Revisiting the Nuclear Enterprise

IAEA-CN-114/C-3 Revisiting the Nuclear Enterprise Gary M. Sandquista, Jay F. Kunzeb, Carl Sandquistc a U.S. Military Academy, Department of Physics, West Point, New York, USA Idaho State University, College of Engineering, Pocatello, Idaho, USA c Applied Science Professionals, LLC, PO Box 9052, Salt Lake City, UT, USA E-mail address of main author: [email protected] b Abstract. It is asserted that the abundant sources and many applications offered by nuclear fission within the nuclear enterprize must be seriously reexamined and implemented if the world is to achieve a sustainable future for all of its inhabitants. No other developed and demonstrated primary energy source can provide virtually unlimited electrical power for all nations, reduce greenhouse gases and control global warming, replace the present petroleum dependence by a hydrogen economy, produce inexpensive process heat for material and foodstuff processing, provide an economical and technically feasible means for production of large quantities of fresh and potable water and treatment of solid and liquid waste, permanently reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, and provide for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel through the recycle of reprocessed fuel and the complete burnup of transuranics. 1. Background The peaceful, industrial and commercial nuclear enterprize in the U.S. and the world has languished for almost three decades now. Many events and policies, with national and international impact, have contributed to this situation. Of particular significance, the TMI-II Nuclear Plant accident in the U.S. in 1979 and the Chernobyl accident in Russia in 1986 aroused international and political concern and doubts over the safety and acceptability of the peaceful nuclear enterprise. Furthermore, the increase and dramatic consequences of extremist activities throughout the world have spawned concern over the possible terrorist use of nuclear and radiation weapons. Many countries are now on sustained alert against terrorism, and military actions by the U.S. and others have exacerbated fears regarding weapons of mass destruction or WMD’s. Rogue nuclear weapons in the possession of terrorists are particularly alarming. The number of nations with nuclear arsenals and terrorist factions with access to these nuclear arsenals has also contributed to concerns. The potential association of nuclear power plants and production of nuclear weapon materials has been contentious. National and International Safeguards and Proliferation Programs have not fully constrained public distress. Finally, the cleanup and management of radioactive wastes and dismantling of excess nuclear weapons materials have also contributed to anti-nuclear sentiments by many leaders within government, business, and the public. Despite these ubiquitous concerns and fears, the “Atoms for Peace Program” as President Eisenhower presented before the United Nations General Assembly on 8 December 1953, still holds great promise and offers unique benefits for both developed and developing nations. Indeed, the nuclear enterprize is essential to the development and well being of the 21st Century world. Many of the most significant challenges confronting this new century can only 1 be addressed with an abundant and well-distributed source of economical and environmentally benign primary energy. An energy source that can provide electricity, chemical fuels with few or no greenhouse gas emissions, cultivation and processing of foodstuffs, process heat for primary material production and processing, and potable water. Nuclear energy derived from fission and fusion reactions is the obvious and possibly only practical choice for this need. Obviously, as with all technologies, risks as well as benefits have accrued with development and implementation of the nuclear enterprise. But these nuclear associated risks can be controlled just as society has managed risks from transportation, medicine, electrical power, construction, and other elements of our society. The real issue is this, can the nations and the people learn to successfully harness the atom and truly exploit this unique energy source to benefit mankind? This paper attempts to review and assess the major benefits that can and should result if the peaceful nuclear enterprize can be successfully developed and exploited throughout the world. Major focus is made upon the economic, environmental, and social benefits that could result with careful planning, technical development, public education and understanding, sound management, and international supervision of the nuclear enterprise. The major benefits that are offered by the nuclear enterprize include • • • • • • • A primary, economical, and near inexhaustible energy source based upon the full use of the earth’s resources of both natural uranium and thorium and the large existing inventories of depleted uranium A practical means of permanently reducing and eventually eliminating