Physicist Ernest Moniz, a former undersecretary of the DOE, sees nuclear power production as having great potential for meeting the soaring world demand for electricity while preserving an acceptably clean environment. Environmentally, nuclear power has one great advantage: It does not produce carbon emissions.
About one-sixth of the electrical power in the world today is generated in nuclear power plants-a fraction comparable to the amount of hydropower. Most of the rest is generated by burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas. In the United States, only about one-fifth of electricity is nuclear-generated-but that 20 percent takes the place of fossil-fuel energy production that would mean another 175 metric tons of carbon equivalent per year streaming into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, despite the environmental advantages of nuclear power, Moniz said in a recent talk at Los Alamos, "If nuclear power does not grow by roughly a factor of 4" in the next 50 years, then nuclear energy will turn out to be "too much pain for very little gain." Furthermore, to achieve that 400-percent growth, nuclear power suppliers must find ways to overcome potentially show-stopping concerns related to safety, economics, nonproliferation, and waste.
Moniz, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor, presented a Director's Colloquium on nuclear power Jan. 14. He is participating in an 18-month study funded by MIT and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation that will release a report this year on the near-term, mid-term, and long-term prospects for nuclear energy.
The study group includes several MIT faculty members (in fields spanning science, nuclear engineering, economics, and political science) and a faculty member from Harvard. An external advisory group includes members with backgrounds as diverse as venture capital and politics. Two members of the group are former chiefs of staff to the president. The group will develop recommendations on nuclear power research and development, nonproliferation, and relevant collaborations involving the United States and Russia.
For the past year, Moniz has also been spending about a quarter of his time on a sabbatical at Los Alamos, working with collaborators here that are researching aspects of advanced nuclear energy systems (see story on Page 15). Moniz noted in his talk that the DOE's Energy Information Administration projects a global increase of 2.7 percent per year (compounded) in electricity usage. Some developing countries are experiencing a huge growth in the demand for electricity. China, for example, had an "enormous rate of growth" in electricity use last year-10.5 percent.
The United Nations Human Development Index, a measure of human well being, says countries will need the capacity to generate about 4,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) of electrical power per person per year to provide the "good life" for their citizens in 2050.
Among the 25 highest-population countries in the world, only four are likely to have 4,000 kwh per person per year by midcentury, Moniz said. Developed, affluent countries such as the United States have achieved or surpassed the goal.
In China, because of the relatively stable population, electricity supply growth of only 3.2 percent per year will make it possible to reach the benchmark. Countries like India could get close if they exercised exceptionally good management. Many African nations "don't have a prayer" without major international assistance.
But there's another consideration: the issue of climate change. Today, roughly 6 gigatons of carbon pour into EarthÕs atmosphere each year from fossil-fuel use. Half remains in the atmosphere, adding to the existing 750-gigaton carbon load in the atmosphere.
The bottom line is, Moniz said, that in 50 years, carbon emissions must be at today's level or lower for the safety of the planet. "We can't really be emitting much more carbon than we are today" despite the greatly increased demand for electricity, he said. Unless the world is willing to spend a lot more money on carbon research, he said, it is obvious that we must consider nuclear energy as an option.
He outlined a "2050 scenario" that would provide the necessary factor-of-4 increase to make nuclear energy viable. It would require use of nuclear energy to produce approximately 1,000 gigawatts electric (GWE) in the United States, Europe, and developed East Asia; approximately 100 GWE in the Former Soviet Union; and approximately 400 GWE in the developing world. The United States alone would need to produce 400 to 500 GWE through the use of nuclear reactors.
The world couldn't look to Japan for a major increase in nuclear energy production because its population is expected to drop by 18 percent in the next 50 years, and its energy demands will be limited accordingly. France already generates the bulk of its electricity with nuclear power plants and has a stable population.
Moniz outlined three possible time periods on the "technical pathway" to nuclear power success. The "incremental period"-which he also called the "survival period"-would run from the present to the year 2015 and would be an "enabling period" of little change. The "growth period"-from 2015 to midcentury-would see four to five times more deployment of nuclear power.
There would be "environmental drivers" in the industrialized world. Economic considerations would be important. The general fuel-cycle architecture and the deployed infrastructure would be similar to what we see today, but some new techniques would be possible. He mentioned high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs), high-burnup fuels, the use of boreholes for disposal of waste, and hydrogen production for transportation fuel as possible areas where applied research could yield results in the next 10 to 20 years.
In general, however, there would be little change in technology. The bloom of new technology would come at midcentury, when new approaches in architecture and infrastructure would mature and closed fuel cycles could become important. Commenting on details on the technical pathway, Moniz said he believes that the open fuel cycles of the present-an approach in which nuclear fuel goes through the reactor just once and then is disposed of directly in a repository after a suitable period of "cooling" (10 to 50 years)-will dominate the field for the next 50 years.
The rise of closed-fuel-cycle systems-with facilities that use special techniques to separate and reuse radioactive materials-won't come until the second half of the century. However, he noted the critical Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative work done by people at Los Alamos that is contributing to developing this new technology (see story on Page 7).
For nuclear power advocates to succeed in achieving a major gain in its use, Moniz indicated, they must deal successfully with several major issues. Nuclear power researchers must find ways to cut costs, reducing capital costs by at least 25 percent and promoting government incentives if they are to have hope that reactor-produced power can compete. They must overcome the public concern about nuclear power plants-a concern that was greatly increased by the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.
They also must strengthen the international norms and security safeguards regarding radioactive materials-especially separated plutonium-to reduce proliferation concerns, and minimize transportation risks. And while advocates need to enable the robust development of open-fuel-cycle technology for several decades, they also need to nurture research and development on closed fuel cycles.
Researchers must explore new ideas in waste disposal. One of Moniz' favorite ideas is disposal through boreholes dug deep into stable crystalline rocks. He projected a map done by Grant Heiken of Environmental Geology and Risk Analysis (EES-9) that indicated that most places likely to have expanding nuclear power production would have access to such crystalline formations.
Researchers also must collaborate with the Russians who are now "quite prepared," Moniz said, to work with the United States to stop further plutonium proliferation, minimize waste, achieve safety, and evaluate storage options including geological isolation.
And, finally, they must re-evaluate the Atoms for Peace paradigm and find new approaches to nuclear leadership. Moniz mentioned the possibility of using U.S.-Russia collaboration as a bilateral "seed vehicle," perhaps within the framework of the "Group of Eight" (G8) nations, an informal organization of eight countries (including the United States) that meet each year to discuss broad economic and foreign policies.
NMT |
LANL |
DOE
Phone Book |
Search |
Help/Info
L O S A L A M O S
N A T I O N A L
L A B O R A T O R Y
Operated by the University of California for the US Department of
Energy
Questions? -
Copyright © UC
1998-2000
-
For conditions of use, see Disclaimer