Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 19 November 2008 | Nature 456, 286-287 (2008) | doi:10.1038/456286a
News
Nuclear renaissance plans hit by financial crisis
Role of fission in fighting climate change looks likely to wane.
Frozen global credit markets and the prospect of a prolonged economic recession are threatening the resurgence of nuclear power that has been touted by governments and industry around the world.
The growing difficulties in attracting investment may prevent nuclear power from playing a significant role in the fight against climate change.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Fission is the weakest of the three sources of nuclear energy - fission, fusion and neutron repulsion ["Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003)]. http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf Governments and industries may endorse or oppose nuclear energy, but that will not change the fact that the nucleus is where energy is stored. Einstein explained that mass is stored energy (E = mc^2). About 99.95% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus. Scientists that want to help their governments gain access to energy and a better standard of living for their citizens would do well to study the Cradle of the Nuclides and the information that it contains about sources of nuclear energy http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm Sincerely, Oliver K. Manuel, http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
The entire field of nuclear power generation needs to be looked at critically. To improve thermodynamic efficiency, reactors must be designed to run hotter. With combined-cycle generation, the current limit is approximately 1980C (Pratt & Whitney F135 engine turbine inlet temperature), and a thermodynamic efficiency of over 60% should be achievable. Pebble bed and lead-cooled reactors can approach this. In addition, these reactors are hot enough to produce hydrogen from water by the sulfur-iodine process, on the largest scale. Fast-neutron and breeder reactors must be developed. The energy available in the actinide metals is *one terawatt-day* per metric ton of metal (a 15 inch cube)(world electrical output is about 1.4 terawatts), but with the current thermal neutron technology, less than 2% of this is accessible. Some candidates are lead-cooled, sodium-cooled, and the Integral Fast Reactor. Low-expansion or ambient pressure reactors should be used rather than supercritical water. Some candidates are pebble bed, lead-cooled, sodium-cooled, and molten salt reactors. The use of supercritical water systems results in safety problems that have been solved by throwing money at them. Nuclear waste must be reprocessed. Since 98% of the fuel value is untouched by thermal neutron technology, the scale of the nuclear waste problem is a self-inflicted wound. The current water-based reactor schemes are a legacy of decisions made in the 1940's. Almost all the above suggestions have been tested in the last 40 years. Many of them are being considered in the plodding, money-starved GEN IV reactor program. As this article and the IEA World Energy Outlook - 2008 point out, time is running out. The solutions are in the desks of the nuclear engineers. The problems are not so much money as ignorance, apathy, and absence of political will. There's a rather clever solution for CO2 reduction here: http://www.coal2nuclear.com/