Nuclear Energy - The Solution to Climate Change?

[Karl]

Greenpeace Co-founder Supports Nuclear Energy Expansion

"Radioactive waste no longer a problem"

Greenpeace was right to stop the bomb and save the whales, but should never have opposed nuclear energy, the environmental group’s co-founder and former director, Patrick Moore, said last month while on a lecture tour of local universities, sponsored by the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa.

“Climate change has made me a strong supporter of nuclear power,” Moore said. “I find it logically inconsistent for people in the environmental movement who say that climate change threatens the very existence of our civilisation and could drive millions of species into extinction, to then oppose one of the most important technologies that could bring about the resolution of this crisis.”

The former president of Greenpeace Canada left the organisation in 1986 and now dismisses modern environmental activism as spreading dangerous myths “leading young people into total pessimism” instead of encouraging them to change their behaviour and develop new technologies. According to Moore, most of the arguments against nuclear power are based on emotion and not facts.

Questioned on what to do about nuclear waste, Moore said: “That is a problem solved by France 30 years ago. Nuclear plants produce very little waste, which is the first reason environmentalists should be in favour of them. Nearly all of their waste can be recycled to be run through nuclear power stations again. “This has not been possible in the US because of laws introduced by the Carter administration. But France has demonstrated that nuclear waste is a manageable problem.”

Environmental groups advocate investing in wind and solar power as an alternative to nuclear power. But Moore dismissed these alternatives as unreliable and expensive. “Germany has spent billions on wind farms, without replacing a single coal-fired power station,” he said.

Finland’s decision to build a nuclear power station after extensive research heralded a renaissance for the industry, Moore said. This has prompted China, India and Russia to start building new nuclear plants, and the US is in the process of scrapping Carter-era legislation to reopen its market.

Source: ‘Greenpeace should now go pro-nuke’

[matthewtrigg]

Nuclear power, like clean-coal, presents itself as a 'solution' to climate change and it has some good arguments; however it is a long way from proving that it is sustainable.

The technology is considerably less desirable if you consider the entire fuel cycle, including the emissions relating to mining and processing and then the thousands of years that the waste remains a threat.

Our actions should be focused on renewable sources of generation and not on technology that reinforces a built form and way of life that at its most fundamental level still needs to change in order for us to claim that we are sustainable. All that does is hold off the inevitable and makes it’s infinitely harder to change in the future.

[Karl]

Perhaps I should have included a disclaimer to the effect that “posting this thread does not necessarily imply that I agree fully with its content”. All the same, I thought it provided a very interesting perspective, especially considering the source of the statements. The comments on the original article, available through the link, are also very instructive.

While there is some validity to the sentiments, especially in terms of the lack of carbon dioxide emissions, and the potential for recycling the radioactive waste within the system, it appears overall to be somewhat of an oversimplification of the issue. The idea of nuclear energy as a mitigation measure for climate change appears more to be temporarily evading the problem than actually providing a solution.

I recall having read data to the effect that the fission of 1 lb of uranium being the equivalent to 6000 barrels of oil and 1000 tons of coal, thereby being more efficient than fossil fuels, despite the major drawback of radioactive waste. Further to this, even if it is “environmentally friendly” in relation to its carbon footprint, it still generates steam (water vapour), which is a greenhouse gas (though not as serious an issue as carbon dioxide or methane at the moment). As such, it would be better described as a “less negative” technology rather than “positive” in the context of climate change.

There are more serious aspects as well – the residual risks in the case of unplanned events (accidents and incidents). For example, the field of “risk assessment” which is now a standard subcomponent of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, had its origin in the nuclear energy industry – where certain possible events, of low probability, could have extremely severe consequences. It was only in subsequent years that it was expanded, with the use of concepts from probabilistic risk analysis extended to characterize more general environmental impacts whose occurrence and nature are not easy to predict with any degree of accuracy.

The point being that regardless of how many safeguards and quality control features are implemented in the operation of nuclear facilities, the consequences of a mishap (however improbable) are almost definitely more serious than in the case of most other types of power plants. From that perspective I disagree with Moore; I was under the impression that the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 had a much more significant role in the general aversion towards nuclear energy than any “Carter era legislation” (but I suppose he would be in a better position to remember these things than myself).

[Karl]

One additional point:

Originally Posted by Karl

Environmental groups advocate investing in wind and solar power as an alternative to nuclear power. But Moore dismissed these alternatives as unreliable and expensive. “Germany has spent billions on wind farms, without replacing a single coal-fired power station,” he said.

While it is very true that (at the moment), renewable/sustainable energy sources like solar and wind are expensive and unreliable compared to non-renewable (oil, gas, coal, uranium, etc) is that the only criteria on which they are to be judged?

While research by various institutions and agencies is ongoing, to address the “efficiency” limitations of solar energy (especially photovoltaics), are the renewable sources required to be as efficient to be seen as competitive (or desirable), as targets towards the goal of reducing/eliminating our dependence on geological sources (e.g., fossil fuels and radioactive materials)?

Solar and wind energy are also obviously “unreliable”, compared to the conventional sources – wind turbines require a certain wind speed to be effective / functional, and solar devices in particular can obviously be used only during the day-time for power conversion (and would clearly be less effective on overcast days, etc). So, at least at the present time, these “carbon neutral” or “climate friendly” or “ecologically compatible” options cannot fully replace the more environmentally damaging energy sources / infrastructure. But is that the only intention of investing in them? Further, does that mean that they should be abandoned in favour of nuclear energy?

