Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
However, critics of the film say these claims are overblown and that fast-reactor technology is
highly problematic. Earlier versions of the fast breeder reactor (of which IFR is a version) were
commercial failures and safety disasters. Proponents of the integral fast reactor, say the critics, over-
look its exorbitant development and deployment costs and continued proliferation risks. IFR theor-
etically only “transmutes,” rather than eliminates, radioactive waste. Yet the technology is decades
away from widespread implementation, and its use of liquid sodium as a coolant can lead to fires
and explosions.
15
David Biello, writing in
Scientific American
, concludes that, “To date, fast neutron reactors have
consumed six decades and $100 billion of global effort but remain 'wishful thinking.'”
16
Even if advocates of IFR reactors are correct, there is one giant practical reason they may not
power the Anthropocene: we likely won't see the benefit from them soon enough to make much
of a difference. The challenges of climate change and fossil fuel depletion require action now, not
decades hence.
Assuming adequate investment capital, and assuming we had decades in which to improve ex-
isting technologies, IFR reactors might indeed show significant advantages over current light water
reactors (only many years of experience can tell for sure). But we don't have the luxury of limit-
less investment capital, and we don't have decades in which to work out the bugs and build out this
complex, unproven technology.
The Economist's
verdict stands: “[N]uclear power will continue to be a creature of politics not
economics, with any growth a function of political will or a side-effect of protecting electrical util-
ities from open competition. . . . Nuclear power will not go away, but its role may never be more
than marginal.”
Defying risk of redundancy, I will hammer home the point: cheap, abundant energy is the pre-
requisite for the Techno-Anthropocene. We can only deal with the challenges of resource depletion
and overpopulation by employing more energy. Running out of fresh water? Just build desalination
plants (that use lots of energy). Degrading topsoil in order to produce enough grain to feed ten bil-
lion people? Just build millions of hydroponic greenhouses (that need lots of energy for their con-
struction and operation). As we mine deeper deposits of metals and minerals and refine lower-grade
ores, we'll require more energy. Energy efficiency gains may help us do more with each increment
of power, but a growing population and rising per-capita consumption rates will more than over-
come those gains (as they have consistently done in recent decades). Any way you look at it, if
we are to maintain industrial society's current growth trajectory we will need more energy, we will
need it soon, and our energy sources will have to meet certain criteria—for example, they will need
to emit no carbon while at the same time being economically viable.
These essential criteria can be boiled down to four words:
quantity, quality, price
, and
timing
.
Nuclear fusion could theoretically provide energy in large amounts, but not soon. The same is true
of cold fusion (even if—and it's a big
if—the
process can be confirmed to actually work and can
be scaled up). Biofuels offer a very low energy return on the energy invested in producing them (a
deal-breaking quality issue). Ocean thermal and wave power may serve coastal cities, but again the
technology needs to be proven and scaled up. Coal with carbon capture and storage is economic-
