Is Fear About Climate Change Causing a Nuclear Renaissance?

[marmar]

from E Magazine, via AlterNet:


Is Fear About Climate Change Causing a Nuclear Renaissance?

By Jim Motavalli, E Magazine. Posted July 9, 2007.



Some prominent environmentalists are urging that we reconsider nuclear power. But they have been met with resistance from many who believe nuclear power never will be a solution to global warming.

Sitting in the belly of the beast -- Dominion's 2,000-megawatt Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford, Connecticut -- the company's chief nuclear officer, Dave Christian, seems an unlikely environmentalist. But he says concern about climate change is what got him involved in the peaceful pursuit of the atom in the first place.

"I started studying climate science in the 1970s after reading a book entitled Technology, Society and Man by Richard C. Dorf," Christian says. "It was a very thoughtful study of the feedback mechanisms that go into global warming."

Dominion is the kind of big power player that has long had an antagonistic relationship with the environmental movement. In addition to Millstone Units 2 and 3 (Unit 1 was shut down in 1998), the $45 billion company operates two nukes in Virginia, owns 7,900 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines, 6,000 miles of electrical transmission lines and 965 billion cubic feet of underground natural gas storage.

The case for Dominion as a friend of the Earth is based on a few simple facts: It generates 45 percent of Connecticut's electricity and 30 percent of Virginia's without taking a huge toll in smokestack-emitted global warming gas.

In fact, there are no smokestacks, because (aside from the occasional release of radioactive material) the only thing nuclear power plants vent is steam. What's more, in contrast to the modest current capacity of wind and solar power, nukes can produce very large amounts of electricity -- enough to counter global warming by taking highly polluting coal-burning plants offline even as electricity demand increases.

Nuclear advocates will be the first to tell you that their U.S. plants avoid the emission of almost 700 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Worldwide, it's two billion metric tons. Given this reality, some prominent environmentalists have signaled a cautious détente with the nuclear power industry. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/55953/

[papau]

1. There is no other next 20 year possibility beyond nuke and conservation - after that

alternate wind solar and bio-energy should replace nukes -

but for the next few years we have no options it seems.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. More relevant question: Would a nuclear renaissance be a good thing?

Nuclear power leaves behind extremely toxic waste material that will remain extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years. This waste must be stored somewhere. During these tens of thousands of years, it must be protected from theft or misuse, as it can still be used to power nuclear weapons and "dirty" bombs. It must be protected from earthquake and other natural disaster. It must not be allowed to seep into the soil or water. It must be protected despite shifts in human population, language and culture.

Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear fuels only switches an immediate problem for a much larger, much more dangerous problem in the future. That future might be in ten thousand years when an earthquake ruptures a storage facility and spread radioactive material over thousands of square miles, it might be in 500 years when language shift makes the warning signs unreadable, it might be in one year when terrorists steal 20 pounds of depleted uranium, enough to make a dozen dirty bombs which they then set off around the United States.

I don't think this would be a good thing.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Now it's "tens of thousands of years"

But scientifically? About 300.

I'd be willing to settle on an even thousand.

We also know where the stuff is stored. We can recycle it to extract more energy from it. We can even "transmute" it and render it un-radioactive.

Note that arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and the other wastes of semiconductor manufacture (solar PV), metallurgy, and combustion technology alike are toxic forever. We currently put very little effort into their containment and control. Nearly all of it is simply dumped.

The amounts of the toxins involved are several orders of magnitude smaller than those emitted by conventional power generation and construction of power plants. The idea that it is a "much larger" problem is fortunately not so. Even a single coal plant puts more radioactive material into the air as a matter of normal operation than the fire at Chernobyl did as a worst-case disaster -- and there are about four times as many coal-fired generators than nuclear reactors. Regardless of the cottage-industry appeal of solar and wind power, PV panels and megawatt aerogenerators require heavy industry to build. I support their development, but they are not nearly ready for large-scale production.