All things considered, I was under the impression that “sustainability” had three main aspects for consideration:

• Economic
• Social
• Ecological

From this perspective, in selecting a method to replace or reduce dependence on fossil fuels, the technology should ideally be economically viable and socially acceptable, while avoiding environmental degradation. Strangely enough, however, Moore’s endorsement of nuclear energy and derisiveness towards solar and wind energy, seems to be premised upon economic factors only (depending furthermore on which definition of “economics” is used). While wind and solar energy may be less efficient, of lower cost-effectiveness and unreliable (intermittent output), in relation to nuclear energy (considering our immediate concerns about mitigating climate change), can it seriously be said, all things considered, that it is superior from the perspective of being socially acceptable or environmentally benign?

[Karl]

Radioactive leak sparks Spanish debate on nuclear power

The Earth Times – 25 April 2008

For advocates of nuclear power in Spain, the recently discovered incident at the Asco I nuclear plant in the country's north-east could scarcely have come at a worse time. Just as global warming and rising oil prices were making nuclear energy seem more acceptable, the radioactive leak at the plant near the coastal city of Tarragona sparked new safety concerns.

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's anti-nuclear government had appeared to be swimming against the tide in the West, where countries such as Britain, Finland and the United States are increasingly relying on nuclear power. But the Spanish government seemed to be growing less critical of nuclear energy, when it came out that Asco I had downplayed the importance of a leak that occurred during refuelling in November. Not only was the leak over 100 times more serious than the 1,000 megawatt plant had reported, but radioactive particles have now been found as far as 60 kilometres outside the plant.

Spain currently gets about a fifth of its energy from nuclear power, as opposed to 10 per cent from wind energy.

Read Full Report: Radioactive leak sparks Spanish debate on nuclear power - Feature : Energy Environment

[rc white]

It seems to me the point about nuclear electricity is that the hardest substance to get to make nuclear weapons, Plutonium, is a bye product of it.
We do have a non proliferation treaty it is true, but this is of little to no practical use.
It seems that the United states in perfectly sanguine about a unstable failed state like Pakistan having nuclear weapons, and has not had much to say about the fact that it has supplied most of the rest of the Islamic world with the know how to make them, all they need now is the Plutonium.
There is no doubt that most European countries do not want nuclear weapons and have indeed been guaranteed shelter under the American "nuclear umbrella" since practically WWII., but with the world the way it is there is no certainty that this will continue, or that American assurances can be trusted anyway.
Given this scenario if someone in a country near you goes nuclear and thus by definition then acquires a source of Plutonium, then it is prudent for you to follow suit, just in case.
Practical international diplomacy does not allow you to say this of course, you claim its due to a responsible policy of covering all bases in pursuit of energy security, but everybody else knows that this is only partially true.
The tremendous leverage obtained by North Korea not to mention Israel, by their possession of nuclear weapons is not a thing any politician would give up lightly, and the current concerns over energy are a very convenient ploy to join the club by adopting innocent seeming motives, like covering all possibilities in your pursuit of energy security.
The fact that just about every body talking about and instigating nuclear power has guided missiles, and the know how to quickly make practical nuclear warheads for them given the Plutonium, is far from just incidental.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by rc white

It seems that the United states in perfectly sanguine about a unstable failed state like Pakistan having nuclear weapons, and has not had much to say about the fact that it has supplied most of the rest of the Islamic world with the know how to make them, all they need now is the Plutonium.
...

Given this scenario if someone in a country near you goes nuclear and thus by definition then acquires a source of Plutonium, then it is prudent for you to follow suit, just in case.

UAE signs Nuclear Energy Pact with US

Hindustan Times – April 22, 2008

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the US have signed an agreement for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, WAM news agency reported on Tuesday. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdulla bin Zayed Al-Nahyan signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on Monday.

"The MoU represents an excellent example of cooperation the UAE hopes to forge with responsible nuclear supplier states in the area of peaceful nuclear energy. There are potential mutual benefits to both parties from deepening cooperation in the development of the UAE's domestic nuclear energy sector," Sheikh Abdulla said after signing the agreement. The minister also welcomed the prospect of negotiating a more extensive bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation to establish the legal basis for trade in significant nuclear commodities between the two countries.

Source: UAE signs nuclear energy pact with US- Hindustan Times

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Karl

“Climate change has made me a strong supporter of nuclear power,” Moore said. “I find it logically inconsistent for people in the environmental movement who say that climate change threatens the very existence of our civilisation and could drive millions of species into extinction, to then oppose one of the most important technologies that could bring about the resolution of this crisis.”

New study questions nuclear power's ability to forestall global warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) —

Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a new study. In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the "eco-efficiency" of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants.

Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel's environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future -- a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

"The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues," the authors say. "These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining."

Source: Questioning Nuclear Power's Ability To Forestall Global Warming

[Karl]

A few videos that raise some interesting points on the environmental costs and benefits of electricity generation using nuclear power:

·France: Nuclear Power: http://www.environmenthub.com/item-comments/149.aspx

·Nuclear versus Renewable: http://www.environmenthub.com/item-comments/86.aspx

·Nuclear power environmental costs: http://www.environmenthub.com/item-comments/148.aspx