nuclear power

Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: World Nuclear University Press
$32.95
This book is extremely well written with lots of pictures and charts.

The first chapter deals with energy sources and demand. It points out that electricity is the most useful form of energy and demand for electricity is growing faster than demand for energy.

The second chapter deals with demand and supply for electricity given that it is extremely difficult and expensive to store. Within a day there can be a 20% variation in the demand and different fuels/sources are used to supply base load, and peak load demand. Coal and nuclear supply base load and gas turbines provide peak load. Renewables, such as solar and wind, are not suitable for either base load or peak load because they are intermittent ie they are available when the wind blows or the sun shines rather than all the time (base load) or when everyone wants electricity at the same time (peak load). There is a comparison of coal and nuclear for producing electricity. There is a comparison of the cost of electricity from various fuels in different countries and for the US over time.

Chapter three deals with nuclear power. How many nuclear reactors are there in the world and where are they. How much uranium is there in the world and where is it located. What is the physics of a reactor. How are reactors controlled.

Chapter four deals with the production of enriched uranium which serves as fuel. Uranium ore contains .7% U235 and 99.3% U238. Enriched U is 3% U235. Nuclear bomb grade uranium is 90% U235. This chapter includes a description of advanced reactors including passive safety systems which work without operator intervention or electricity. It describes High Temperature Reactors which can be used to produce hydrogen efficiently and fast neutron reactors which run on "nuclear waste" and could supply 100% of the US electricity needs for 1000 years using depleted uranium left over after enriching uranium. The Toshiba 4S, a nuclear battery, is a very small reactor which will run for 30 years without refueling or maintenance.

Chapter 5 deals with nuclear "waste". In 30 years, 100 nuclear plants, producing 20% of US electricity, have produced 66,000 tons of Waste. If nuclear waste is reprocessed, 98% of the waste can be used as fuel in fast neutron reactors; and a large percentage of the remaining 2% can be used as tracer isotopes in medical applications. It includes a graph showing that the radioactivity of nuclear waste declines below the radioactivity of uranium ore after 2000 years. The fission products comprising the 2% that can't be recycled into the reactor, falls below uranium ore radioactivity after 400 years. There is a description of how nuclear reactors are decommissioned.

Chapter 6 is a description of application of nuclear reactors other than the production of electricity. Hydrogen production for use as a transportation fuel is a major future use. Reactor heat that is not used to produce electricity when the demand is low can be used to produce hydrogen.Nuclear reactors can also be used to convert sea water into fresh water. It can also be used to power ships and space vehicles. And to produce radioisotopes used as tracer in medical diagnosis.

Chapter seven covers the environment, health and safety issued. It discusses greenhouse gas emissions, a comparison of deaths during the production of electricity, a list of the 10 serious reeactor event world wide since 1952.

Chapter 8 deals with avoiding weapons proliferation and chapter 9 provides a history of nuclear energy.

All in all, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in nuclear energy. While it doesn't take any position of nuclear energy issues, it does provide well rounded coverage with lots of facts.

Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer
$15.95
I had been reading Tucker's Terrestrial Energy book, which is pro-nuclear and in fact has some good points about the possibilities of nuclear power. After reading chapters in this book, I was pretty convinced nuclear might have a place in our future energy portfolio, although I was kinda irked by the author's continued, somewhat Orwellian ploy to "rebrand" nuclear energy as "terrestrial energy".

The only problem of course with my premature conclusion, obviously, was that I was reading only one side of the story. So I started hunting around the library for a book that would give some information on the problems of using nuclear energy.

The only book I found in the library that went over the problems of nuclear in a concise and very clear manner was this book. Some of the others were vague and shrill, some were too verbose and boring. After an hour of so reading through passages in the book, she had planted some big doubts in my mind.

I'll leave the obvious problems regarding radiation health risks, terrorist attacks, and accidents, since these are what people immediately think of when discussing nuclear power. Instead, I'll note some things she said that were NOT so obvious.

First of all, unlike solar energy and other renewable energy, the mining of uranium as fuel, its transport, the disposal of radioactive wastes, and the decommissioning of highly-radioactive plants generates significant CO2 and uses up very significant amounts fossil fuels. This is something that is never factored into the equation when pro-nuclear sources calculate the energetics of nuclear power plants.

Secondly, unlike nuclear or wind, nuclear power plants depend on a NON-renewable source, one that is scarce and is mainly imported from foreign countries (I think she mentioned 80% of uranium is imported, which means using nuclear does NOT make the country more energy independent).

In fact, she noted that someone had calculated that if we all switched to nuclear, the finite amount of uranium on earth would be completely depleted in 9 or 10 years! Contrast this with solar, which obviously is a relatively infinite resource (at least within the human species lifespan of perhaps another million years or so)

So, there you have it. I think if one wants clear information about why we should not use nuclear power, then this book should be their first stop.

Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Energy Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey
$27.50

Terrestrial Energy is a very nice read for those wanting a clear and concise synopsis of the energy dilemma facing the U.S. It addresses the facts and concerns of man-made global warming (AGW) as well as I've seen in a short space, and presents very well the safety record of the nuclear industry post Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This book doesn't completely dismiss alternative energy sources, but does shine a light on their shortcomings and high cost. Distributed generation is the new buzz word for environmentalist, but as presented in this book California didn't fare so well in this endeavor, nor should the U.S. with the push to go primarily to wind/solar to reduce CO2 emissions. Nuclear power should get a spot at the table, but first people have to become educated by reading books such as Terrestrial Energy.

There are several books out that try to address the U.S. dilemma of a secure energy policy while addressing the concerns of AGW. Unfortunately many of these books concentrate on the AGW portion and do a poor job of describing the need of base load electrical power needed to maintain a vibrant economy and standard of living expected by U.S. citizens. Electric cars have to get their electricity from somewhere, and most citizens don't want to take cold showers and read by candles at night. Many of these other books are poorly written with lots of facts and figures on solar and wind that are difficult to put into context with true cost, environmental impact, and the intermittent energy supply they provide for base load and peak electrical power currently provided primarily by coal and natural gas. These other books also fail to emphasize that wind and solar currently have to be backed up primarily by coal and gas because they are intermittent. Many of these other books also bash a U.S. nuclear program without the context of debateful facts, and what the rest of the world is safely accomplishing by recycling spent fuel rods for reuse as new fuel and medical isotopes versus burial at sites like Yucca Mountain, which will remain a political football for years to come as dictated by a misdirected U.S. policy, i.e nuclear weapon proliferation stemming from U.S. nuclear plant spent fuel rods.

Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (Vintage)
$16.95
Gwenyth Cravens has written a very readable account of the impact nuclear energy can have on the future of energy production in the US and the world. For two reasons I don't give the book 5 stars:
First, I kept thinking I was rereading the book "Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear" by Peter (Petr) Beckmann written I think in 1979 (Has it really been three decades and we are no further along?)
Second, she kept repeating over and over how nuclear energy will solve the global warming problem and will contribute less greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
I challenge her to write a sequel: Inconvenient Information That Will Save Taxpayers Trillions. In this book she should write how she followed the trail of "global warming" from when she was an alarmist anti-AGW advocate until after she has done the research, studied all the facts and finally discovered how small the problem really is. I will gladly read her new book just as I have read about a dozen other books written by credible scientists(not vice presidents).
Please don't base your opinion of nuclear energy on the need to protect the earth from carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide makes a very small contribution to the so called "greenhouse effect" and about 97% of carbon dioxide is added by natural sources having nothing to do with power generation.