Edenbee: THE UNCLEAR NUCLEAR DEBATE

The group for all Edenbees.

Busybee wrote 6 months ago

Given that nuclear is back in the news, are you pro or anti nuclear? and what are your reasons?
james replied 6 months ago

Like fossil fuels, nuclear is another toxic non-renewable centralised energy source. If we want to perpetuate a centralised high energy-dependent high waste society then it's the obvious choice.

What impresses me most is the skillful political and media manipulation of the issue. If the same effort was applied to promoting sustainable solutions then saving the world would be a snap.
mryap replied 6 months ago

I against nuclear. Have technology find out a way to dispose off the radioactive material without radiation fallout? I have my doubt.

Given some country's track record in getting thing work (ahem Terminal 5 fiasco), I shudder the thought of going nuclear.
Busybee replied 6 months ago

As the moderator of this group I would like people to think outside of the box in relation to the nuclear debate and remove themselves from their position of 'anti' or 'against' and seek clear and (if its possible) detached debate.
VMeldrew replied 5 months ago

With everything we produce we should ask ourselves: Do I mind to have this factory facility in my back yard? Do I mind to live near a radio active Power Plant with a radioactive storage facility?
Do we as a nation want to be more dependable on foreign energy imports?
I am trying to think outside the box here…. Anything positive about Nuclear Power….?
Less CO2!
But what about the mining, enriching, facilitating, transporting and storing of Uranium.
Are the total CO2 savings large enough to outweigh the drawbacks of Nuclear Power?
Oisín replied 5 months ago

The total CO2 savings of nuclear are very substantial. I believe they outweigh the drawbacks of nuclear, particularly if we want to continue to use energy without destroying the planet. Many scientififc studies, including the British Energy Technology Support Unit found that nuclear is the cleanest per unit of electricity produced over its life cycle, taking into account mining, processing and transport. The figures which have been confirmed by the OECD are:
Generation Type g/kWh
Nuclear 4
wind 8
hydro 8 - 9
Energy crops 17
Geothermal 79
Solar 133
Gas 430
Diesel 772
Oil 828
Coal 955
james replied 5 months ago

The 'life cycle' quoted above seems to omit emissions from cleaning up existing waste stocks (which after decades still seek a secure long-term solution), decommissioning and the global warming potential of large quantities of uranium hexafluoride used in uranium enrichment (up to 10000X worse than CO2). Existing studies also neglect how emissions from mining and processing will rise as the richest ores are used up. Supply interruptions from depletion of non-renewable uranium are anticipated as early as 2020, which is when many planned reactors would begin working. There is a good report on such issues here http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/summary.html.
Oisín replied 5 months ago

James, there's quite a lot in your reply - you've obviously given this some thought! To clear up the emissions I quoted earlier: they do indeed include all life-cycle CO2 emissions from mining through to final storage and decommissioning. These are difficult to quantify exactly due to the different methods of fuel production (centrifuge enrichment is much more efficient than diffusion), what fuel source is used in estimating the emissions from the electricity used, and so on. All reputable studies use either the actual fuel mix or the worst-case scenario and still come up with a range for CO2 that is at least as low as that for Wind, and is lower than all the others.
Some studies do actually estimate the increase in emissions from using low grade ore, and this works out at around 1 extra gram per kWhr, which does not change the overall result.
Regarding waste, it is only now becoming an issue because it is only now that it is ready for storing - up to this it was cooling. The technical solution is to store it in stable geological formations; the political will is only now beginning to be more widely accepted.
Uranium Hexafluoride is indeed much worse than CO2, but the quantities involved are not large in comparison to other electricity production methods.
What reliable source says that Uranium will run out by 2020?
I checked out the Lean Economy report you referred to, but I didn't find it very reliable. I do agree with the final point that there is no single solution to our common problem - we need energy conservation, efficiency and reduction, and all production methods should be considered for their contribution to minimising Climate Change, including renewables.
Busybee replied 5 months ago

Interesting points Oisin, it would be great if we had more people involved in this debate. I suggest we put out an invite to this group to our friends ad contacts, what do you say?
Busybee replied 5 months ago

Here's an interesting and insightful piece http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-nuclear-option.html
james replied 5 months ago

Debates like this are numerous but unfortunately play little part in political decision-making about energy. The public cannot become nuclear and energy issue experts. The nuclear industry and publicly-funded organisations can afford to drown out any concerns with reassuring soundbites and 'reputable' studies which use idealistic assumptions. Serious studies which look for example at the risks from diminishing ore supplies (pages 9-19 of the Lean Economy report above) can be misleadingly reframed in just one line as a question of uranium 'running out'. Uranium hexafluoride waste, which makes up 85% of the output of uranium oxide processing, can be discounted by comparing it to other sources.

Oisin's point about political will gets to the nub of the issue. It is political will which has allowed the nuclear industry to profit without accounting for the energy or funds involved in decommissioning and waste treatments that must last for thousands of years. It is political will which has created a play now pay later economy which is starting to discover the harsh realities of unsustainability. And it is political will that is now offering us the 'solution' of more of the same, to be powered by centralised mega-projects.

