When nuclear counts as greentech
Emission-free nuclear power: is it greentech or eviltech? If your only concern is climate change, then perhaps you think large-scale rollout of nuclear technologies is the way to go. But if you’re not willing to solve one environmental problem by creating another — i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions but increasing radioactive nuclear waste and associated proliferation risks — then the suggestion that nuclear is a green or clean technology could be offensive to some.
I’m sympathetic to both sides. My Clean Break column today takes a look at this dilemma, and concludes that some nuclear technologies can count as greentech/cleantech if they aim to minimize the amount of waste that is inevitably going to be created as countries like China rapidly build out their nuclear fleets. I focus my analysis on a technology developed over the years by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which has a process that allows its Candu heavy-water reactors to directly, after some mechanical reprocessing, use spent uranium fuel from light-water reactors. It’s a promising approach, and one can envision Candu reactors built around the world for the purpose of extracting more energy from a spent fuel product typically called “waste.” There’s also the opportunity for AECL’s technology, called DUPIC, to be an integral part of the Bush administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
You can read the column for more details. Curious to know your thoughts.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Your story brings us great news in the nuclear world. I used to be against nukes, but have changed my tune in recent years. I’m now a stong proponent of building nuclear plants as fast as possible, slowing only once coal is dead and renewables start catching up.
Here are a few facts that may be of interest:
* “Coal power plants expose us to 4 times as much radioactivity as a nuclear power plant will over its complete life cycle, from mining to hundreds of thousands of years of waste decay.” (via Karen Street’s blog)
* This nuclear waste from coal is spread throughout our environment – not stored in containable areas.
* China opened 90 GW of new coal power plants in 2006.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
-Matt the Engineer
February 1st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I agree with your comment. I work as an engineer in the hydropower field ( http://www.pietrangeli.it/hydropower.htm) and unfortunately I have to admit that in the near future the only possible way to substantially reduce the greenhouse has emissions cames from the nuclear energy. Basically we should move to more nuclear energy now and in the meanwhile investing to develop relevant alternatives to oil. Antonio
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 am
Nuclear is for procrastinators, who
- can’t or won’t see 7 generations down the time line
- externalize decomissioning cost (being higher than commissioning costs; -conveniently- left out of the cost debate, which would expose it being more expensive than CSP, for example)
- overlook that commissioning takes approx 10-15 yrs, so will not help us mitigating harmful emissions up till then
- overlook that the learning curve has a small angle, since the life cycle (designing-building-commissioning-operation-decommissioning)- takes much time. In a time of fast technological dev’t and high stakes, this is a liability
- don’t take the next step to 100% RES, while we can, earn $$ with that and most importantly: should do, to the extend we are people of who are capable of linking their head with their heart and hands. Doing the right thing, no matter what the cost for our current comfort zone. Morals anyone?
– CSP (and here)
– Solar Towers (and here)
– off shore windparks (floating or fixed)
– power from the community
– connected by HVDC in a RES-electron highway // the Internet
– this whole parade set in motion by a few good men
what we need is sustainable scaleable 100% RES, for all 6,7,8 bln current and future inhabitants with a desire for -increasingly power intensive- creature comforts. Yesterday I saw the movie ‘Erin Brokovich’ and was struck by the strong resemblence with our current situation.
Brings also to mind the quote “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.
She did what she considered the right thing, going out on a limb.
Only this has the potential to set off a system change, where the West can show its better side. Gaining ground for this side, to benefit humanity: democracy, rule of law, quality of life (including material prosperity; our current hang up).
Perhaps a first serious step fwd would be some cultural soul searching.
Why do we in effect hurt what is most dear to us, for lack of courage like Erin?
Are we sissies, hung up on BS or do we dare serving a greater cause, being servant leaders?
Shaw: “This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one: the being a force of nature instead of a feverish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that te world will not devote itself to making you happy.
I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.
I want to thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. Life is no brief candle to me; it is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it to future generations.”
I am tempted to quote Shai Agassi in his blog entry ‘Synthesizing Transformation’, where he quotes Lee Ioccoca: “Lead, follow or get out of the way”
Emil M