The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Nuclear Power: The Safe and Easy Way

Thomas Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation
October 14, 2008  |  22 Comments

Nuclear power is a gift from nature. It can be harnessed cleanly and safely but an accident of history got us started down a path that is dangerous and unnecessarily complicated. Today's nuclear power plants were adapted from reactor designs originally intended for production of plutonium for bombs. In the 1950's this plutonium output was considered a bonus, but today it has become an out-of-control nightmare.

With 22,000 nuclear bombs already assembled, the last thing we need is more power plants that crank out more and more tons of plutonium and nuclear waste.

Uranium and thorium are distributed in the rocks of the earth. Their radioactive decay produces so much heat that it makes the core of the earth hotter than the surface of the sun! (about 6,000 °C). This heat rises to the surface unevenly with molten rock actually reaching the surface in volcanoes. In fact, 99.9% of the earth's volume is hot enough to boil water!

Boil water? Wait a minute! That's what nuclear power is all about! The reason we go to all that trouble digging up and crushing rocks and refining out the uranium is simply to boil water to drive steam turbines. Why not skip all that effort and danger and just use the hot rocks of the earth to boil water directly? It works! And it's called geothermal power.

Geothermal power plants cleanly and safely harness the nuclear power of uranium, thorium and potassium in the ground by using the heat they produce by natural decay. To harness that heat we need only drill through the earth's crust and send water down to the hot rocks below. When the cold water hits the hot rocks, it creates a network of fractures, which allow the water to travel horizontally to a second hole, where steam is allowed to escape and drive a turbine generator. The spent steam is condensed and recycled back down to the hot rocks again, making the water consumption insignificant.

Geothermal power plants harness the power of the atom while leaving the nuclear elements safely sequestered in the earth. Once a geothermal plant is built, there are no fuel costs so production cost is actually less than that for a coal or nuclear plant. The main cost of geothermal is the initial cost of drilling the wells.

In many parts of the world geothermal power is already cheaper than coal or nuclear. The gap is widening daily because coal and uranium fuel costs are skyrocketing. Geothermal is already profitably generating about 10 gigawatts (GW) of clean power. It produces 26% of the total power in Iceland and the Philippines and 5% in California. About 4 GW of new projects are underway in the U.S. in 13 states.

In many parts of the world drilling costs are excessive today because the hot rocks are 2-5 miles below the surface. Google recently invested US $11 million in new deep drilling technology, which can drill through hard rock 5x faster than current methods. If this development succeeds, geothermal power will be practical virtually anywhere. As fuel costs skyrocket, existing oil drilling technology is becoming competitive at greater and greater depths. Drilling was just completed on the first 5 km deep commercial power plant in Australia, which will ultimately produce 500 megawatts (MW) at a price of only US $0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The U.S. has spent over $70 billion trying to make nuclear reactor-based power safe but a solution is nowhere in sight. What we need today is a Manhattan Project for developing deep, hard rock drilling and EGS geothermal technology. Political maneuvering actually reduced the geothermal development budget to zero last year in spite of a positive MIT report on the potential of EGS geothermal! If we can just solve the political problem, the technological problems will be easy.

In the meantime, the planned "nuclear renaissance" has crashed and burned. If you haven't kept up, here are some links to very recent developments:

  • All current nuclear plant construction in the world is running years late and billions over budget. The NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) has delayed approval on all plants under construction in the U.S. indefinitely because of needed design changes. 2012 is the earliest possible delivery date for the prototype plant so other new plants can't be built for at least a decade. The French prototype being built in Norway is a similar disaster.

  • Cement, steel and uranium costs have skyrocketed making reactor-based nuclear power too expensive. The current projected cost for new nuclear power plants is about 20 cents/kWh!

  • Our existing nuclear power plants produce 75 tonnes of plutonium every year. French and English attempts to solve the waste problem by recycling fuel have failed miserably. The U.S. plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is now 10 years behind schedule and expected to cost US $96 billion. Because of the schedule slippage, an additional US $11 billion in lawsuits is expected before it can begin operation.