Fear of terrorism -- which we ridicule when Bush, Cheney and Co. invoke it -- is understandable, but it will have to be solved by doing something other than banning nuclear energy. Since it is possible to extract uranium and other radionuclides from seawater, coal, or even dirt, within a few years, anyone will be able to extract their own at a reasonable cost. Uranium is present in dirt at about one part per million. That is well within the range of even simple extraction and enrichment technology. The main obstacle is that it takes a long time without the scale in which an industrial society -- or a tyrant with his own slave state -- can process it.

The genie has been out of the bottle for over 60 years already. It would be far better to have a strong, transparent international system of nuclear energy regulation and accounting. The IAEA is a good foundation on which to build.

Nuclear energy is an excellent prospect for many of our energy needs. Yes, it has significant risks, but all methods of energy production have significant risks. At this point, we would be wise to "fast track" nuclear energy -- and make sure we use the most efficient, safe, and secure technology we have available. Nuclear technology today is good, but it can be made better. Most of the work required has been inhibited by lack of information and political timidity.

Why would a lefty like me support nuclear energy when the Right "owns" it? Because of the very fact that the Right "owns" it -- they can not be trusted with such a powerful source of energy. I only trust people committed to democracy and justice with its political and administrative control.

So should you.

The stupidest thing the political progressives ever did was to cede nuclear technology (indeed, technology in general) to the political control of the Right. It is time we took that back -- especially considering how the Right has driven the world to the brink of disaster.

That's why I support nuclear energy. I hope you at least continue to consider it.

--p!

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. The half-life of U-235 is 700 million years

The half-life for U-238, the most abundant form of uranium, is 4.47 billion years. The most stable isotope of plutonium, Pu-244, has a half life of 80 million years; "weapon-grade" plutonium, Pu-239, has a half-life of 24,100 years. "Half-life" is the time period wherein half of any given quantity of an element has decayed into some other element. It would take several dozen half-lives for a pound of any of these isotopes to decay into a small enough quantity not to pose a radiation or heavy metal threat to life, and even then it would still be risky to be around.

Light water nuclear reactors are powered with "enriched" uranium, rods with about 3% U-235 (which normally occurs in concentrations of about 0.7%.) The chain reaction "burns" most of the U-235, but also turns some of the U-238 into Pu-239. "Breeder" reactors rely on U-238 and thus produce higher concentrations of Pu-239. The plutonium can be extracted but it must be stored; same with the "depleted" uranium, which is almost pure U-238.

The possibility of a spontaneous chain reaction can be reduced (but not statistically eliminated) by decreasing the consentration of the metal by, say, grinding it into a very fine powder and fusing that power with other materials to produce a glass-like rod. That does not, however, reduce the potential toxicity of the material, nor is there any evidence that glassified nuclear waste will remain in that state over the time frame required.

In the United States, there are thousands of TONS of nuclear waste in storage. The Energy Department has stated in a 2006 report (link, page 21) that as of 1989, a site in Fernald, Ohio had 31 million pounds of uranium product on site, 2.5 billion pounds of nuclear waste and 2.75 million cubic feet of contaminated soil and other material, in addition to having contaminated a 223 acre area of the underlying aquifer.

A switch over towards more nuclear reactors would greatly increase the amount of nuclear waste in this country, with a corresponding increase in the hazzard. I do not see that the gains merit the extreme risk that increased nuclear use poses to this planet. A well placed bomb on Fernald or some other nuclear storage facility could make 9/11 look like a church picnic, make Chernyobl look like a minor incident. Make those storage dumps bigger and....

There are better, cleaner, SAFER ways to provide the energy we need, aside from working to end our energy addiction.

[NickB79]

10. The longer the half-life, the less radiological risk a material poses

Thus, I'm not worried about something with a 700 MILLION year half-life, because that indicates it is releasing radiation at a very, very slow rate. The reason depleted uranium dust is dangerous,for example, is that the dust is a heavy metal and inhalation or ingestion can injure or kill in the same way lead poisoning can. The fact that is has a SLIGHT radioactive component is pretty much a moot point.