How then can we shift political will? We can try to avoid getting stuck in technical arguments that cannot be won against well-funded lobbies. Besides doing what we can locally, we can ask for change to create an economy that pays its way. This would make it possible to prevent problems rather than keep worsening them with yet more technical fixes. It would even make it possible to rescue the economy with sustainable growth and reinvigorated communities. See the climate briefing at http://www.climateneutral.unep.org/cnn_members.aspx?m=195 to see how this is now being promoted internationally by the UN.
Oisín replied 5 months ago

You know; it’s a funny thing, political will. You might think from reading James’ last piece that the political will in Ireland is to go nuclear and to have centralised mega-projects. This is not the case. Firstly, there is a statutory ban on nuclear generation in Ireland. This was introduced with little or no discussion or reference to the people, although I believe it would have passed a referendum at the time, if one had been called on the issue.

Secondly, the political will in Ireland is now firmly on the side of Renewables, and to decentralise generation. To implement the policy, the ESB recently announced a strategy to allow up to 6,000 MW of renewable energy onto the Irish system. Most of this will be Wind, with some Wave, Tidal and Biomass production. We will become a “world-leader in Renewables”. We will also have Smart Networks to allow decentralised generation.

Where was the debate on this? Most people probably think this doesn’t need a debate; it is a great idea – “utilise all the free wind to generate electricity and we can continue to live pretty much as before”. But if they think that free wind equates to free energy, let them think again. The ESB alone is planning to spend €22 billion to harness some of this free energy. This doesn’t include the cost of all the generation equipment or the interconnectors to the UK to accommodate the new system. Nor does it include the cost of maintaining back-up fossil fired generators for when the wind doesn’t blow. But it does include for an extra 5000 km of extra high voltage cabling to hook up the wind farms, most of it along the West coast of Ireland.

Not that I’m against Wind – I believe that we should increase our wind generation capacity from its current 850 MW to 2000 MW. This would be in accordance not only with the Energy White Paper issued in March 2007, but also with the best estimates of our engineers and scientists charged with managing our electricity system. They have serious doubts that the new announcement of 6000 MW is even manageable, let alone cost-effective.

Will these studies also be dismissed as ‘reputable’ because they offer ‘solutions’? They do not deserve to be dismissed, but I expect they will be in order to satisfy another agenda. The world opted for Biofuels in spite of the scientific advice at the time, and this is not working. Scientific advice is that there is an optimum amount of renewables that should be installed – I think we should take heed.

The question remains: As we increase our energy efficiency and reduce our energy use, and as we try to get the most out of Renewables, how do we source the remaining two-thirds of our energy needs if we don’t include some nuclear energy as part of the solution?
SharpSharp replied 4 months ago

I can't see past nuclear. Over 85% of the world's power currently comes from fossil fuels with about 5% coming from nuclear. Large scale hydro chips in with about another 5% as does biomass (think wood burning stoves not bio-fuel). What figure does wind, wave, solar and the other new renewables contribute? Less than 0.2%.
If the world doubled it's nuclear generating capacity to meet 10% of our needs and decommissioned a load of coal power stations it would only bring the fossil fuel percentage to 80%, which you have to recognise is still a massive share.
To generate 5% of the world power from wind would take in the order of 450,000 new wind turbines.
If we are serious about cutting down on our dependence on fossil fuels we have to have nuclear and renewables.
Oisín replied 3 months ago

Sense!
The plan should be:
- Increase efficiency
- Reduce energy use
- Maximise renewables
- Increase Nuclear
- Reduce fossils
- Less carbon output
- More hope.
FashionEvolution replied 3 months ago

Check out a book called 'Voodoo Economics and the Doomed Nuclear Renaissance' by Paul Browne, he is the former enviornment ccorrespondent for The Guardian. You can a summary pdf here:

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/voodoo_economics.html.

It recently launched in conjunction with Friends of the Earth at the Guardian Literary festival at the beginning of June
FashionEvolution replied 3 months ago

Also an economically viable alternative to nuclear that is seeing heavy investment is Concentrated Solar Thermal Power (not to be confused with PV).

For more detailed information see:
http://www.desertec.org/
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/

For introductory report read:

http://www.katharinehamnett.com/Campaigns/Concentrated-Solar-Power/REPORT
Oisín replied 3 months ago

John Brown's Voodoo Economics paper outlines how Britain got it wrong in the past, and particularly concerning Sellafield. There is no need to replicate Britain's errors.
15 of the 27 EU countries, as well as the US, China, and many other countries, currently enjoy the benefits of cheap, low carbon electricity, and many are expanding their nuclear electricity programmes.
Concentrated Solar Power is a renewable that should be supported to show its potential, and then followed through to fully realise that potential.
I note that supporters hope for 100GW of CSP by 2050 at an initial cost of 26c/kWhr. As the EU requirement is currently 800GW, that would still leave a massive electricity shortfall even allowing for local renewables such as wind. The earth does not have the luxury of the 40 years waiting for this hoped-for contribution from CSP.
The gap should be filled with nuclear generation at a much cheaper cost of around 4c/kWhr while developing renewables to their maximum.
Nuclear is not the only solution. And neither are renewables. If we are serious about solving our global problem, we need to take immediate and serious action on both fronts.
We cannot afford to be blinkered into supporting just one side at the exclusion of the other - we need to use all the tools in the box!