present inventories of nuclear weapons by consuming their special nuclear materials (SNM) as mixed oxide (MOX) fission fuel in power reactors A safe means for reducing the problems of long term spent fuel disposal through the recycle of reprocessed fuel and the complete burnup of transuranics The only major proven primary energy source for the elimination of greenhouse gases and control of global warming The most economical method of mass production of hydrogen to serve as a liquid fuel that can replace oil and natural gas combustion without greenhouse gas release The production of cheap process heat for material and foodstuff processing and economic production of 21st century societal needs. An economical and technically feasible means for production of large quantities of fresh and potable water and treatment of solid and liquid sewage and waste. 2. Current energy situation [1, 2, 3] During the decade from 1992 to 2001, the world’s total primary energy output from petroleum, natural gas, coal and electrical power increased at an average annual rate of 1.6%, which was outpaced by world population growth at about 2% during the same decade. In units of quads of energy (i.e., quadrillion BTU or 0.293 TWh), total world energy production increased from 351 quads to 403 quads in 2001. Total energy consumption for 2003 was estimated to be about 416 quads or about 50 kWh per day per capita. Petroleum (crude oil and natural gas plant liquids) is the most heavily used primary energy source accounting for 38.5% or 155 quads in 2001. This energy was contained in the 74.7 million barrels per day (bbls/day) consumed in 2001. Coal was the second primary energy 2 source at 5.3 billion short tons or 96 quads. Dry natural gas at 23.3% ranked third at 90.7 trillion cubic feet or 94 quads. Finally electrical power generation via hydro ranked fourth at 6.62% and nuclear ranked fifth at 6.56%. All other electrical power generation sources were sixth at 0.8%. Total electrical power consumption in 2001 was 16.4 trillion kWh or 56 quads. World electrical generation is approximately 3800 GW(e), and this output must double by the year 2040 to simply support annual world population growth of 2%. Current electrical generation averages only about 2/3 kW(e) per capita. The “End of Oil [4]” has been alarmed by many prominent geologists and recent evidence of supply shortages, over estimation of reserves, and inability to maintain growing oil and natural needs have shown that that the depletion of these fluid fossil fuels may occur within a few decades. The actual impact of global warming and irreversible climate effects should become more evident within that same time frame. The US, the Russian Federation, and China were the leading producers and consumers of world energy. These three countries alone produced 38%, but consumed 41% of the world’s energy. The 21st century will witness a world population of over 10 billion most of whom will reside in nations presently classified as developing nations. To accommodate this population increase and permit even a limited improvement in standard of living and quality of life will require massive growth in energy production. These energy services are essential to provide the processed materials, foodstuffs, health care, travel, and the other amenities that developed nations demand and take for granted. To avoid future conflict in realizing and distribution these resources it is only full development and utilization of nuclear energy that can provide an energy base that is available, sustainable, and environmentally safe. Furthermore, the wide distribution of uranium throughout the globe protects against domination and monopolistic control of energy resources as is true of oil and natural gas. 3. Nuclear Energy [1, 2, 3] Presently there are about 436 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries and producing approximately 374 GW(e) of electrical power. Nuclear energy now provides 17% of electrical power worldwide, 24% in OECD countries, 21% in the USA, and 77% in France. It is estimated that nuclear power has reduced total greenhouse gas emissions by 10% by replacing the equivalent power produced from hydrocarbon fuels. The U.S. currently has 103 operating commercial nuclear power plants. These nuclear plants produce more electrical power each year from nuclear fuel than any other nation. The annual growth of nuclear energy over the first 5 decades of its history was about 12%, but has now greatly slowed and unfulfilled its earlier promise of abundant electrical power for the world. No new U.S. nuclear plant orders have been made since the Three Mile Island - Unit II (TMI II) Nuclear Power Plant incident in 1978. As a proven means for producing electricity, nuclear power is well established scientifically and recognized technically as the most environmentally benign method of all the commercial methods of generating large quantities of electrical power. In the production of 1 GW(e) of electrical power, nuclear energy produces only 4 kg of fission products daily while an equivalent coal fired plant produces more than 25,000 metric tones of waste products. Furthermore, these fission products remain securely within the spent fuel and can be processed to remove these short-lived products and recycle the transuranics for additional energy production. This reprocessing cycle can also serve to protect the new fuel from possible misuse. 