Energy creates power. The core of our planet is comprised both literally and metaphorically of energy. The acquisition and distribution of fuel has become a cornerstone of the world and more notably; the Western World. As we continue to worship at the altar of oil the supplies are depleting rapidly. Sources say it is only a matter of time before we reach Hubbert’s Peak.

Hubbest’s Peak, explained by James Jordan and James R. Powell in The Washington Post is: “a concept developed a half-century ago by a geologist named M. King Hubbert, and it explains a lot about what’s going on today at the gas pump. Hubbert argued that at a certain point oil production peaks, and thereafter it steadily declines regardless of demand. In 1956 he predicted that U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 and decline thereafter. Skeptics scoffed, but he was right. “

New figures released by the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, show a decline in oil usage, due to the drop in oil prices last year from $150 per barrel to $30. If our rate of consumption is maintained we have enough oil to last the next 42 years. However, cynics believe the number is substantially lower.

So according to Rebecca Smith of The Wall Street Journal: “If there ever were a time that seemed ripe for nuclear energy, it’s now.” Despite nuclear energy having a less than auspicious reputation it seems that for the first time in decades, public opinion in America is in favor of nuclear energy. This is due to the realization that carbon fuels are finite and greenhouse-gas emissions are damaging our environment. Nuclear energy developers now claim they have invented new measures to combat the three most damning criticisms of nuclear energy:

Safety

Images of Chernobyl still linger in many people’s memory. Doubts about safety hinder nuclear progress enormously. Most power plants use Generation III reactors which, according to Smith, simplify the “complex maze of redundant motors, pumps, valves and control systems” of previous reactors. The new models do not rely on human interaction, reducing the risk of human error or equipment failure.
Southern Co’s Vogtle site in Georgia and in six other locations use reactors with an automatic shut down facility in the event of temperature change. Another recent fear that is being addressed is the threat of terrorism. France’s Areva SA plant has designed an outer compound that protects the inner building in the event of a terrorist act.

Generation IV reactors are currently in development, these are designed to “absorb excess heat better through greater coolant volume, better circulation and bigger containment structures.” Another design is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, being developed in China and South Africa. These are powered with balls or uranium as opposed to rods. These designs are still in development are being reviewed by the NRC, with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor possibly being certified in 2017.

Cost

One of the biggest leaps in cutting the cost of nuclear power is ensuring the longevity of the reactors. Generation III models are being designed to last 60 years, as opposed to previous reactor’s 40 year operation life. In addition they are said to be easier and quicker to build. Smith gives the example: “the ABWR reactor, which has been built in Japan by GE-Hitachi…is built in modules, vastly speeding construction time.” The reactor, which was a joint venture of General Electric Co. and Hitachi Inc was built in 42 months, which is more than twice as fast as Generation II reactors.

The fact remains however that nuclear power plants are expensive to build. Smith says: “Recent estimates put Generation III plant costs at $4000 to $6,700 per kilowatt of capacity.” Many American cities are simply too small to accommodate such a drain. This has led to speculation that the future of nuclear energy could be in smaller power plants.

Babcock and Wilcox, has designed a smaller 125 megawatt reactor. The advantage of this is that is can be built in factories and delivered to the plants. Another perk is that smaller reactors do not need to be refueled as frequently as the larger models.

Waste

In recent years nuclear waste has become more than an ethical or environmental issue. Nuclear plants produce tens of thousands of metric tons of waste and the government has no definite designated area for this waste. According to Smith: “Some Generation III reactors promise to address this problem by squeezing more electricity out of their fuel, reducing the amount of waste produced, but it’s only a relatively small amount.” The answer could be Generation IV reactors which would burn excess fuel. The article continues: “GE-Hitachi, for example, is developing a fast reactor called Prism that would take spent fuel or weapons waste, sitting in storage today, and use nearly all of it as fuel, leaving little waste.”
The negative to Prism is that the cost is estimated at $3.2 billion.

Whilst critics of nuclear energy remain, the positive advancements made in the field are irrefutable. With our current energy sources in decline, a future powered by nuclear energy looks likely. As a result, specialized nuclear trade jobs such as electricians, mechanics, engineers and architects would be highly in demand.