable than nuclear power and will reap the economic benefit of the policy as other countries waste money on these white elephants.

• Report Unsuitable

15

Rocabarraigh

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM

As Scotland is going down the renewable route ie wind, we will need fossil fuel (plus hydro generation) and not nuclear generation.

• Report Unsuitable

14

HeneageDundas

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Pending Moderation

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 2

• 1
• 2
• Next >
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.