Poll Results and Generation IV Reactors

The purpose of my poll was to attempt to gauge the common feeling about nuclear energy and its potential. Responses to the poll have occurred over time and therefore whether they are a priori deductions or based on the evidence from my posts is relatively unknown.

The vast majority see nuclear energy as playing a large role in the future energy sector - with many agreeing with me in that nuclear has to be used if climate change mitigation is going to become a reality. Those that viewed nuclear as a risk may experience some of the points made in past posts about public perception - the over exaggerated fear within a risk society (Beck 1992) or the enhanced opposition based on images of nuclear war and power plant disasters.

I initially believed many more would oppose nuclear energy. I was personally unsure on my stance to begin with also, however as the blog has developed over the weeks I have definitely shifted towards a pro-nuclear position - it simply can not be disregarded!

A greater shift towards positivity may emerge in the coming years with the transition from Generation III to Generation IV nuclear reactors (Horvath 2016). This is the product of The Generation IV International Forum, deciding upon 6 new nuclear technologies that will progress in the 21st Century - one being the Molten Salt Reactor mentioned in a past post (WNA 2015a). Three of the technologies will be "fast reactors" (WNA 2015a), meaning they use the fast neutrons from Uranium-238 as well as the U-235 isotope (WNA 2015b). It is hoped that wide-scale application of these technologies will emerge 2020-2030. The intent is to close the cycles of nuclear reactors, providing greater levels of recycling and consequently greater energy production efficiency and reduced waste creation (Horvath 2016).

It is believed that these new technologies will enable the life-time of nuclear waste to be reduced to hundreds of years, rather than the hundreds of thousands of years associated with conventional reactors (Horvath 2016). The fast reactors are capable of burning the actinides, which are the components of the high level waste that have exponential life-times (WNA 2015b).The waste produced following the reprocessing of spent fuel has a lower heat capacity than the spent fuel itself - therefore this means that when the waste is stored, for example in a deep, geological store, it can be done so at a greater density. This therefore means less space is required - which can prolong the global, burial potential - as well as limiting the level of proximate exposure to human settlements.

Not only do these new technologies provide sustainable, efficient energy production - but also there is the belief that they will increase the cost-efficiency via closed cycle reprocessing - as well as providing more resistant waste material against the potential proliferation for weapon construction (Horvath 2016).

Nuclear is not the same as it was when Chernobyl threatened global safety and security - progressions have been made and will continue to be made in the future. New technologies are emerging that reduce waste and improve security and awareness, with increased international checks and standards to abide to. I argue that many who oppose nuclear still have, what is now arguably an "archaic" image of nuclear. The majority showed similar viewpoints to me, supporting the potential for nuclear. This is potentially a product of the readership, with it suggested that increased support emerges from a more educated audience (OECD 2010).