3 An essential requirement for realization of the terrestrial energy supply from nuclear fission is closure of the fuel cycle with spent fuel reprocessing, transuranic recycle for complete burnup, and safe disposal of the small volume of fission products that present a disposal volume less than one millionth of the current environmental burden from fossil fuels. The radiotoxicity level of the fission products, safely deposited in a geologic repository, would be below the level of the original uranium ore within three centuries. Full transuranic multi-recycle to extract the full energy content of uranium in the soil and oceans can provide a millennium of global energy at a recoverable base cost for U3O8 (yellow cake) of less than $130/kg. In raw energy cost this is equivalent to about 0.00004 mills/kWhr(th). Interestingly, the average fuel cost for an abundant energy supply for a citizen in the 21st century from nuclear energy would be less than 0.1 cent per day. Environmental emissions from nuclear power plants are virtually zero, a fact often not appreciated by the public, and what materials are released are essentially innocuous. Routinely, only very small amounts of radioactive gases, namely tritium and noble gases are released to the environment. In the TMI-II accident, the total mass of radioactive gases released to the atmosphere was less than 1 gram. Noble gases are inert and do not combine chemically with substances in the environment and are quickly and harmlessly dispersed. Tritium, which is also produced naturally in the upper atmosphere as a result of cosmic rays, is one of the most benign radioactive materials found in nature and is rapidly eliminated from the body. On the other hand the environmental waste products produced daily in the combustion of coal at a typical 1 GW(e) electrical power plant includes • • • • several hundred metric tons of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur which combine with water vapor in the air to produce acid rain about 50 metric tons of toxic organic compounds about a 100 kg of heavy metals including Pb, Se, Hg, Sn, Cr, Be, and many others. tens of kg of the naturally occurring radioactive daughter products of U-238 and Th230 including radium, radon and radioactive isotopes of lead, polonium, bismuth, etc. Indeed, it is paradoxical, but true that many coal-fired plants release more harmful and greater amounts of radioactive materials to the environment than nuclear plants of the same electrical power output. Indeed, as a method of producing electricity, nuclear power is well established to be the most environmentally benign and safe method of generating electrical power of all of the present commercial methods of generating electricity. The radioactive waste products from nuclear generation of electricity are hazardous, but comprize only a very small volume compared to the waste products from fossil fuel combustion. In the production of 1 GW(e) of nuclear electrical power less than 4 kg of fission products are produced daily, while an equivalent coal power plant produces 27 thousand metric tons per day of combustion products. These nuclear wastes are readily contained within the spent fuel and can be isolated and stabilized for permanent disposal while the great bulk of combustion wastes from fossil plants are released to the biosphere. The small, solid waste can be buried either in deep geological depositories from which the wastes will never conceivably return to the accessible environment until their radioactivity level is less than the natural radiation background of the original nuclear fuel ore. 4. Available resource of nuclear fission fuels To compare the earth’s inventory of primary energy consider the following data in Table I: 4 Table 1. Comparison of fossil and nuclear fuel resources Fuel resource characteristic fission (a) Energy released (eV) / atom (b) Mass in amu / atom 4 eV 12 amu-C (c) Average abundance in earth’s crust 350 ppm (d) Net energy product [(a) x (c)/(b)] in J/kg of crust 11.3 Total J/kg (crust) from fission of both U and Th Fossil (chemical) Nuclear 190 MeV 238 amu-U 232 amu-Th 4 ppm-U 8 ppm-Th 308,000-U 632,000-Th 940,000 The ratio of the net energy in J/kg of earth crust for nuclear fission to fossil chemical energy given in the last line of the table is about 83,000 to 1 or about five orders of magnitude greater. This is theoretical ratio for energy potential and the actual utilization of either the fossil fuel or the nuclear fuel resource depends upon the ingenuity and skill of engineers to recover the maximum amount of the energy resource with the technology available and to utilize