US Energy Policy - Archaic, Just Like Our Infrastructure

President Obama has made his US Energy Policy pretty clear; American Independence is the prevailing theme. The WhiteHouse.gov website states they are "using modeling and simulation for advanced nuclear reactor operations". While this doesn't say they are not actively pursuing new technologies, they make an ambiguous and empty statement about nuclear energy inclusion for future plans. My problem is that our government should do one of two things: 

1. the government should walk the talk and foster an economy of research and development of nuclear energies or 
2. get out of the way and allow private corporations to pursue said economy.

I feel that, however it happens, our country needs to consider our long term prospects for our civilization. The global population is 7.3 billion people, estimated to reach 10 billion by 2025. With an expanding population comes an exponential increase in demand for resources. The US Department of Energy released a report (http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html) estimating oil production peaking in 2037 and ending permanently in 2125. So, 110 years from now, the world's fossil fuels will be extinct. (Get it?) The current administration has funded $36 billion to a nuclear plant in Burke, Georgia slated to open in 2016. That is the first reactor in 30 years.

Our current administration is making a dog & pony show of touting solar and wind technology, which is great. Germany currently employs more people in the solar photovoltaic industry than the automotive and engineering sectors combined. The United Arab Emirates are spending billions of dollars per year on wind energy infrastructure with a realization on long-term economic and financial power.

I understand why the nuclear market is not front page. The easy answer is no one wants another Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island. Another huge black eye is the inefficiency of our current nuclear design. Current nuclear facilities boast an efficiency rate between 1 to 15%. Solar is not much more efficient, boasting an industry-best 18% for some PV panel arrays. Solar, nuclear, and wind all have exorbitant expenses for start-up. Lastly, nuclear energy creates a deplorable amount of waste that carries a half-life of multiple millenia.

Consider this: I just attended a tour of the University of Texas Power Plant. The gas/steam plant produces energy and heat, was worth an estimated $1 billion dollars, burned $19 million/year in natural gas, and boasted a very impressive 85% efficiency rate. The plants production capability runs between 45-65MW/hr depending on time of year.  Austin Energy created the largest solar photovoltaic field in the United States to date. The Webberville project is on 100 acres with 127,000 solar panels. The site creates roughly 30MW/hr and cost $250 million dollars to build.

Enter IFR - integral fast reactors. IFRs have been in development for the better part of 20 years - please remember that research and development are expanding at a much faster rate than that of 50 years ago. The development of IFR reactors have yielded staggering results. Products like the GE PRISM reactor boast a 85-95% efficiency. Based on a different method of cooling uranium, the half-life of the waste is 1/10th of heavy-water reactors. These reactors have a pick-up truck and cost roughly $100 million dollars, creating 65MW/hr. Lastly, IFRs can also be fueled by the old plutonium/uranium waste, hence eliminating the old problem of 3,000 year radioactive decay storage and containment. Think about that one for a minute...

So, low cost, small size, greater efficiency... It kinda sounds too good to be true, right? As I said earlier, I am not a nuclear physicist. Let us evaluate all the information available to us:

• Hyperion has 133 orders from several different countries from around the world (p11).
• Dr. Loewen is a physicist, albeit in the employ of a company attempting to garner governmental support for their product; but if one watches the entire feature, Loewen makes no blatant sales pitch but rather states his findings and objective facts in a manner to allow watchers to make their own opinion
• IFR R&D have garnered support from Bill Gates and Richard Branson, 2 individuals who have credibility as philanthropists rather than shrewd businessmen; men of that caliber don't stick their names or necks out for "flash in the pan" ideas. 
• 3 U of Texas physicists were just given a patent for conceptual hybrid nuclear fission waste burning reactor thingy - article here (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/09/12/nuclear-waste-burning-technology-change-face-of-nuclear-energy/)

Here is the reason for my whole argument: a report by Dan Rather from Dan Rather Reports episode 608 (Power Play) with Dr. Eric Loewen (Univ of Wisconsin 1999) documented Dr. Loewen saying Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy) and the US don't have any plans to seriously consider alternative (and safer) nuclear programs until the year 2040, with an estimated market availability in year 2050 (p7)

Really, 2040? I wonder what delaying research 28 years might be... (is that the expected date of deficit payoff?).

I would hope you have formed an open mind to the possibility that there is a more efficient, safer, and affordable alternative than the status quo. My original argument is the government needs to foster the facilitation of this or allow it to grow. I would hope that both the government and businesses would work together as there is some potential for a catastrophic health consequence. I also would hope that the US Department of Energy and Secretary Chu can make this happen a little bit sooner than 2040. If the government were to begin/allow R&D in the next few years, more transparent information would be available. Legislators, economists, and scientists could either foster in a whole new era of energy or could make an informed decision that the consequences are not worth the risk and return to the drawing board.

One final point to make: consider the cultivation of a new industry such as this for the sheer economic impact regarding job creation and tax base revenue. Imagine the impact this would have towards pulling our country out of the current depression, and finally consider the morale Americans would possess with the pride of building a new super-efficient, technologically-forward future.

Thanks for reading.