The materials that will kill you rapidly are also the ones that decay rapidly within a few millenia of formation.

You'll have to clarify this statement though:

"It would take several dozen half-lives for a pound of any of these isotopes to decay into a small enough quantity not to pose a radiation or heavy metal threat to life, and even then it would still be risky to be around."

So, it's not dangerous due to radiation or heavy metal toxicity, so why is it risky? I guess someone could bash you over the head with a chunk of it?

[Dogmudgeon]

12. And how much radiation remains?

How much uranium remains in spent nuclear fuel? Most of it is used up, like any fuel. The material is reacted, which speeds up its decay by an order of a couple of billion. That's the nuclear fission. Spent MOX (mixed uranium oxides) fuel decays to background level in about 300 years. In some places out west, in 300 years the spent MOX will be less radioactive than the surrounding countryside, especially areas with phosphate-rich or shale soils.

Are you aware of how much uranium occurs naturally, and is in the earth right under our feet? Its natural occurrence is one part per million. When that much uranium is found in tap water that has been inside a nuclear reactor, it's considered a nuclear disaster.

Recently a coal truck was thought to have a hidden nuclear "dirty bomb" because it was so terribly radioactive. Then it was discovered that the radiation was generated by the naturally-occurring uranium and plutonium in the coal. The truck was then judged non-radioactive, even though it was emitting the same amount of radiation.

Burning fossil fuel releases a huge amount of uranium and other radioactive products. Each year, a one gigawatt coal plant releases five to thirty tons of uranium (and about three times as much thorium). That's in the same range as the Chernobyl fire released -- only most of the Chernobyl material had a half-life of ten seconds to thirty years. Chernobyl was an accident (and a preventable one, at that), and coal-burning release of radioactive material is considered normal and acceptable. Every anti-nuclear organization I know of accepts it in stride. I often hear that there is no safe exposure to radiation from a reactor or a waste depot -- but all other sources seem to be okay. (Well, maybe not bombs.)

The fact that there's thousands of tons of nuclear waste in storage may sound scary, but imagine if it was released into the environment -- like the nuclear waste from fossil fuel. Or like the arsenic, cadmium, and mercury waste from manufacturing photovoltaic solar cells. The half-lives for arsenic, cadmium, and mercury are ... forever.

And I didn't even mention CO2 yet.

We can account for most of the reactor waste. We can even re-use it, and if necessary, render it un-radioactive by transmutation. All nuclear material can, and should, be recycled. Recycling technology should be further developed, if only to reduce the amount of "dangerous nuclear waste" that people have been convinced to fear. There is no reason to have any part of the nuclear fuel cycle "open" at this point.

A spontaneous chain reaction in nuclear fuel sufficent to cause an explosion is about as likely as a lead fishing weight knocking the Earth off its axis. Why do you even bring it up? But it sounds frightening.

Your reference to the Fernald site in 1989 is just not accurate at all. Are you sure you understood the issue with Fernald? It's a decommissioned nuclear bomb materials processing facility and foundry, not a depot for once-through power generation waste. Most of the waste has been moved to safer storage. It's a military site; it has stored the waste from the Manhattan Project, among other things.

So right there, you chose a much more dramatic -- and misleading -- example than the usual nuclear waste dump.

There are no references to the amount of radiation or the nature of the material at Fernald in 1989. The site, I believe, is now "clean". I did a little looking around and found out that it was an area of low-level (but still unacceptable) contamination, not concentrated waste, when the clean-up took place. It was actually a difficult clean-up project, since a lot of the waste had leaked over the years. It was a "dirty" site in terms of number of releases if not total radiation. It was probably chosen to illustrate the DoE's cleanup procedures. A "well-placed bomb" detonated there today would do just about nothing in terms of radiation -- though I would certainly want the NRC to knock heads over it. For a 200+ acre area of interest, a well-placed MOAB bomb would be required to move enough contaminated soil and water to be a concern. And remember, that's for 1989. The site is now uncontaminated -- and if it isn't, I want heads to roll.