  • Bailout potential: The US government guarantees to limit industry liabilities in case of an accident to US $10 billion. A reactor meltdown could require a government bailout worse than the Wall Street disaster. Government risk guarantees for private profits is a fool's bargain.

Half a century ago we made a wrong turn when we began using plutonium production equipment to generate our power. We have been flogging this dead horse for decades now and it's time to wake up to the simple and safe way to harness nuclear power. We should redirect the money currently being spent to revive fueled atomic power to EGS geothermal development. In just a few years we could be building significant amounts of clean, safe, dependable EGS geothermal power plants.

Thomas R. Blakeslee is president of The Clearlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that invests in renewable energy and other socially useful companies and issues cash grants to individuals who are working effectively for change.

22 Comments

Register To Comment
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
October 25, 2008
--------"The black side to Solar and Wind is that the sun doesn't shine all the time, whether day and night sequences, to cloudy days,.....and we all know the wind doesn't blow everyday, and it varies in strength. Geothermal on the other hand is 24-7 of power, clean power, generation."----------

The "black side" of solar energy(that ultimately drives all biological life processes on earth) has never been a problem for plants. They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, combine it with water in the presence of sunlight and chlororphyll----and produce carbohydrates(sugar) and give off oxygen as a by product. All organisms other than green plants use this process to live, both on the carbohydrates produced(food) and the oxygen to breathe.
The photosynthesis cycle is a two stage process---energy is stored as ATP during the light phase, and the energy stored as ATP is converted to chemical energy in carbohydrate bonds during the dark cycle. Plants are very efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy, having had over 3 billion years of evolutionary survival to perfect the process. Unlike PV solar cells, plants continue to function when it is dark---and store all available energy when light is present. Plants are not affected by cloudy days, and there are a large number of plants that have evolved specifically to low light conditions and extended wavelength absorbtion to make use of these conditions.
We make biofuels from plants. Biofuels can do anything that we use petroleum for. Biofuels are 100% solar energy in a jar. Biofuels can be used in exactly the same ways we use petroleum with exactly the same infrastructure.

The wind has been dependable enough to carry men to every corner of the world in ships powered with nothing more than sails for thousands of years. Wind can be used to pump water that can be released to generate power at any time. Waves are caused by wind.

Geothermal is good too.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
October 25, 2008
---------"All we have to do is drill down to use it, instead of making nuclear plants."----------------


Or use abandoned oil and/or gas wells, and we don't even need to drill.
Dominic Jermano
Dominic Jermano
October 22, 2008
All in all Geothermal Energy Development is the best real option for the World at large. It is fusion already happening deep within the earth. All we have to do is drill down to use it, instead of making nuclear plants. No brainer there.

And Geothermal is Clean Coal Technology...without ever needing to touch coal again.
Dominic Jermano
Dominic Jermano
October 22, 2008
Geothermal Energy Development is a better option than solar panels, and windmills. It takes a lot of energy to make these items from the manufacturing process point of view. It takes a lot of energy to make the Solar Panels...and then when those panels are bought and taken to their collecting areas, they reflect light and gather heat radiating into the atmosphere. This certainly is not my idea of cooling the planet. It's like petri-dish warmers everywhere...and the windpower is is becoming a ugly sight wrecking natural environmental views, not to mention the complaints about the extraneous noise they make in whirling all the time.

The black side to Solar and Wind is that the sun doesn't shine all the time, whether day and night sequences, to cloudy days,.....and we all know the wind doesn't blow everyday, and it varies in strength. Geothermal on the other hand is 24-7 of power, clean power, generation.

Solar and Wind alternative energy applications certainly will need to be replaced because they wear out, and this puts more energy pressures on manufacturers to remake and replace....;leaving material that is waste and junk or needing more energy to recycle it... This is no recipe for secure clean energy that has been said to not contribute to Global Warming.

