For clean-energy future, try next-generation nukes
No commercial fast reactors currently operating in the United States
The opinion “Next-generation nukes for a clean-energy future” [Opinion, April 20] makes a misleading claim about the efficacy of recycling spent nuclear fuel, stating recycling as practiced in Japan, France and Britain “reuse up to 95 percent of spent uranium.”
Recycling as presently practiced only increases the energy obtained from the original uranium fuel by about 25 percent. Only a different kind of reactor, a “fast” reactor, could significantly exploit the dominant isotope of uranium present in reactor fuel. No commercial fast reactors are in operation in the United States, Britain or Japan; France is phasing out its only fast reactor. The country has also accumulated about 50 tons of excess plutonium from its recycling activities, as its reactors have been unable to use all of the plutonium recovered by recycling. Britain has decided to phase out recycling.
More research and development of fast reactors must be carried out if recycling is to be a practical and significant contributor to solving our need for reduced carbon-emission energy.
The story also claims that small-scale reactors dramatically reduce the amount of waste that needs to be treated or stored. The amount of fission product waste produced per unit energy does not depend on the size of the reactor.
— Robert Vandenbosch, Seattle
Convert Hanford site into power plant fueled by nuclear waste
The Seattle Times special suggests revisiting the nuclear-energy issue considering the flawless safety record since 1979. This record is due to extremely rigorous design and operation standards that were not in place for early reactors.
The story failed to mention the appalling record of coal-fired power plants. Headlines about coal accidents fail to address the thousands of people who die every year from pollution produced by mining and burning coal. The book “Storms of My Grandchildren” by James Hansen contrasts the 200,000-person rally against nuclear energy with the lack of rallies about the dangers of coal energy.
The capability of fourth-generation reactors to consume 95 percent of spent nuclear fuel was mentioned. Otherwise known as fast-neutron reactors, they can also consume material from nuclear weapons, thereby reducing the risk of a nuclear holocaust.
In the 1970s and ’80 s, the blind optimism about nuclear energy was replaced by blind opposition. It is time to replace both with realistic appraisal. Rather than challenging shutdown of Yucca Mountain, our state should consider converting the mothballed Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford site to a power plant fueled by nuclear waste stored there.
— Bob Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle
Nuclear energy neither safe nor green
The truth is that nuclear energy is neither safe nor “green.” The mining of uranium emits carbon dioxide as well as many other pollutants.
The cost of producing nuclear energy is so prohibitive, it cannot be done without government subsidies. This means more of our taxes would be going to private industry and more “socialism for the rich.” Also, no insurance company will touch nuclear energy, which led to the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, with more taxpayer money going to the industry if there is an accident.
There is also the issue of terrorists getting ahold of plutonium to produce a dirty bomb, and yet more government money for security. In addition to that, after 60 years of peaceful nuclear energy, they still have not figured out what to do with all the nuclear waste that must be sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years.
— Chris Anderson, Seattle