Actually, the DoE, the EPA, and the CDC have knocked heads over the Fernald clean up, a couple of times. I'm glad they did -- one does not trifle with nuclear bomb waste. I also found a CDC summary at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/phase2/backgrou.pdf -- it cites a 1 to 12% increase in predicted lung cancers from all exposures since 1951. Judging from the population of the targeted area (~75 km^2), that's maybe five to fifty cases, not all fatal. I wonder how this compares to living near a coal-burning power plant.

Even five non-fatal lung cancers is a non-trivial risk. It is devastating to the sufferer. But nuclear radiation is far from the only thing that causes cancer; and nuclear power reactor waste is not the only source of pathogenic nuclear material. Either way, it falls short of Chernobyl, with 1600 - 24,000 predicted cancers. (The 24,000 figure may be a bit high, but it comes from John Garwin, whom I trust as an expert on nuclear matters.)

There are literally hundreds of pieces of evidence to support my contention that nuclear energy is far safer than you represent it to be -- and if you've read any of my stuff, you know I am highly critical of all industry PR. There are major risks in any method of power production.

Why, then, are only nuclear risks unacceptable?

I also notice that many anti-nuclearists are very selective in their opposition to nuclear energy. Why the concern over radiation, and not about promiscuously disposed-of poisons that remain poisonous forever?

Why choose only the most severe examples, and try to pass them off as the common ones? You cited a bomb factory as a power plant waste depot -- one that has been cleaned up, no less. Why the need to amplify the threat?

And why the constant appeal to fear, anyway? You cited 9-11 and terrorism. Have you forgotten how the Bush gang has worked 9-11 to win elections, suppress dissent, and trash the Constitution?

My own fear is that a severe energy crisis during a time of rapid climate change would kill a lot of people through the un-dramatic processes of exposure and starvation. You claim "(t)here are better, cleaner, SAFER ways to provide the energy we need, aside from working to end our energy addiction." I do NOT believe we have ANY better methods of energy production that will be ready to go within ten years. Furthermore, I can back up what I say.

Look, it is not my intention to twist your arm until you say "uncle". This is not a game to me, and I do not personalize my disagreements with anti-nuclearists. (I.e., I will not hate you for opposing nuclear energy.) You may have had your beliefs for a long time, and you may believe that your information is as accurate and comprehensive as I believe mine to be. What I would ask you is simply this: make the effort to evaluate nuclear energy in a dispassionate and evidence-based way. Accept that you may have overlooked some important information. Just the amount of (emotional) heat that nuclear issues generate should be the clue that they require a second look.

I often check and double-check myself, constantly wondering if *I* have overlooked anything. And while I have learned of many mistakes and problems in nuclear energy, the risks remain about the same -- uranium is not sugar, but it isn't demon-infested wicked Satanic death elixir, either.

Uranium is a remarkable metal that holds great potential but also demands intelligence and wisdom to use. I hope that you will continue to evaluate it as objectively as is possible.

--p!

[bananas]

3. Congressional Budget Office and Standard and Poor's concluded it's an unwise financial risk

"Both the Congressional Budget Office and the private firm Standard and Poor's concluded that investing in loans to build nuclear power plants is an unwise risk. A host of insurance analysts have come to the same conclusion."

That's the bottom line.

[NNadir]

7. Hoooooo Boy.

This is so rich.

What you don't know...

As usual you have managed to make a claim using an "appeal to authority" fallacy that actually misinterprets what is being said.

By the way, you forgot to add what Al Gore said.