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/build-confidence-banks-or-government-or-neither
Dominic Jermano
Dominic Jermano
October 22, 2008
http://my.nowpublic.com/world/bridge-prosperity
Thanks Tom....I want to know if I can use your articles on Geothermal Development for the Company I am creating? We are in PR China. .going forward with starting China Geothermal Development Company.We will also be investigating the building of our own Geothermal Drilling Rigs.
In comparing alternative energies I think it is essential because investors get a real picture of what they want in their backyard. Myself looking at the nuclear comparison if I am a worker.....I would much prefer working at a Geothermal Plant than a nuclear plant.. Just the thought of being around nuclear radiation all day while at work in one of these plants is enough to turn me off...Its like they said asbestos factories were safe to work in.
A million things can go wrong in getting rid of nuclear waste....such as transporting and an accident occurs....Or the waste or nuclear plant is demolished because of an earthquake...causing leaks and spills into the environment. Not to mention the educational spreading of how to develop nuclear energy and handling the stuff. Seems to me with the continuing threats of terrorism why in the world would we be so ingnorant to spread that information around? DU..depleted uranium is gathered from domestic nuclear energy electric plants. This stuff they use for bullet tips, and on missiles for Iraq and in Afghanistan....which has caused a major problem. We really want more of that stuff on the planet? The more people who know about nuclear development because people will be needed to make and maintain those nuclear plants; the more dangerous the world becomes....This is where Mr. Experience John McCain really loses me....because he so.pro.nuclear development. The time to drill for Geothermal Plants is now....while fuel cost is still relatively low...It makes no sense to wait for oil prices to go higher and then decide to drill..We need Geothermal Development now .
Adrian Akau
Adrian Akau
October 22, 2008
If we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come with some of the 22,000 nuclear bombs already assembled, we may live long enought to realize that Thomas Blakeslee's suggestion is valid.

adrianakau2aol.com
David Fernández Piñas
David Fernández Piñas
October 22, 2008
Congratulations for this excellent article. Nuclear energy is just another "quick and dirty" solution to our energy needs. It is not renewable and moreover it generates a lot of problems due to nuclear waste generation. It's time to invest in long term renewable energy sources.
Warren Reynolds
Warren Reynolds
October 22, 2008
Three cheers for Mr. Blakeslee !
The article should have been titled: "Thermal Not Nuclear"
As an ex-nuclear engineer for GE, I know nuclear power's "dirty secrets". The Olkiluoto 3 reactor is behind schedule and over budget. The Polish supplied steel was of poor quality and had to be removed. The concrete used in pouring foundations was also not up to nuclear standards. I would not want to be within 50 miles of that reactor when it is running.
The cancer rate for children down-wind of Chernobyl incident is now running 3 times the average. Russian's nuclear accidents in the Ural region has caused a displacement of over 150,000 citizens from 50 villages.
The IAEA has stated the nuclear electric rate is 14.5 cents/kw. The cost for building a nuclear reactor(U.S.) is now over $8 billion and increasing. Exhaustive cost analysis of a solar-wind-hydrogen farm (24/7 power) shows that it can be built for 30% of the cost of an equivalent MWe sized nuclear power plant and in 1/4 the TIME with an electric rate of 6 cents/kw. Why waste the money for outdated nuclear power plants? Over the next 5 years, it will cost the rate payers $ billions to dismantle these aging "dinosaurs".

Dr. Reynolds
Eco-Engineers, Inc.
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
October 22, 2008
On of the biggest costs for Nuclear that is not mentioned is the public liability of up to $600 Billiion in case of an accident, while Nuclear utilities liability has been limited to $10.9 Billion in the 2005 Energy act.

As for Geothermal and Wind:

The State of U.S. Geothermal Production and Development:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53668
-----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303843.html

Geothermal power now accounts for about 28 percent of the electricity generated in the Philippines. With 90 million people, about 40 percent of whom live on less than $2 a day, this country has become the world's largest consumer of electricity from geothermal sources. Billions of dollars have been saved here because of reduced need for imported oil and coal.
-----
WIND -


At 2007 Rates, in 10 years the US could install 10 x 5255 MW = 52,550 MW or 52 Gigawatt of Wind Power Capacity

See -

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53436

"The US installed 5244 MW (Wind) in 2007, more than double the 2006 figure and increasing total capacity by 45%. "

-versus-

the Nuclear Industry's plan for 14 Plants to generate 28,800 MW or 28.8 Gigawatt at a cost of $188 Billion which includes $122 Billion of Public Taxpayer Loan guarantees, and Public Accident Liability over $10.9 Billion (Public liability is Included in Price-Anderson Act of 2005 Energy Bill estimated by Sandia Labs to cost up to $600 Billion).

