Everyone who talks about nuclear energy has an opinion. There are no abstainers from the debate – all opinions are strong ones.

Looking at nuclear power as a child, I tried to get my hands on everything I could possibly read (this was pre-internet – a trip to the public library was usually involved) on the subject. I was, in a word, fascinated.

The fact that one simple equation had been devised by Dr. Einstein, to show what happens in a nuclear reaction, to me, was marvelous, and astounding. Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Enrico Fermi, and Robert Oppenheimer were my childhood heroes.

I could not get enough information about all facets of this stuff called nuclear physics.

From my studies, I learned many things. Most of what I learned is still not known to adults today. That is truly sad. If people understood how mundane the daily workings are at a nuclear power plant, instead of remembering bits and pieces of the ‘Two Mile Island’ pieces from SNL or vague parts of the movie ‘The China Syndrome’, the progress of nuclear power in this country would be further along, and the air, land, and water would be much cleaner.

‘60 Minutes’ is clearly trying to do its part. Last year, a piece about nuclear energy around the world was shown, focusing mostly on the power grid in France. The story showed that France, a country without significant coal or oil deposits, has made the best of it by using nuclear power to give the cheapest electricity production in all of Europe.

Then, it was shown how the ‘waste problem’ that most ecology proponents would make an issue of, isn’t one. The answer is, there really is not as much of a problem as most would believe. Back in the ‘50s, a development was made that allowed the trans-uranium elements to come into existence.  This is what allows us to make plutonium, an element that doesn’t occur in nature, but we have literally tons of it – look in any nuclear weapons stockpile. The production of these trans-uranium elements is made possible by something known as a breeder reactor.

The idea is this – there are 3 naturally occurring isotopes (slightly different brands of) uranium in nature. These are known by their mass number as U-235, U-236, and U-238.  U-235 is the good stuff – it is fissionable, which is what we want for nuclear reactions. U-236 is very scarce, so scarce as to be insignificant. By far, the largest amounts of uranium are U-238. This is bad, as it is radioactive, but not directly fissionable. This means no bombs, but more importantly, it means no power, is easily obtained from it.  By putting U-238 into a breeder reactor, useless U-238 can become very useful Pu-239. This plutonium is very fissionable, meaning it can be used to make power, and yes, bombs, but we are not talking about bombs. Gasoline can be used to power a car, or it can be used to make Molotov cocktails – there is your analogy.

The thing about this breeder process, as I stated in my last post, cannot continue forever (no perpetual motion machines, etc.), but for our purposes, we can continue this breeding of nuclear fuel for several hundred human lifetimes. This allows ‘spent’ fuel to be recycled, meaning simply that putting it in the ground, or ocean somewhere, is not necessary. By then, hopefully, someone will have perfected a magnetic bottle, and nuclear fusion will be able to power our homes and factories, perhaps even cars!

Until then, fission is a way to produce lots of energy. We need energy. It is relatively cheap per megawatt. We like cheap. It is, with proper control, safe.  Safety is a must. Just look at a map provided by the AEC or NRC and see how many reactors are running along, and have been doing so for years – right under many noses.

Here, in California, a coastline area between Orange County and San Diego, called San Onofre, has a reactor than has been running for years, without incident – and it is not underground, and is on the ocean front. It is clearly visible – it looks like Anna Nicole Smith, lying on her back! (for those not getting it, there are two large half domes, rising up from the ground) No problems so far.

When the possibility of nuclear accident is weighted against the inevitable problems caused by fossil fuel emissions – acid rain, cancer, respiratory distresses, global warming, and economic disaster  – the table odds say nuclear power should be the choice.

-

Technorati Tags: nuclear power - breeder reactor - nuclear waste - electricity production - AEC - NRC - San Onofre nuclear power plant - French nuclear industry - 60 Minutes - Einstein - Fermi - Curie - Oppenheimer