In 16th century Japan, the national aristocracy, a coterie of priests and samurai warriors, decided that guns, which had been introduced a century earlier, were a threat to the established order and should not proliferate.
Instead the weapon of choice would be the samurai sword, a somewhat outmoded instrument that nevertheless had an archaic panache free of the leveling implications of gunpowder. As Noel Perrin chronicled in Giving up the Gun, the priests succeeded in erasing all record of guns from artwork and historical documents so that the Samurai ruled in splendid isolation – until Admiral Perry showed up in 1853 with a few gunboats and the medieval era was over.
Today parts of America seem to want to take a similar approach to nuclear power. The Obama Administration, has decided to exile nuclear power from the public square. It’s not that the technology will be weighed against the bizarre alternative of trying to run an industrial nation on windmills. Instead, we will simply pretend that nuclear doesn’t exist, either here or abroad.
Nowhere was this more on display than in March when Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy and a Nobel Prize Winner no less, announced the 20-year effort to open a repository at Yucca Mountain would be abandoned. What was revealing was not the Yucca decision – that was almost a foregone conclusion – but the simultaneous announcement that neither will we pursue nuclear reprocessing in the manner of the French and Japanese. The reason, Secretary Chu said, is because reprocessing “might lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”
It is hard to express the fatuousness of this head-in-the-sand, know-nothing, make-the-world-disappear approach.
To the proverbial visitor form Mars in 2009, it is almost comic that the United States thinks that by abjuring nuclear reprocessing in this country we are somehow saving the world from nuclear weapons. Look around you. Is North Korea plotting to steal plutonium from American nuclear reactors in order to build a bomb? Is Iran purloining enriched uranium from American facilities? Did Dr. A.G. Kahn of Pakistan run an international swat team plotting to raid French reprocessing plants?
Wake up, America! We no longer control this technology. The world has moved past us. The French are now twenty years ahead in constructing a nuclear fuel cycle. The British, Canadians and Japanese have all continued reprocessing. The Russians are selling nuclear technology to South America. Even the Chinese obtained all the specs to their new Westinghouse reactors so they can reverse-engineer it and will probably be marketing their own reactors soon. A boatload of mixed oxide fuel just sailed from France to Japan, where it will be burned in a new MOX reactor. No pirates attacked.
Of course environmentalists and anti-nuclear crusaders are cheering Chu’s decision. “What do you do with the waste?” has long been their trump card. Many states such as California passing laws saying no more reactors can be built until the waste problem is solved. For now, the administration’s decision will assure we maintain our splendid isolation.
Like 19th century Japan, however, we won’t be able to ignore the world forever. Areva, the French nuclear giant, has signed contracts to revive the plans for a reprocessing facility near Barnwell, South Carolina. Areva also is taking enriched uranium from the former Soviet weapons program, “blending it down” to reactor level and selling it to us. Half our nuclear fuel now comes from a former Soviet weapon – a swords-into-plowshares triumph that has somehow eluded public recognition.
The truly sad thing is to see America falling behind on a technology we once pioneered. The discovery of nuclear energy was the greatest scientific achievement of the 20th century and will almost certainly come to dominate 21st century energy generation. We are now being left behind.
William Tucker has written about environmental and energy issues for twenty-five years. His work has appeared in Harper’s, The Atlantic, National Review, New Republic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. His most recent book Terrestrial Energy (Bartleby) is about nuclear power. He is a regular guest contributor to The Infrastructurist.
May 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
This could quite possibly be the most idiotic thing that has ever been published on this website. I generally follow this blog for its very informed posts and information. However, have we not yet learned about going all in on a non-renewable source of technology? Do we want to force future generations to deal with massive uranium mines that tear up the landscape? I mean, these people have proposed mining the Grand Canyon for god’s sake!
The samurai analogy is wholly inaccurate; nuclear energy is not a weapon per se(at least not in the way that a gun is a weapon). We are not going to be militarily dominated because of our failure to build nuclear facilities across the country. We need renewable sources of energy that can provide baseload power through diversification. Of course investing all our resources in wind turbines is a bad idea. But if we have geothermal, wind, solar, wave, etc all providing power in a flexible way; we will no longer be in the stranglehold of a single source of energy as we are with coal and gasoline(and as you propose with nuclear).