these resources safely and economically. The achievable ratio of nuclear energy content to chemical energy content is actually inconsequential. Even if nuclear utilization has a penalty factor of 10 compared to fossil, the advantage for nuclear fuels over fossil fuels is still enormous. It is estimated that the world’s coal reserves will last several centuries at the present rate of consumption since coal accounts for about 1/4 of the world's current energy supply. Because economically recoverable oil and natural gas resources will be exhausted within a few decades, only coal will be available in the latter part of the 21st century. On the other hand, nuclear energy, even if tasked to provide all of the world's energy needs, could supply these needs for many millennium. Nuclear fission can provide an adequate, environmentally acceptable energy source until science and engineering can effectively and commercially harness fusion energy that is another form of nuclear energy that offers an energy supply lasting billions of years. However, without preparing for and utilizing nuclear fission resources now and depending almost totally upon fossil fuels, the world may find the only remaining fossil fuel resource, namely coal, dwindling to alarmingly low levels during the lifetime of our grandchildren. Another aspect overlooked in the massive utilization of coal to provide our energy needs, is the great value coal has as a petrochemical resource. From coal, as a feedstock, can be produced most of the important organic materials used in our technical society such as fertilizers, plastics, drugs, medicines, synthetic fabrics, polymers, and even proteins and foodstuffs. In fact, coal is much more valuable as an essential material feedstock than as a combustible fuel. Sound resource management would declare that coal is a more valuable material feedstock and uranium is a more valuable nuclear fuel. 5. Concerns over ionizing radiation It has long been known that ionizing radiation, the type that accompanies nuclear reactions, can damage or destroy living cells. Indeed, ionizing radiation is routinely used to destroy cancer cells in the human body, with minimal harm to normal cells. This occurs because the fast growing cancer cells are more sensitive to radiation than normal cells. However, what is not widely known or appreciated is that small amounts of radiation are apparently beneficial 5 and even essential for good health and resistance to disease and development of the immune system. Hundreds of experiments demonstrating this beneficial aspect of radiation technically referred to as the “hormesis” hypothesis[5] have been conducted on seeds and laboratory animals where the beneficial effects of low levels of radiation have been clearly shown in stimulating the critically important immune response system found in all biological systems. The human body employs two major mechanisms to defend itself against pathogens and other foreign materials. These mechanisms are phagocytosis (the action of white blood cells to engulf and destroy foreign organisms) and the immune system that uses special cells, called lymphocytes, to produce antibodies. These antibodies are large protein molecules that destroy the foreign organism or antigen. Considerable evidence exists that radiation is not harmful in low, continuous doses but only in large doses, and is essential to major life forms in small doses. That benefits arize from low doses of a particular agent and toxicity from high doses of that same agent are apparent for many of the essential trace materials found in the body such as salt, trace minerals, and vitamins. All of these materials are essential for good health at low concentrations in the body, but higher doses are harmful at elevated concentrations. This condition is especially true of medicines, which are beneficial at prescribed levels but harmful and even deadly as overdoses. Even excessive water in the body (edema) can be harmful at certain levels. Thus, there is no scientific basis for the unfounded fear of small amounts of radiation. Humans have always been exposed to natural radiation sources found on the earth. The evolution of life has occurred and nature has evolved DNA in a continuous background of low ionizing radiation exposure. 