See -

http://www.energy.gov/news/6620.htm

"The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects"

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=53467


When we discuss "REAL" costs: Nuclear and Coal don't compare to Wind, Solar, and Geothermal. Not to say that those sources are going away anytime soon - but future investment in Renewables is too important to our Economy and National Security to be diverted.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
October 22, 2008
There is another, more immediately accessible nuclear plant that showers it's energy on us every day, from a safe 93 million miles away. It offers collection of it's energy to everyone with a much more modest investment than drilling miles into the crust of our planet, especially if it is converted to the thermal uses. Of course, it will not necessarily be done by Ute's with profits in mind, doing it for you, and will require some investment that would allay the need for allot of the electricity we thirst for.
Incidentally, the cost of the "bankster boys bailout" could have put a solar water heating system in nearly every home in the country.
One question about deep drilling of wells---- How would the lines be insulated to bring steam miles to the surface before it condenses? Seems like this would be a problem.
Stepan Tatulian
Stepan Tatulian
October 22, 2008
The continuous generation of the nuctear waste will build up to an amount that is unmanagable.
"Geothermal power plants harness the power of the atom while leaving the nuclear elements safely sequestered in the earth", think very carefully about this, those who will live after us will also want to enjoy clean environment.

Thank you Thomas Blakeslee for this article.
Phyllis Cormack
Phyllis Cormack
October 22, 2008
The official nuclear kWh cost is given by the annual EIA-DOE estimate. For new plants to be on the grid since 2015, the last cost estimate is around 6.8 cents, quite different from the figures here quoted. You can see the document and download the table with the data (Figure 63) from:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
What is surprising is that the difference with natural gas and coal is about 0.6 cents/kWh while the incentives to nuclear electricity given by the EPACT 2005 are 1.8 cents per kWh, three times the present gap with conventional sources. The other mystery is the actual capital cost : official figures are around 3,000 $/kW while other sources, like Moody's newest reports, speak about 7,500 $/kW (including financial costs). If you look how DOE estimate breaks down the cost for nuclear energy, you see capital cost is more than 70 per cent of the total. So, if we take as reference the higher capital costs quoted by other sources, nuclear electricity would be more than 10 cents per kWh, which is quite more than wind. So: go wind and do not invest in nukes: it's a black hole!
dennis roberts
dennis roberts
October 22, 2008
If EGS becomes practical long distance power transmission becomes less of a problem for it than nuclear (smaller COMMUNITY plants, like with solar or wind and hydro) and if alternative low boiling point working fluids are used the amount of drilling will be decreased because lower temp sources will suffice
Angelo Labrou
Angelo Labrou
October 22, 2008
For those who haven't done their homework, nuclear power in far from clean. It produces waste known as "Nuclear Waste". The fact that the possibility of this waste escaping its super-extra safe compartment is small is inversely proportional to the destructive results that will follow this rare incident.

Additionally, the efficiency of a nuclear plant is very low resulting in enormous amounts of heat (the waste form of energy) and water vapour (another greenhouse gas).

Finally, a nuclear plant makes sense in the GW scale resulting in many other problems like losses from distribution, large scale blackouts etc.

