In Defense of Nuclear Power

It is no secret that Zoidberg has an undying desire to see the release on energy on a grand scale. Anyone who does not feel chills run down their spine when watching footage of atomic tests is either missing a chromosome (probably Y) or is so wrapped up in their tree-huggering that they can't seem to find respect for man's achievement independent of the end use. Without delving into an causation is ultimate purpose argument, let's just leave it at splitting the atom is probably man's singular most impressive feat of the 20th century.

It comes as no surprise that with impressive achievements comes requisite fear, often unfounded or blown drastically out of proportion. No greater injustice has been dealt in the long history of technological injustice dealings as the rap that nuclear power has currently. Nuclear power in our nation is perceived as the big brother technology whose large concrete fabrications conceal devil machinations and processes that poop out horrible radioactive waste which curry the potential for unbelievable devastation. The hells fury of the atom hath wrought great destruction on this earth, and there will always be a direct comparison between the two radically different technologies no matter how informed the public is.

I am not going to belabor any ideas that nuclear power is a short term solution to our growing energy crisis, because it isn't. Nuclear power is a solution that will only flourish so long as it is supported by a society willing to embrace it, France is... America is not. Currently, nuclear reactors in America are expensive because we never spent the effort to learn to modularize them, they take a long time to build because our bureaucracy has them fight years of red tape to get approved, and inefficient because they were built at a trickle rate since the 70s so as to stymy any serious research in the field.

The truth of the matter is that the newest nuclear breeder reactors in use in France are:

1) Cheap, less than $1,000 per kilowatt, as opposed to $3,000 - $6,000 here.

2) Efficient, breeder reactors use make use of more readily available uranium and thorium

3) Safe, no recorded accidents (though the same could be said for the US)

4) Environmentally friendly, breeder reactors recycle up to 90% of spent fuel

I am not going to argue that the easiest way to a bright and energy dependent America would be to gradually unravel these roadblocks. All of them must be overcome if America is to see any serious tangible benefit from widespread nuclear power, and having this occur is a long term solution. Even if engineers would devote themselves full time to implementing modular reactor sites, without the freedom to build them quickly they would still suck millions without producing any cash flow.

I am going to argue why other alternative energy sources are not a long term solution, they are transient solutions that will not satisfy the equation long term, an equation that is satisfied solely by nuclear power and nuclear power alone. The core of the matter lies in available energy density, not in energy efficiency, or the availability of the energy source.

My first assumption is that energy consumption in America is ever increasing, and the increase of available power will always drive technological, social, and industrial growth.

America demands energy. Her operation and rise to power was fed by the life blood of power during the industrial revolution, and major technological breakthroughs have been possible because of the ready and available supply of power. Power drives our society, with it the constructs of civilization operate. A surfeit will always be of use whereas a restriction almost always hinders social, technological, and industrial growth. No matter how "earth-friendly" we become by turning out our lights, driving hybrids, or not running the faucet while we brush, our energy consumption will increase over time based on the fact that human population is, and always will, skyrocket.


My second assumption is that all alternative methods of energy production have a finite and readily calculable maximum energy output. Although solar fanatics like to tout the fact that the total amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth is on the order of 89 petawatts (a lot, I assure you), which is 6000 times the current energy demands of the earth, these idiots assume that this energy would be available for consumption only if the entire fucking surface of the earth was covered in solar panels.

Anyway, the maximum amount of energy that can be absorbed by the sun is around 1.4 kw/ square meter. This is a scientific absolute, you can't get any more than that. The sun is just not that big. Today's best solar panels are 40% efficient, and even if we assume a technological breakthrough that yields 100%, you still can only extract from an energy density of 1.4 kw/ m^2. Today's energy energy consumption by the US is 3.3 terawatts, or 3.3x10^12 watts. This would mean that even if we had magical solar panels, it would still take a panel with an area of 2.35 million fucking square kilometers to power America. This assumes current energy demands...current...imagine what we will need 50 years from now.

The answer isn't reduce energy needs, that is a statistical and scientific improbability. Am I getting through to anyone yet as to the long term futility here? Everyone loves to bang on the drum of solar technology without realizing that yeah it's wonderful but it provides 0.08% of the total worlds supply of energy. There is a reason for that. You can't get that much out of it, period.

I won't waste my time with wind, tidal, or geothermal power because the efficiencies of these processes are similar to solar (20-40%) and the hard scientific limit of maximum power density available is similar (geothermal) or far far less than solar energy density (wind/tidal). So let us cut to the chase and provide you with conclusion number one:

Modern renewable energy technologies, even with perfect efficiency and incredibly cheap cost, are scientifically unable to provide enough energy to sustain America now, much less in the future. Unless you break a couple laws of thermodynamics.

So, how is nuclear power different you ask? Nuclear power gets electricity from heat via the carnot cycle (steam power) which is 33% efficient, so at best we can get three times the available electricity from the available heat. Why yes, even if we had a magical method of extracting electricity from available energy, we would at best do three times better. We still would not solve the problem.

EXCEPT

Heat available from a nuclear reactor is provided by nuclear fission, the process of making uranium unstable by bombarding it with neutrons until it splits releasing more neutrons, energy, and two smaller isotopes. The future of nuclear technology is in nuclear fusion, which is currently funded at abysmal levels because people have a hard on for windmills. Nuclear fusion provides energy by fusing together two molecules (usually hydrogen in the form of heavy water and heavy heavy water) at high temperature and pressure so that the reaction makes helium, a neutron, and lots of energy. Again, I don't want to become to embroiled in science, but it is necessary to draw the distinction between the two processes.

So what is the energy density of fusion? Is it really that much better than solar radiation?


GUESS WHAT CELESTIAL BODY IS FUCKING RUNS ON FUSION

The energy density of fusion is governed by the equation E = MC^2, so the amount of energy available is titanic. There is essentially no hard limit, the energy density available to be utilized will never be a concern, and if we are talking about theoretical maximum energy production, the entirety of America's energy demand could be satisfied by one fusion reactor processing 10 kilograms of hydrogen.

But hey, this is a long way away. It requires several quantum leaps in scientific understanding, a completely new and radical method of extracting electricity from heat (other than 200 year old steam tech) and trillions in funding. But from a society that put a man into the sky, space, and moon within the span of 50 years, I am sure we can do it.

My final conclusion here is that our future energy needs can only be satisfied by the implementation of a radical new technology, one whose efficiency is not important, rather its energy density. This technology is nuclear fusion, and it is the only path in our future.

Footnote: Citing sources is for chumps. Look me up if you disagree, honestly I don't care.