Group items tagged

There are many terrific reasons to favor the rapid development of nuclear fission technology.

It is a reliable and affordable alternative to hydrocarbon combustionIt is a technology that can use less material per unit energy output than any other power sourceIt is a technology where much of the cost comes in the form of paying decent salaries to a large number of human beingsIt is a technology where wealth distribution is not dependent on the accident of geology or the force of arms in controlling key production areasIt is an energy production technology where the waste materials are so small in volume that they can be isolated from the environmentIt is a technology that is so emission free that it can operate without limitation in a sealed environment – like a submarineIt is an important climate change mitigation too

Our current economy is built on an industrial foundation that removes about 7-10 billion tons of stored hydrocarbons from the earth’s crust every year and then oxidize that extracted material to form heat, water and CO2 – along with some other nasty side products due to various impurities in the hydrocarbons and atmosphere. The 20 billion tons or so of stable CO2 that we dump into the atmosphere is not disappearing – there are some natural removal processes that were in a rough balance before humans started aggressive dumping, but most of the mass of CO2 that we are pumping into the thin layers of atmosphere that surround the Earth is not being absorbed or used.

A fortnight after writing $2.84bn (£1.84bn) off the value of its Fayetteville shale gas business in Arkansas, BHP is poised to reveal on Wednesday that the charge helped push down its profits by a massive 40 per cent – to $14.2bn – in the year to June 30.

The FTSE 100 mining giant was forced into the writedown after a decade-long stampede into the brave new world of US shale gas produced so much of the stuff that its price tumbled to 10-year lows, taking the value of its producers with them.

"The problem is exacerbated because the minerals leasing system in the US obliges lessees to drill fairly quickly or relinquish their drilling rights," he added.

In the money-driven battle over our future energy supply choices, the people who fight nuclear energy have imagination on their side. They can, and often do, invent numerous scary tales about what might happen without the need to actually prove anything.

One of the most powerful weapons in their arsenal is the embedded fantasy that a nuclear reactor accident can lead to catastrophic consequences that cannot be accepted. This myth is doubly hard to dislodge because a large fraction of the nuclear energy professionals have been trained to believe it. When you want to train large numbers of slightly above average people to do their job with great care and attention to detail, it can be useful to exaggerate the potential consequences of a failure to perform. It is also a difficult myth to dislodge because the explanation of why it is impossible requires careful and often lengthy explanations of occasionally complex concepts.

The bottom lines of both Chernobyl and Fukushima tell me that the very worst that can realistically happen to nuclear fission reactors results in acceptable physical consequences when compared to the risk of insufficient power or the risk of using any other reliable source of power. The most negative consequences of both accidents resulted from the way that government leaders responded, both during the crisis stage and during the subsequent recoveries.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years spending an estimated $7 billion on each plant. The $112 billion investment, which includes capacity to become a regional exporter of electricity, will provide one-fifth of the Kingdom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.

dom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.

This past April, the Saudi government announced the development of a nuclear city to train and house the technical workforce that will be needed to achieve these ambitions. It is clear that KSA’s plans for spending its sovereign wealth fund will be mostly focused on the home front. At the same time, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States , Prince Turki al-Faisal (served 2005-2006), has warned that a regional nuclear arms race could start if Iran does not curb its nuclear efforts. He told the Wall Street Journal on July 20, “It is in our interest that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, for their doing so would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies that could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences.”

The calls these days for a technological “energy revolution” are widespread. But how do you spark breakthroughs when the natural bias of businesses, investors and governments is toward the here and now? In governance, politics creates a bias toward the short term. This is why bridges sometimes fall down for lack of maintenance. That’s also why it’s so hard to sustain public investment in the research and intellectual infrastructure required to make progress on the frontiers of chemistry, biology and physics, even though it is this kind of work that could produce leaps in how we harvest, harness, store and move energy. (This is why I asked, “Are Chemists and Engineers on the Green Jobs List?” back in 2008.)