6. Nuclear weapon proliferation Often cited by those opposing the intentional production and use of plutonium in U.S. nuclear power reactors is the concern over proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is postulated that other national governments or terrorists might divert some plutonium product from the nuclear fuel cycle to clandestine efforts to construct a nuclear explosive or develop a radiological terrorist weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has international responsibility assigned by the United Nations to inspect the commercial nuclear power facilities of all of the treaty nations party to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These inspections are designed to assure that treaty signatory’s accountability practices are adequate to prevent diversion of plutonium for clandestine purposes. The IAEA has an outstanding record of performing its duties wherever allowed access for inspection. The IAEA has been denied access to certain countries such as Iraq and Iran, but denial of access for inspection by such nations is not motivated in any degree by the past decision not utilize plutonium in U.S. commercial power reactors. The U.S. has an excellent system of control, inspection, and accountability of nuclear materials, imposed through strict regulations imposed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Why would a terrorist consider attempting to divert this material from the tightly regulated and secure U.S. nuclear materials system? An international terrorist would undoubtedly prefer to obtain a fabricated and reliable nuclear weapon, ready to use, through bribery, theft, or other clandestine methods. The attempt to divert plutonium from the nuclear fuel cycle of a member nation to the Non Proliferation Treaty and then undertake the complex and difficult task of fabrication a nuclear weapon is very doubtful. 6 Finally, until the plutonium is refined and leaves the reprocessing plant for the clean fuel manufacturing facility, the plutonium is highly radioactive and contaminated. In this highly radioactive state, the plutonium would not only be extremely dangerous to handle and potentially lethal, but is easily detected by radiation monitors even at a considerable distance. The U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) has demonstrated its ability to detect and locate even small quantities of plutonium anywhere within the U.S. Actually, maintaining this high level of radioactive plutonium throughout the fuel cycle would be a distinct advantage in preventing unauthorized diversion[6]. Furthermore, such technology for using contaminated plutonium already exists and has been proven by U.S. government laboratories. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept, that has been developed and tested by the Argonne National Laboratory, remotely and economically reprocesses used fuel, recycling the plutonium for reuse without removing the high radioactive transuranic elements from the system at any time. All such plutonium operations are done remotely, thus making clandestine diversion and utilization essentially impossible. Acceptance and utilization of plutonium as a fissile fuel for nuclear power plants also provides an opportunity of great benefit to the peace and safety of the entire planet. It is appropriate and desirable that both the U.S. and the Russian Federation pursue nuclear arms reduction in a real way. This can be accomplished most effectively not by simply dismantling the weapons and storing the nuclear materials, but in consuming the plutonium used in these weapons in nuclear power plants. This is undoubtedly the best and safest form of nuclear disarmament. Then the plutonium is consumed and transmuted into nonfissile materials and has no possibility for later refabrication into future nuclear weaponry. It is interesting to estimate the useful electrical power generation potential available from disarming 10,000 nuclear weapons each with about 5 kilograms of plutonium. The potential electrical energy available from such an inventory of fissile material would operate all U.S. nuclear power plants for about 1 year. Furthermore, with this plutonium unavailable for nuclear weapons, the world would be considerably safer. The burnup of SNM from weapons in nuclear power plants is the most effective and safest means of nuclear disarmament. 7. Future electrical energy requirements and consequences A number of analyses regarding future world energy needs have been performed typically based upon the following assumptions[7]: • • • • • The present world population (about 6.3 billion) currently growing at about 2% per year will exceed 10 billion before the middle of the 21st century. The average standard of living in the world in the middle of the 21st century will require at least half of the energy consumption currently associated with the standard of living of the developed nations. Energy efficiency utilization will be twice its current value. Electricity will replace about half of the oil and gas used for transportation, heating, and other non-electric purposes. The peak to average demand on the electric power systems will be reduced from the present value of 2.0 to about 1.5. Using these assumptions, projection for the year 2050 shows that the world will need 3 times the electrical power capacity it has today. Furthermore, the current operating electrical power plants would then be at least 50 years old, and will require replacement to meet new technological and environmental requirements, and because of plant components wear out and 7 safety concerns. Thus, three times as many new power plants as exist today must be constructed and fueled in the next 50 years as the world has built in the past 50 years. This