America's new coal rush 04 March 04

Mark, you may like to look at this http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44230&messageID=60972#60972 by someone inside the situation who knows his or her onions (real name has to be protected to protect job).

“Buffy’s” conclusion is that clean coal with sequestration is a better option than nuclear.

Some aspects are further explored here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=179&threadID=44248&tstart=15

You may also be aware that there are questions around whether there is enough uranium accessible without excess energy use for extraction. See, for example, http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/, and a clear exposition of this argument by David Fleming in the June edition of Prospect (unfortunately the online version is hidden behind their archive barrier)

(Thanks to Douglas Coker for pointing out this is linked in the discussion mentioned above: “Scroll down to the third post from Richard Lawson and follow the link he provides to http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Nuclear.htm There you’ll find a paper by R Lawson himself with a link to http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/” )

I,m responding to the statement about clean nuclear being part of the solution to our attempt to rid ourselves of our fossil-fuel addiction. An article in the Guardian this week highlighted something which gives cause for concern.

The process of extracting and reprocessing fuel for reactors is extremely carbon intensive. Obviously, the construction of new reactors is also. As the quality of the Uranium fuel extracted for burning degrades, as it must, once again the amounts of carbon expended increases.

I’m not simply opposing nuclear because of it’s legacy of waste, or it’s bad reputation. I have tried to remain objective about this. After all, if James Lovelock can consider it germaine, then who am I to say nay! But can we really afford to commit to a program including nuclear, with the associated travails of waste products, potential terrorist targets and decommisioning problems, when it will probably add to the emissions problem anyway?

I have noticed for decades how nuclear energy seems to be politicized in that quite often people take “sides” and only report the argument favorable to their chosen “side” of the issue. It is so bad that I cannot even form an objective opinion because the information presented is always skewed since most of the available information comes from biased sources to begin with.

I spend less than one percent of my personal time on nuclear aspects because if we focused on energy efficiency more, we would build less centralized power plants of any type.

With respect to the climate focus, I do think nuclear always has to be considered as an option to look at because of its high power density with no greenhouse gases. I think the need for nuclear is enhanced in an underdeveloped area needing high density electrical power. If an area already developed could reduce electrical demand or augment their current power with renewable energy, then I would favor that. I tend to oppose building a coal power plant over a nuclear one if only those two options existed unless the carbon from the coal plant could be sequestered.

With regard to the radioactive materials associated with nuclear energy, let us remember that they are not directly entered into the environment like the emissions of a coal power plant and those emissions include mercury and sulfates along with carbon. Nuclear waste is always contained unless an accident happens. The assessment of containment costs is a relevant issue in that light.

On the carbon aspects, I did read on a “pro nuclear site” once that this has been overstated in that the carbon emissions from secondary operations is way overstated and at face value I would have to agree that the net carbon emissions would have to be far less than that of a coal power plant by contrast. In other words, the carbon contribution from nuclear may be irrelevant to the net reduction in carbon emissions.

Unless comparative numbers are provided, any mention of the carbon emissions from secondary processes associated with nuclear power has to be viewed with some skepticism. That analysis must compare the total net carbon per kilowatt of power generated between a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant so there is total clarity. Power from methane power plants sources are not a fair comparison. Both coal and nuclear energy are what utilities use to create their base power while natural gas is used more for supplemental power during peak loads to add to the base load from either coal or nuclear.

Existing nuclear plants do represent a tremendous capital investment plus all the emissions and energy used to construct those power plants. Just like any mining operation and the transportation of any fuel would require energy and produce emissions, these existing plants may prove to be useful in getting as much energy from them as possible before they have to be taken off-line.

I do think the current nuclear plants should be kept going as long as possible since they provide a need and there may not be an available substitute which would not produce carbon emissions if these power plants were taken off line. France is a country that is heavily dependent on nuclear and BTW has one of the lowest carbon emission levels of any industrialized country. France is better than the UK, Germany, and Japan on per capita emissions and almost everyone is better than the USA (except Australia and Canada). This does not mean that a country cannot have low emissions without nuclear. Sweden and Germany are making progress and are reducing their use of nuclear energy and reducing emissions as well.

In the end analysis, whatever we do must prevent sea level rise or a runaway effect or we all loose. The problems associated with that out-trump all other concerns and that includes nuclear. The total solution to the climate problem will involve many aspects including economic growth not coupled to population increases, reduced energy use, renewable energy, decentralized power production, and better land-use practices.

And, after my comments, I will now go back to work on energy efficiency improvements and how we can conserve energy better which is what I spend most of my time on anyway. It is possible not to “need” nuclear energy in the solution mix but whatever works in the end is what we must do. If we could have a level playing field on the economics, I think the best mix of solutions will manifest.

I hope my comments have been helpful.

All the best,

Dan

There are at least one more project testing wave energy like this in Denmark:

http://www.wavedragon.net/

Ole Støversen Denmark

There is a project on tidal wave energy in Norway as well. In the very north of Norway, Hammerfest: http://www.e-tidevannsenergi.com/ Great pictures! :)

So it’s not just in theory these underwater “windmills” can be an energy solution, even though it might be a while until it’s commercial competetive.

Here is another side to the argument that I read today:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html