May 1st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I agree that the worry of nuclear proliferation linked to nuclear power is rather reactionary. But what would Mr. Tucker suggest is the best course at this time for dealing with the radioactive waste?
May 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Erik-
Thanks for the comment.
I’d say a few things in response. The nuclear issue desperately needs to get a serious debate in this country — and it really hasn’t been getting that. That’s why I asked Bill Tucker to contribute to the site. He is a knowledgeable, eloquent and unapologetic advocate, and I like the idea of having him make the case to readers who might not normally seek out his perspective. Not that everyone will agree with him, but he is very good at starting a conversation.
The reason that we haven’t been able to have a coherent discussion about nuclear power is that the subject is–pardon the unfortunate analogy–socially radioactive in this country. Most people believe that nuclear power is bad and dangerous. And there is a emotional level to it. I would even argue that there is something of social taboo at work. Many of my Obama-voting friends are a little bit appalled when I out myself as a believer in nuclear power. It’s just one of those things that right-minded people are supposed see as scary and awful.
But the case for nuclear is very, very strong. I won’t rehash it all here, but click on the “Energetic Arguments” tag on the top of this page and look at some of Bill’s previous pieces. And look at Sweden and France and Japan, which are all feeling pretty good about their choices to rely heavily on it. I mean, there are *models* out there. It works. It’s an entirely safe and pretty clean way to generate huge amounts of electricity with generating much CO2 at all. Global warming is clearly the most urgent question of our time and nuclear is a good and proven way to lower our carbon emissions. France has a very small per capita carbon footprint, as you probably know.
Most of the arguments against it–like the nuclear proliferation remark that Chu made–don’t make much sense. Jean Luc asks about nuclear waste for instance — France has been powering the country for 30 years with nuclear and they are able to store 100% of the nuclear waste in a single room at a very secure, very safe facility. And uranium mining is far less ecologically damaging than most other forms of energy generation — including solar and wind farms.
Speaking of, wind and solar are interesting options, but I think it’s irresponsible to suggest that they can fill the same role as nuclear (or coal or natural gas). I mean, they just *can’t* by definition because they only generate intermittently. The case for some distributed capacity is pretty strong. But, truly, it’s irresponsible to act as though we could just switch over to them. It’s the difference between what we want to be true and what is actually true. Wave power, for instance, is nowhere close to viable. I would *love* to have my country powered by tidal power or cellulosic ethanol or zero point energy or whatever — but it’s also important to be pragmatic.
Longer than I intended, but there you go. Again, thanks for reading.
-Jebediah
May 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Jeb,
I know what you are getting at in terms of saying that we need a reliable power source that will be producing at all times. I am by no means an energy expert, but if we have a true smart grid that can respond to shifts in where energy is produced and send that energy to the rest of the country, I think that negates the need for a single source of power to always be producing. For example, during a normal summer day, solar in the southwest can generate enough electricity to send to the entire country during the day, then at night wind or geothermal can be filling the gap that solar will leave at that time. I know this is a very idealistic way of looking at addressing our energy needs, but I think relying on another non-renewable source of energy is a mistake in the long run; especially if we are going to invest billions of dollars in each plant.
I know that there are examples of countries that have successfully implemented nuclear technology as their main source of power, but most of these countries are ones that have the appetite for large-scale public investment. Most plans in the US that I have seen needed some sort of subsidy to commence; and in my opinion I would prefer that subsidy to go to non-renewable sources. If there is a market for baseload power after we move away from coal, and renewables can’t provide that, then by all means, build some plants. But I think they should be our last resort in terms of power production
-Erik
May 1st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Nuclear is no solution for two practical reasons:
1. Uranium is a finite resource. Here in Australia where we have plenty, yet the uranium miners know how limited the resource is so don’t put any great effort into lobbying for an energy industry. Some experts believe there’s as little as 40-years worth and this doesn’t even account for the exponential demand of “everyone” building plants.
2. Clean energy’s dirty little secret is that “…wind turbines need rare-earth minerals that come with their own hefty environmental price tag” (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/hybrid-cars-minerals), and the biggest nuclear secret is that it’s a negative sum game. It ultimately takes more energy to build and maintain the infrastructure required to get it.