must occur if future populations in developing nations are to have a standard of living just one-half of what developed nations have today. It will be very difficult and perhaps even dangerous to deny populations in developing nations this privilege. Because of this inevitable massive construction of electric power plants, there is great concern about the worlds continuing dependency on fossil fuels, which release significant pollutants and greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. The environmental impact called the "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere is a real, demonstrable scientific fact and the long-term consequences upon the increasing levels of these atmospheric gases and particulates are very uncertain. A continual rize in the carbon dioxide burden in the atmosphere has been evident since the beginning of significant burning of fossil fuels. Climatological effects will definitely occur and apparently have already begun. There is already observational evidence of impact on the ionosphere from gases emissions. Some may argue that the consequences of global warming are desirable, but this is naive and the facts speak to the contrary. Changing weather patterns can raize the mean sea level, resulting in uncontrollable flooding in populated seacoasts areas and produce violent weather conditions, infestations of new diseases and crop blights in presently temperate climate zones, and droughts in presently populated areas. For example, the marked reduction of precipitation and favorable weather in the agricultural regions could deprive the world of its foodcrop production capacity. At present, the world utilizes less than 1 percent of the world’s full uranium resource and none of the thorium resources in present fuel cycle operations. Though these fuels are very abundant in comparison to fossil fuels, estimates are that economically recoverable uranium available may be exhausted in 30 to 100 years. It seems most inappropriate and unwize to continue these present policies, rather than embarking on a new policy that effectively utilizes virtually all of the uranium and thorium resources that are mined. This policy would also minimize the volume of radioactive waste to be disposed into permanent burial. Therefore, it seems appropriate that world policy would best be served by immediately moving in the direction of shifting toward nuclear power for most major additions to electrical generation capacity. The basis for this decision can be made for sound technical, environmental and economical reasons. It is unnecessary for the nation and electrical power rates payers to spend billions of dollars to dispose of high-level waste 100 times greater in volume than would be required by reprocessing and better utilization of these nuclear fuels. Finally, regardless of what decision the U.S. makes, the potential for increased proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world will not be significantly controlled nor affected by the present U.S. nuclear policy. 8. A nuclear based hydrogen economy [8] Hydrogen is a much-studied element and large quantities are produced today for industrial applications. Most hydrogen produced currently serves as a chemical commodity rather than a secondary fuel source. Abundant and ubiquitous water is the obvious source of hydrogen for the development of this source. Hydrogen is an environmentally benign fuel producing mainly water when oxidized to release energy in combustion or in a fuel cell. Fuel cells provide an energy conversion efficiency of about 80% compared to gas turbines at about 35% and internal combustion engines at about 20%. 8 Present U.S. consumption of oil is equivalent of about 300 million tons of hydrogen per year. The current U.S. production rate of hydrogen is only 11 million tons per year. Since hydrogen is not found in abundant free form, it must be extracted from source materials such as natural gas, oil, water or biomass. Currently, the majority of hydrogen, about 95%, is produced by steam reforming of methane and requires the endothermic reaction of methane with high temperature steam according to the reaction CH4 + 2 H2O + energy -> 4 H2 + CO2 Each kg of hydrogen produces requires 2.4 kg of methane and 6 kg of steam and produces 7.3 kg of CO2. There is no net reduction in the final production of CO2 in this reaction over the direct combustion of CH4 with air as an energy source. Although there are many physical and chemical means of producing hydrogen, the two practical methods for producing large quantities required for significant production of hydrogen as a major energy fuel are electrolysis and a thermochemical cycles. Electrolysis is well known and practical for producing hydrogen from water. Electrolysis produces no greenhouse gases unless the method for producing the electricity generates these gases. Nuclear energy is a proven method for producing electricity without greenhouse gases and could obviously serve as the electrical energy basis for water electrolysis. Replacement