June 2005 Mechanical Engineering: Editorial

editorial

Integrating Energy Options

By
John G. Falcioni,
Editor-in-Chief

No way do I want to get in the middle of the often-heated national debate over nuclear power. But an interesting, if unabashedly pointed, article written by Romney B. Duffey, principal scientist at Atomic Energy of Canada in Chalk River, Ontario, for this month's Power & Energy magazine, a sister publication of Mechanical Engineering, raises some interesting issues.

Duffey discusses an integrated system of wind turbines and nuclear reactors.

"Nuclear plants and windmills alike emit virtually no greenhouse gases over the full cycle," Duffey writes in his article. "After all, uranium is not carbon, and the major emissions are actually due to mining, milling, and manufacturing of construction materials, not fuel use per se."

In the past year, electric utilities in the United States have shown a great deal of interest in building nuclear reactors, but the price tag, the billion or two that it would take to build one and test the waters, is too steep for investors to bear. To boot, nuclear power possesses an unattractive financial history. So even if financing for a reactor were to be in place, some industry experts believe the technology is not economical. Plus, the fear of accidents, real or perceived, looms large.

Even as the nuclear industry asserts that it has sharply reduced the risk of accidents, Three Mile Island, albeit 26 years ago, and the far more serious accident at Chernobyl, in Ukraine, 19 years ago, remain vivid examples for nuclear detractors when discussion over building new reactors gets serious. Moreover, nuclear plants are also often listed among the top terrorist targets, since the September 11 attacks on the United States.

It must be said, however, that the two reactor accidents have led the nuclear industry to undertake great efforts at ensuring that stronger plant safety measures are in place. And efforts to protect "hardened" targets, such as nuclear plants, from terrorism are under way, including a collaborative program led by ASME dubbed RAMCAP (Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Assets Protection).

But despite the potential dangers associated with nuclear power, nuclear can't be discounted, as it is one of the largest carbon-free sources of energy. Plus, the high cost of gas has made utilities think twice about fuel options.

Plans for more than 40 new nuclear plants worldwide are in the works, as are life extension programs for others.

The last nuclear reactor ordered in the United States that was not later canceled was the Palo Verde plant, in Arizona in 1973. The last reactor commissioned was the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor in 1996 (23 years after the construction permit was obtained). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, rumors of new orders persisted.

Fueled by a sense that some of the anti-nuclear sentiment has subsided over the years, and by the support of the Bush administration, nuclear industry analysts predict, once again, that within the next few years a nuclear reactor could be ordered in this country.

"If wind power availability can reach a capacity factor of about 35 percent, a supplementary current of wind-generated electricity may be fed economically to an electrolytic plant primarily supplied by nuclear power," Duffey writes.

Even if his vision for an energy solution falls short, the creativity of expanding the discussion to integrated systems must continue.