The debatable stuff comes down to your ideological perspective. However, I confess to being in the camp of those who think it’s insane to invest in this type of energy in a world where terrorists and cyber-criminals are proving particularly challenging to deal with.
It is also incredibly shortsighted for one or two generations to produce such a toxic waste problem for future generations.
The Swedish system for dealing with nuclear waste is impressive, but how many generations will be able to keep excavating into solid rock, many kilometres under ground?
Countries like Australia and the United States would also put waste management into the hands of the private sector, where shareholders interests will be far more important than the interests of future generations, or even existing populations in circumstances and geographic areas that are easy for corporations to exploit.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Eric,
I do not think that Jeb or William Tucker is stating that we should rely solely on nuclear. We must have diversity in our fuel sources for generation. And if we are going to move away from fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions, nuclear must be a part of that diversity. The other part of the equation, as you state, is developing the transmission system so that renewable energy can be used in all parts of the country. Unfortunately, this will take decades to develop. Also, due to the variable nature of renewable energy, there must be some kind of baseload generation that will always be there. Geographic diversity of renewable resources will work only if there is enough generation capacity in each geographic area to run everything, because there will be that small percent of the time when you will get almost no power from renewable resources. Renewable generation will play an increasingly important roll in electric generation, and I am a big supporter of renewable generation, but we must be realistic in developing our generation resources. Of course, if economic, large-scale storage is developed, that could change everything, but that is another article…
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Jo -
I don’t think the supply issue is really a problem at all. For one thing, we can reprocess waste (as France does) and use it generate more energy. That would take us a long way. Also there’s a huge amount of thorium in the ground that could be used to generate power.
And as for the idea that nuclear power is a “negative sum game” — well, that just isn’t true. I’d be curious what analysis reached that conclusion?
-Jebediah
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
This is just a silly comparison. Regardless of the merits or not of nuclear energy, it has nothing to do with the Samurai and their failure to adopt new technology.
The problem with our society in general is our willingness just to punt problems to future generations to let them solve them. The use of both fossil fuels and nuclear energy are examples of our selfishness. We want it all now and are not willing to sacrifice anything for the sake of our children.
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Jo, in answer the finite resource “issue” you raised, learn about breeder reactors.
As for your fear of the private sector, I’d point out that the airline industry has an excellent safety record. All that’s required is regulation.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:30 am
What do we do with the nuclear waste? I understand that even reprocessing nuclear waste results in… nuclear waste. What then? Bury it in a hole? Doesn’t seem good enough, but then again, is burying nuclear waste in a hole in the ground any worse than our modern practice of putting fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere? Maybe not. Anyone know?
May 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I should probably preface this with the fact that I work in the Energy Industry.
Erik,
Nuclear Power, while requiring a huge capital cost, is the cheapest power in terms operating and maintenance. It is unfair to look at energy purely in the cost of the building cost. There is also other costs, i.e. to the environment, to operate, to fuel, to the nearby public. Coal, while having standard fuel cost/unit of energy and are of standard cost, produces enormous amounts of greenhouse gases and pollutants. Wind/solar and other renewable “green” energys, are inefficient, unreliable, have high cost to build and produce little energy. Nuclear is expensive to build, and its waste carrys more risk than that of other forms of power, but are extremely cheap in fuel cost/ unit of energy, and produces ZERO green house gases. While clean, renewable energy is a great concept, it is not economical for the consumer nor the utilities to throw lots of resources into it. They are simply too costly and too inefficient.
I agree with you, however, that renewable energy needs to be part of the equation, but it would be difficult to completely eliminate nuclear power from our energy grid. 20% of electricity in this nation, and 100% of this 20% is base power (on all the time), is nuclear. With energy demands growing, and increasing awareness with polluting environment, there is simply no room to phase/get rid of these high capacity nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, nuclear will have to be part of the intermediate solution to the current climate problem, while we phase out coal and gas.