of current annual U.S. oil consumption (about 7.2 billion bbls) with hydrogen from electrolysis of water would require about 920 GW(e) or a litttle over twice current total U.S. electrical output. There are a number of thermochemical hydrogen producing cycles for spitting water to make hydrogen. Perhaps the best candidate to date is the sulfur-iodine thermochemical cycle. This closed reaction combines water and sulfur dioxide with iodine to produce sulfuric acid and hydrogen iodide. The sulfuric acid is decomposed to sulfur dioxide, water and oxygen with the sulfur dioxide returned to the process. The Hydrogen is collected and the iodine is recycled. The process requires a high temperature heat source up to about 950 C. A continuous heat process cycle ranging from 500 to 950 C can provide a thermal to hydrogen efficiency of about 50 % and yield a 10 ton daily hydrogen yield from a 30 MW thermal energy source. No greenhouse gases result from this process and several advanced nuclear reactor designs appear capable of providing these. The greatest challenge facing hydrogen deployment is its low volumetric energy density. In practice hydrogen is viable as a practical fuel only in a liquid state or at very high pressure. About 30% of hydrogen’s latent energy is required to liquefy it and about 11% to pressurize it to 70 MPa. Relatively lightweight composite materials exist that can contain hydrogen at 35 MPa. But the leakage rate of hydrogen from current containers is about 3 times greater than natural gas. Improved storage options such as inclusion in hydrides and high-density storage in carbon nanostructures are necessary technologies that require intense development and exploitation. The annual production of about 300 million tons of hydrogen required to replace the energy equivalent of the oil consumed in the U.S. each year will take decades to accomplish and investments of several trillion dollars. However, these investment costs are similar to the investment made by industry in the U.S. oil infrastructure. To begin this effort, President George W. Bush has announced a plan to develop a hydrogen based economy in the U.S. with an initial invest of $1.7 billion 9. Summary 9 About 1.6 billion people, over a quarter of the world’s population, have no access to electricity. Forty percent, or 2.4 billion people, use crude biomass (wood, agricultural residues and even dung) to cook their simple meal and keep warm. If the current world energy distribution and supply policy remains, these deprived masses will still be under sustained in basic energy needs many decades into the future unless significant changes in world energy sources and technological developments. The current sources of hydrocarbon fuels are inadequate to alter this condition of energy poverty for much of mankind. This condition should not be acceptable for a planet with ample supplies of nuclear energy. Without adequate supplies of abundant and affordable energy, it will be virtually impossible to improve health, increase well-being, educate the world’s children and achieve world peace. Without abundant energy a sustainable and peaceful future is not possible. Nuclear energy can fill all primary energy and potable water needs for developing countries and is ideally suited to fit within the regional total fuel requirements by providing electricity, hydrogen, potable water, and even sewage processing and water treatment. Nuclear generated hydrogen could be the principal chemical fuel to replace oil and natural gas as these are exhausted. Hydrogen is relevant to all energy sectors, transportation, heating and cooling needs, material and chemical processing, and industrial utilization. Hydrogen is a storable and available energy source that can be used upon demand. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 10 View publication stats U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Energy Information Agency, Washington, DC, www.eia.doe.gov. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, Paris, France, www.iea.org and www.worldenergyoutlook.org INTERNATIONAL ENERGY ANNUAL 2001, URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/overview.html DEFFEYES, K.S., The End of Oil, Princeton University Press (2001) SANDQUIST, G.M., Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Hormesis, Transactions American Nuclear Society, Vol. 77. p. 60, 16-20 Nov 1997. KUNZE, J.F., G.M. SANDQUIST, and D. S. SENTELL, Improving the Utilization of Nuclear Resources, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Washington, DC, 25-29 April 2004 KUNZE, J.F. and G.M. SANDQUIST, Imperatives for Using Plutonium In Commercial Power Reactors, ASEE Power Conference, Lincoln, NE, 25-29 Sep 1995 WADE, D.C. et al, Star-H-2: A Long-Refueling Interval Battery Reactor for Hydrogen and Water Supply to Cities of Developing Countries, 5th International Conference on Nuclear Option in countries with Small and Medium electricity Grids, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 16-20 May 2004.