[fed-up]

4. I don't know all of the environmental leaders quoted-but do know Patrick Moore is a corporate whore.

"There's no questioning the credentials of these environmental leaders, but other nuclear cheerleaders are suspect. For instance, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has been widely quoted supporting nukes, but he left Greenpeace many years ago, turned 180 degrees, and has supported many anti-environmental initiatives. He is now the co-chair (with former Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Christine Todd Whitman) of an industry-funded initiative called the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. Not all the newspapers and magazines printing his commentaries have noted that he's on the payroll."



maybe others here know the background of these supposed "environmental leaders"

[losthills]

8. There is no greater environmental issue than this.

A new proliferation of nuclear power plants would be by far the worst legacy we could leave to future generations.

Our generation is stuck with the great dilemma of weaning an entire civilization off of oil addiction. Let's not leave those who follow us with an even worse problem to deal with...

[phantom power]

9. Right. Because *nothing* is worse than splitting atoms.

We had to kill those 6 billion people in order to save them.
:eyes:

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Yeah, Warming Schwarming.

Who gives a fuck about coral, anyway?

:puke:

[losthills]

13. The myth

that nuclear power is the only solution to global warming is completely devoid credibility. It's more of the same medicine that is making us sick.

The energy conglomerates that seek to build these monstrosities are the same ones that are engaged in mountain top removal, and the same ones that rammed Bush and Cheney into office and got us into a losing war in the middle east.

Wake up and smell the radon. They're not doing it to save the coral...

[Systematic Chaos]

14. Where to begin?

You are asserting that "The energy conglomerates that seek to build these monstrosities are the same ones that are engaged in mountain top removal, and the same ones that rammed Bush and Cheney into office and got us into a losing war in the middle east."

Are you saying that they are blowing the tops off of mountains to get at fuel for nuclear reactors, or for coal?

You can't have it both ways.

Are we in Iraq for nuclear fuel or for oil?

You can't have it both ways.

What bleaches coral? The operation of nuclear reactors or the excess of carbon which is spewed into ecosystems, from oil and coal, when then causes the oceans to both heat up and become more acidic?

You can't have it both ways.

[losthills]

15. Well, my friend,

they are having it both ways. Nuclear power is not an alternative to fossil fuels.

If you believe that it is, then you lose both ways. And Cheney and Company win both ways.

Those of us who have our eyes open know that neither option is acceptable. Both of these options pillage the earth and poison our environment. Both options profit the same stockholders. Both options are unsustainable. And both options fuel the war machine.

But there are many other paths to choose.

We could begin phasing out the internal combustion engine right now.

We could begin breaking up "the grid" right now.

We could begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq right now.

We could begin designing a sane and sustainable future right now. If we wanted to.... We have the tools, the knowledge and the ability.

Or, we could march like lemmings over the cliff.

[Nihil]

16. And you, self-appointed "friend of the earth", have gone for your last option.

> ... march like lemmings over the cliff.

By your posts, there is absolutely no question that the above is
the option you prefer as you consistently dismiss all viable
alternatives in favour of "potential" schemes and dreams.

> Those of us who have our eyes open ...
:rofl:

> But there are many other paths to choose.

Really?
There are "many other paths" for large-scale power generation?
Do tell ...

> We could begin phasing out the internal combustion engine right now.

Yep.
I've gone from having two 2000cc cars to one 1500cc hybrid but the
chance of our family eliminating that last vehicle in the near future
is just about zero. Still, if everyone did it ...

> We could begin breaking up "the grid" right now.

That will really help in getting power from the (albeit non-existent)
"clean" power generators to the consuming masses who live more than
a few miles away from the mythical power station.

> We could begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq right now.

Yep. That's what lots of us have been trying to persuade our governments
to do for years. Mind you, it would also have SFA to do with any form
of "clean" power generation as it is all oil-related but thanks for playing.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Interesting.

Do you have any links to show how Toshiba, E.on, Électricité de France, and the Guangdong Nuclear Power Co Ltd rammed Bush and Cheney into office? Thanks.

Edit: Of course, there's always Nuklearna Elektrarna Krško. Tricky characters, those Slovenians.