As far as I am concerned nuclear power in its current form is another 20th century solution for a 21st century problem.
Matthew Homola
Matthew Homola
October 22, 2008
If you need power quickly, PV at 21 cents / kwh for large scale in sunny climates probably has the shortest lead time on installed capacity.
Matthew Homola
Matthew Homola
October 22, 2008
Correction: The French reactor is being built in Finland, not Norway. The project is called Olkiluoto 3.
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 16, 2008
Hi Tom:

Good luck... as you know the tide has already been set for a Nuke renaissance... as always it is determined by where the money interests are...
Not to be pessimistic but, if man on an individual level is stupid enough to smoke and do drugs, just to name a few, how really can we expect his group choices to be any better....
Historically, man has only made correct choices when faced with catastrophe, and not always then. Rarely is man proactive in his own best interest. Capitalism unfortunately makes choices based on the most money not our well being. Thus we are doomed in this current system of civilization to experience rays of hope mixed with overwhelming devastation. Just look at the recent CNBC presentation on the Nuke option. Its just the beginning to resell the USA on it.

.......Bill
Steven Mielke
Steven Mielke
October 16, 2008
In comment #4 Tom Blakeslee writes:
"The 2009 DOE research budget for the fueled approach to nuclear is $1.4 billion while the geothermal approach gets a measley $10 million."

One wonders how this was counted up; this budget breakout:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09ptbii11.pdf
lists geothermal as $30 million and nuclear as $630 million.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
October 15, 2008
The 2009 DOE research budget for the fueled approach to nuclear is $1.4 billion while the geothermal approach gets a measley $10 million. We need to compare to make wiser choices as to where we direct our resources.
Mike Zagorsky
Mike Zagorsky
October 14, 2008
I think that the bigger question is why did the author find it necessary to make this an A vs. B comparison to begin with.

If you truly believe in the potential of geothermal technology it would seem to reason that you can substantiate a case for it based on the virtues of that technology alone.

Attacking another form of generating technology brings into questions of your motives.

Are you pro-geothermal energy because you think it has the potential to provide large quantities of clean, cheap energy--or do you oppose nuclear energy and trump geothermal because you need to note an alternative to nuclear energy in your argument.

I think that the bigger question is why did the author find it necessary to make this an A vs. B comparison to begin with.

If you truly believe in the potential of geothermal technology it would seem to reason that you can substantiate a case for it based on the virtues of that technology alone.

Attacking another form of generating technology brings into questions of your motives.

Are you pro-geothermal energy because you think it has the potential to provide large quantities of clean, cheap energy--or do you oppose nuclear energy and trump geothermal because you need to note an alternative to nuclear energy in your argument?


I fail to see why anyone on the website finds it necessary to make arguments against any form of energy generation, when the best forms of generation can win on the merit of cost alone.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
October 14, 2008
I agree that the reference I used included 6.8 cents for distribution costs that weren't included in the geothermal estimates. If you add those in the cost still favors the geothermal approach. Here is a better article in the Wall Street Journal on the skyrocketing costs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html?mod=WSJBlog
or this one: http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=329954
Cost is not my primary reason for arguing against the use of nuclear fuel. Certainly you can see that it is much better to generate power without spreading more dangerous fuel and waste all over the landscape?
Steven Mielke
Steven Mielke
October 14, 2008
The author is fond of biased comparisons. He quotes a 20 cent/KWh cost for nuclear power and hints at 6 cent/KWh costs for geothermal energy. The 20 cents/KWh figure is ginned up with all sorts of inflated and inaccurate values. For example, it includes a charge of 1.8 cents/KWh for new transmission capacity and an additional 5 cents/KWh for transmission and distribution charges. These are charges that do not depend in any way on the energy generation method so they would apply to geothermal plants as well and already exceed the 6 cent/KWh figure he implies geothermal would cost.

As a general rule, people tend to twist the facts only when the facts do not support their arguments and they tend to spend most of their time criticizing competing methods only when they have little that is favorable to report about their own preferred methods. Judging from this article one can infer that the current status of geothermal is dismal indeed.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in Pasadena, California in 1962. After working for IT&T in Antwerp, Belgium, he...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 13
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets
  • 1
    EU Should Scrap Energy Subsidies to Fight Warming, Poland Says

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Enerquip
  • CleanEdison
  • Geothermal Resources Council
  • Ambient Technologies, Inc.
  • Admirals Bank
  • Maritime Geothermal
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Geothermal Energy Association
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information