To get the idea, you only have to look at the sputtering state of President Obama’s mostly unfunded innovation hubs, or look once again at the energy sliver in the graph showing America’s half-century history of public investment in basic scientific research. (There’s not much difference in research patterns in most other industrialized countries.) You can also look at the first Quadrennial Technology Review produced by the Department of Energy (summarized by Climate Progress earlier this week). The review was conducted after the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology wisely recommended regular reviews of this sort as part of its prescription for accelerating change in energy technologies.

This excerpt from the new review articulates the tension pretty transparently for a government report: There is a tension between supporting work that industry doesn’t— which biases the department’s portfolio toward the long term—and the urgency of the nation’s energy challenges. The appropriate balance requires the department to focus on accelerating innovation relevant to today’s energy technologies, since such evolutionary advances are more likely to have near- to mid-term impact on the nation’s challenges. We found that too much effort in the department is devoted to research on technologies that are multiple generations away from practical use at the expense of analyses, modeling and simulation, or other highly relevant fundamental engineering research activities that could influence the private sector in the nearer term.

I have just spent a pleasant hour perusing a fascinating site called Decarbonise SA (where SA = South Australia). Ben Heard, an Australian who operates a consultancy named ThinkClimate Consulting is the force behind the site. He is a man on a mission – to move South Australia’s electric power system to zero carbon dioxide emissions as quickly as possible.

Ben Heard, an Australian who operates a consultancy named ThinkClimate Consulting is the force behind the site. He is a man on a mission – to move South Australia’s electric power system to zero carbon dioxide emissions as quickly as possible

Like a growing number of thinking people who are deeply concerned by the realization that business as usual in our energy supply system is putting future generations at grave risk of a greatly changed environment, Ben evaluated all of the possible actions that might avert danger, including taking the time to reevaluate why he was reflexively opposed to nuclear energy. Though his story is told in a completely different manner than the way that Gwyneth Cravens described her own journey from antinuclear activist to pronuclear advocate in Power to Save the World, the journey of discovery was similar.

Radioactive Wolves, the first episode of the 30th season of PBS’s Nature, documents current conditions in the area that was forcibly evacuated following the uncontrolled radioactive material releases caused when the operators at the Chernobyl nuclear power station conducted a poorly planned experiment and blew up their power plant.In the absence of human beings, the remaining creatures seem to be doing just fine. I believe that is because it is hard to teach animals to be afraid of radiation; they do not watch many scary movies or news programs featuring breathless commentators interviewing publicity seeking “experts” whose main claim to fame is a lack of actual nuclear plant operating experience. Even long-lived creatures like catfish and eagles show few signs that they are constantly eating contaminated food from an area that has been officially declared to be unfit for habitation.

By the end of the article, I was more than a little suspicious that the politically appointed person driving the actions actually wanted to damage the plant. At the time I could not understand why anyone would do such a thing. That was before I realize how financially rewarding it can be for the establishment hydrocarbon industry to put nuclear energy into a negative light and before I understood just how important selling oil and gas to Europe was to the Soviet Union and how important that activity remains for Russia.I have read a few articles recently about efforts in Belarus to resettle parts of the evacuated areas, but information about the progress of those efforts is difficult to find. In the post Fukushima world, it is important to learn as much as we can about the measured long-term effect of radioactive materials released into the environment. Reactor accidents are events worth avoiding, but it is becoming more evident that the actual results are within the limits of the risk that is routinely accepted in many other industries.If that is true, more people should become comfortable with the prospects of using nuclear energy to benefit mankind and to make life more comfortable and prosperous for us all. The reality seems to be that nuclear accidents are not only rare events, but the consequences that result from a rare, but possible, failure are acceptable.

It should be difficult for a thinking person to watch this show without asking some of the following questions: If radiation is so dangerous, why doesn’t it seem to affect other mammals? If radiation is so dangerous, why do the plants and animals look so normal and healthy? Is there any logical reason to be more fearful of radiation than other risks? If radiation is not as dangerous as some people claim, why were so many people forced to leave their homes and livelihoods? Who benefits by working so hard to make people afraid of radiation and nuclear energy? A long time ago, I read a lengthy technical article that provided the details of the events leading up to the explosion. It was difficult to imagine how any trained operator could keep moving down the path that was taken without calling a halt to the evolution to ask hard questions and demand adequate responses.