The biggest problem that remains, would be the waste. True it may seem like there are TONS of nuclear waste out there, but it is due to the fact we don’t reprocess/recycle any of our fuel. The technology is there to support reprocessing, and can make our nuclear fuel resources virtually infinite. Proliferation concerns, to anyone who understands the enrichment and reprocessing process, is completely ridiculous. Enrichment facilities are costly, large (difficult to hide), and the technology is only available to a handful of countries. Secondly, nuclear fuel contains much less fissionable (reactive) enrichment than nuclear weapons. For example fuel is about 4% enriched, where bombs are on the order of upper 90% enriched. There is simply NOT enough reactive elements in our fuel for a runaway, explosive reaction one thinks of when one thinks of a nuclear bomb. The fuel can, at best, get hot and melt. Reprocessing does not concentrate these “enriched isotopes” in any way, and therefore, you will never have enough fissile material in a high enough concentration to make a bomb.
Lastly, there is radiation everywhere. What radiation that comes from wastes will die off eventually. about mid 90% of nuclear waste can be recycled/reprocessed, and what is not is encased in concrete and steel and monitored in known locations so if better technology comes around we can change our disposal method. which is better than dumping coal burnoffs into the atmosphere, of unspecific amounts, into the air where we cannot trace it, and not be able to correct past disposal methods.
This came out a lot longer than I planned on writing, but please feel free to look up any of the information i wrote about, I don’t think nuclear is a long term solution, but it is definitely part of our solution to free our dependence on green house gas producing power.
July 26th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
July 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I shall try to keep this short and simple so that the “kool aid” group can follow it. Secretary Chu is does not have the courage of his convictions when he agreed to closing Yucca Mountain and stop re-processing. Everyone connected with Nuclear Power knows that this lunacy will take the best energy source and prevent its implementation . In 2008, the Department of Energy put out an official position paper stating the Nuclear Energy is absolutely essential for sustainable energy, especially base load. The paper was signed by all the National Laboratory Directors, including Dr. Chu. The paper also assumed that Yucca Mountain exists. The paper is available at my web site or can be googled. Why is this essential?
Present (and 3rd Generation Plants) use thermal neutrons which go not fission U238 but rather convert it to various isotopes of Plutonium. Consequently, the use only a few percent of the available energy, and leave radioactive wastes that need to be safely stored for tens of thousands of years. In a few hundred years future generations could mine the Plutonium.When 4th Gen Fast Neutron Reactors are combined with re-processing the following occurs: Our present wastes can power these reactors for centuries. The are valuable not a problem; they will extract 99+% of the energy so that there is enough Uranium and Thorium on Earth for literally billions of years (Not Renewable?); they do not make Plutonium as current reactors do; they burn it and all other actinides,; they produce a small volume of fission fragment wastes that are gone in less than 500 years, storing this is easy. The do not produce CO2 and have an availability of over 90%. They could come on line by 2020, and they are being worked on at INL in Idaho. The UREX process does not produce pure Plutonium so it is not amenable to diversion, and in 2 decades none has been diverted. These 4th generation plants not only are more efficient, but thay can produce Hydrogen by thermochemicaly from water.Many major Nations are going to this technology as it is presently the only technology that can cleanly and safely produce the requisite power.France obtains 80% of its electricity from Nuclear Power.It takes 4700 large Wind Turbines weighing about 250 tons each to match the power output of one Nuke. This is 5-10x the raw materials of the Nuclear Plant. Which has the smaller ecological footprint. Solar equires a major breakthough equivalent to the transister to be economicaly viable.
The President dissembles. He says he is for Nuclear Power but is against reprocessing and Yucca Mountain. How to lie by diversion.
If we not not use this advanced Nuclear Power, we will be economically severly damaged by Cap and Trade which will not be followed by India and China. In several decades we will be competing with 9 billion people over dwindeling energy supplies.
Note, without adequate and reasonable priced energy, out civilization ends. The so called renewable energy, while part of the answer, cannot be a major contributer. Combining this advanced Nuclear Energy with use of our own petroleum resources (ANWR, Off Shore and Shale Oil), we can be energy independent; lave low CO2 emissions, not transferring $700 Billion/ year offshore and not be vulnerable to an energy cut off. Since the President is not stupid, I question his motives. I have been involved with Nuclear Science since 1965 and held TS, Nuclear and code word intelligence clearances, I do have expertise in this field and have served this country, and risked life and career many times. I do not want to see a bunch of idealogues (I am being generous) imperil this country that I love.
It is because of this, the economy, and the travesty of a Health Care Plan that has engendered me to run for congress at a time that I thought I could devote to travel and research.