BREEDERS Fusion is always 20 years away and funding has been reduced. Let's hear a few excerpts from what Bertram Wolfe, former president of the American Nuclear Society, had to say about nuclear energy in an article in _Issues in Science and Technology_ entitled "Why Environmentalists Should Promote Nuclear Energy" Summer 1996, pp. 55-60; (c) 1996 Univ. of Texas at Dallas: :Start Quote ... But if we limit our planning to proven and reliable energy technologies with adequate fuel supplies and low environmental risks that we know can meet the world’s energy needs in the 21st century, we must focus on nuclear power. However, even conventional nuclear power plants will face fuel supply problems in the 21st century if their use expands significantly. Fortunately, we also have experience with nuclear breeder reactors, such as the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR), that can produce more than a hundred times as much energy per pound of uranium as do conventional reactors. ... And the Bill Clinton administration has canceled support for advanced nuclear energy development programs, including the ALMR program... The world must be prepared for the increasing energy needs in the 21st century and beyond. The U.S.-led ALMR program was intended to develop a safe, economical, proliferation-resistant, essentially unlimited energy supply for the future. The program was proceeding well, with reactor design and fuel cycle development making substantial progress. As we have learned from past experience with light water reactors, it takes decades to uncover and solve the long-term problems of a new nuclear system. Thus, to be ready for the energy needs projected in the 21st century, the ALMR development program should be vigorously pursued now. Private companies cannot take on such an expensive and slow-maturing project. Government must fund the project at this stage. Unfortunately, the program has been canceled because of concern that the use of plutonium could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although it is true that the use of breeder reactors in the United States would result in the creation of more plutonium, a U.S. decision to forgo breeder reactors will not affect other countries that see the need for breeders in the future and continue to develop and operate them. The major effect of our abandonment of the ALMR program will be loss of U.S. leadership and influence in its future development as well as the loss of our leadership in assuring a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle. Besides, the failure to provide adequate and affordable electricity for future economic needs is a much more serious threat to world peace. Indeed, competition and potential hostilities over scarce energy supplies increase the threat that nuclear weapons will be acquired and used. None of these policy changes will be made without a change in the public’s attitude toward nuclear power. People need to understand the need for additional future energy supplies; the problems of fossil fuels; and the relative safety, reliability, and environmental advantages of nuclear power. The nuclear industry has done a poor job of educating the public about nuclear energy. And because of its perceived economic stake, the nuclear industry may not be a credible carrier for this message. More disinterested voices, particularly those in the environmental community, should be heard. The Club of Rome, an international organization with a particular interest in preserving the environment, has evolved from nuclear critic to nuclear promoter because of its concern about global climate change. U.S. environmentalists need to take a fresh look at world and national energy needs, the clear and worsening problems of fossil fuels, and the empirical evidence about the safety of nuclear power. :End Quote As expert Wolfe says, the current method of using nuclear fuel is inefficient and with the current method, only about a 100 year supply is available. This is a ridiculously short period of time and I can't get comfortable about fusion potential over this time. Considering that ALMR plants are 100 times more efficient, a 100 year supply of nuclear fuel can be stretched to 10,000 years. However, Wolfe pointed out that ALMR plants may take 2 or 3 decades to come to fruition. In the meantime, every 10 years of standard nuke operation has ALMR relative opportunity cost of 1000 years of energy supply: the cost is very high and the marginal cost of nuclear energy will continue to rise as decades pass. Nuclear energy is not yet a "limitless" source of energy in any practical sense. From: Donald Borowski Organization: Agilent Technologies Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, sci.environment, sci.energy Gregory White wrote: > As expert Wolfe says, the current method of using nuclear fuel is inefficient and with the > current method, only about a 100 year supply is available. This is a ridiculously short > period of time and I can't get comfortable about fusion potential over this time. > Considering that ALMR plants are 100 times more efficient, a 100 year supply of nuclear > fuel can be stretched to 10,000 years. However, Wolfe pointed out that ALMR plants may > take 2 or 3 decades to come to fruition. In the meantime, every 10 years of standard nuke > operation has ALMR relative opportunity cost of 1000 years of energy supply: the cost is > very high and the marginal cost of nuclear energy will continue to rise as decades pass. > Nuclear energy is not yet a "limitless" source of energy in any practical sense. Turns out that breeders would extend the economic life of nuclear fuel much more than 10000 years, to the point where the energy is nearly limitless. There are several problems with the analysis here that make the time look so "short": 1. Using the fuel cycle as it is presently practiced in the United States, there may indeed be only 100 years worth of fuel. Assuming this is so, even if we were not to use breeders until the end of those 100 years, we still have nearly 10000 years of fuel (as your calculation indicate). That is because all that fuel that was used once and then considered to be waste is suddenly fuel again. Also, all the depleted uranium from the enrichment plants is now fuel, rather than just something to be used as incendiary rounds by the military. We then have enough fuel for 9900 years, without having to mine any more. The presently reactors use less than 1% of the uranium as it occurs naturally. Breeders can use the other 99%+. 2. Without breeders, present uranium sources may become uneconomical after 100 years. But with breeders, fuel costs are reduced by over a factor of 100. This makes it possible to use other more expensive sources of uranium that are MUCH more abundant, such as the uranium disolved in sea water. Some calculations I have seen indicate that there is then enough uranium to last until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows up the earth. 3. There is about 4 times as much thorium as uranium. With breeders, this becomes usable too. -- Donald Borowski Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU