What's green about nuclear power? Well, it's cheaper, irradiates the planet less than coal and oil, and is less harmful to the environment than hydro, notes commentator and nuclear expert Joseph Neil.
The terms “green” and “nuclear” don't sit well together. It's commonly – but quite wrongly – assumed that they're at opposite ends of the spectrum of environmental correctness. This is understandable; what can possibly be “green” about a huge repository of highly volatile radioactive material boiling away under pressure in a giant steam kettle?
Well, for two thousand years or more, we have mined the earth ferociously, polluting our backyard with toxic slurry and destroying surrounding agricultural land. We have been doing the same with coal fired power plants for nearly two hundred years, and we have been spraying large quantities of oil across the planet for well over one hundred years.
We haven’t really done very much to aggressively control either of these industries, yet it's arguable that with nuclear power, we have gone too far the other way and indulged in emotional and irrational fears based almost exclusively in fact on one or two isolated incidents that have had far less impact on the environment than major oil spills or a normally functioning coal plant (see below).
Instead of emotional reactions, we need to take a considered look at verifiable facts of nuclear power production over a longer time period and rationally compare the risks and benefits of this technology against others used to produce the power we need, including the risk and impact and of potential future Chernobyl-like incidents in the equation.
In other words, let's be brave, not craven, in our assessment of nuclear power.
Two basic nuclear reactions: fusion, and fission.
Fusion, to date, has proven deceptively disappointing. Creating the fusion process requires more energy than the process produces, and, as important, there is no simple way to capture that energy for future use. There have been reported breakthroughs in this domain for thirty years, including the infamous cold fusion and perhaps it will eventually happen. “Eventually” here probably means, well, a very, very long time.
Nuclear fission works. Fission reactors are usually referred to by the technology used in the coolant/pressure combination: those most commonly deployed today are light water (LWR), pressurized heavy water (PWR), boiling water (BWR), and, in Europe and Japan, liquid metal fast breeder (LMFBR). Soviet-designed graphite gas reactors (RBMK) understandably lost favor after Chernobyl. (Engineers had warned that the RBMK reactor design introduced critical instabilities but were ignored. The incident probably served more to confirm engineering diagnoses than give evidence why the world should avoid nuclear power.)
Nuclear plants do not elevate background radiation.
The issue of radiation is an emotional subject immediately raised whenever nuclear power is discussed. Yet it's a banal fact that U.S. residents are exposed on average to 0.36 rem per year of naturally occurring radiation from cosmic rays, naturally occurring radioactive elements such as radon-222, solar radiation, and… from each other.
The measurable radiation release from a normally operating nuclear power plant is indistinguishable from this natural background level. In other words, if you wanted to find a nuclear power plant using a Geiger counter, you probably couldn't. This is a function of the stringent controls the industry puts in place to contain and control any emission, however feeble.
On the other hand, we tolerate and even subsidize many industries that have a much higher level of annual radiation emission, including mining, steel manufacturing, chip manufacturing, oil production, and both gas and coal fired power plants. Of course, the poor operation of a nuclear plant will still have nasty consequences, but this is also true, and historically much more common, for poorly operated coal plants or oil refineries.
There have been several major refinery explosions in the past decade in the USA alone, with many more deaths than the 50 or so verifiable deaths directly attributed to Chernobyl. Oil incidents have given rise to much more horrendous pollution and loss of wildlife.
... continued on page two.
delicious
digg
hugg
print
reprint
Regarding "Nuclear power is particularly green energy: get used to it" (2007-01-15), there really is no need for anyone to build new nuclear power plants in the US or Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salt or other substance so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A portion of the Mojave desert would be sufficient to meet the entire current US demand for electricity.
In the recent 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe. The TRANS-CSP report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .