Following on from my last blog on climate change fallacies and nuclear power, I had some emails thanking me and asking me some more questions. I am not an expert in this area but a recent article by Mark Diesendorf, where I am sourcing these fallacies from, can give you more details. So fallacy 6 is about spent fuel from nuclear reactors…
Fallacy 6: Spent fuel does not contribute to weapons
That is, spent fuel from nuclear power stations cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.
Response: Big Mark D (or MD) begins by noting that this is one of the most frequent falsities uttered by the nuclear industry and its supporters. This fallacy has been refuted by many experts including Dr Theodore Taylor, commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
MD presents the following information: a standard 1000 megawatt nuclear power station produces about 200 kilograms of “reactor-grade plutonium annually”. This, according to MD, is enough for 20 nuclear bombs. They reactor grade quality is below weapons-grade, it still has an amazing amount of destructive capability.
Attached to this fallacy is that nuclear power stations based on thorium rather than uranium cannot produce a nuclear explosion. MD says, ‘not true’: to use thorium as a fuel it must first be converted to uranium-233 which is ‘fissile’. This means that it can undergo nuclear fission and can be used as either a fuel or as an explosive in a bomb!
MD also reminds us that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked: each nation with power ambitions moves pretty quickly into establishing bombs… the more nuclear stations the more likely we are to see more nuclear weapons - something that no-one should be comfortable with.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Confronting climate change deniers 5: Nuclear is part of the answer
Given the recent election of Tony Abbott as Opposition leader who supports a nuclear solution to global warming (and who has been supported as such by some sections of the media), it is time to consider the nuclear equation. As such, I turn back to Mark Diesendorf’s book, Climate Action, to reflect on this. As the title of this blog suggests, this is the fifth fallacy that those concerned about climate change must be prepared to confront.
Response: In his book, Mark Diesendorf (MD) begins by noting that high grade uranium ore will, at current rates of use, only last several more decades. When this is all used up, we will have to revert to low grade ore.
What does this mean? Well, according to MD, for every 1 kilogram of yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate), some ten tonnes of rock will need to be mined – a process which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels. The carbon emissions of this process will be significant. MD argues that the result would be no different to running a gas-fired power station.
Some pro-nuclear commentators have argued that this can be overcome using ‘fast breeder reactors’: which have the potential to increase the original uranium fuel by a factor of 50 to 1. In response, MD notes that the world’s last large such reactor was in France and only functioned for 276 days in its 10 years of operation, and was closed in 1998 after countless problems and cost eu9 million. Only one other such reactor is currently operating and is also unreliable. Even if this was not a problem and such reactors were reliable, they require large-scale processing of spent fuel which is intensely radioactive – which involves serious hazards and costs.
There are also economic reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. MD also explains that three commercial reactors have been built in the USA, but all have failed to be economically viable and been closed.
Then there is the waste issue. Overall, MD notes that while there are a handful of non-military plants operating successfully, there is only a small fraction of plutonium produced globally in nuclear power stations is being ‘recycled’: the rest is unseparated in high-level waste and stored temporarily next to the stations that produced it. How temporary: in some cases temporary has meant 50 years!
Another limitation of the nuclear option is the long planning and construction time – especially for new entrants into this industry. In Australia, MD notes, it would 15 years to get one up and running even if there was no public opposition (which is unlikely). Further, such dangerous technologies should never be rushed or things can easily go wrong (as we have seen various spills in Australian mines and English power plants).
Even in the UK, which produces about 19 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, there have been constant problems and a need to change the type of station being built: a process that has meant construction times have been long and the costs always much higher than predicted. A new station being built in Finland is experiencing similar problems: by December 2008 is two years behind schedule and its costs had escalated by about eu1.5 billion.
MD concludes that based on current technology, nuclear power is neither a short-term nor long-term solution to global warming. The so-called Generation 4 plants are at least 30 years away: if they ever arrive. In other words, nuclear power is a distraction from genuine solutions to global warming.
If you want more information on this issue, check out the article by Prof. Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Response: In his book, Mark Diesendorf (MD) begins by noting that high grade uranium ore will, at current rates of use, only last several more decades. When this is all used up, we will have to revert to low grade ore.
What does this mean? Well, according to MD, for every 1 kilogram of yellowcake (a type of uranium concentrate), some ten tonnes of rock will need to be mined – a process which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels. The carbon emissions of this process will be significant. MD argues that the result would be no different to running a gas-fired power station.
Some pro-nuclear commentators have argued that this can be overcome using ‘fast breeder reactors’: which have the potential to increase the original uranium fuel by a factor of 50 to 1. In response, MD notes that the world’s last large such reactor was in France and only functioned for 276 days in its 10 years of operation, and was closed in 1998 after countless problems and cost eu9 million. Only one other such reactor is currently operating and is also unreliable. Even if this was not a problem and such reactors were reliable, they require large-scale processing of spent fuel which is intensely radioactive – which involves serious hazards and costs.
There are also economic reasons why nuclear power is not the answer. MD also explains that three commercial reactors have been built in the USA, but all have failed to be economically viable and been closed.
Then there is the waste issue. Overall, MD notes that while there are a handful of non-military plants operating successfully, there is only a small fraction of plutonium produced globally in nuclear power stations is being ‘recycled’: the rest is unseparated in high-level waste and stored temporarily next to the stations that produced it. How temporary: in some cases temporary has meant 50 years!
Another limitation of the nuclear option is the long planning and construction time – especially for new entrants into this industry. In Australia, MD notes, it would 15 years to get one up and running even if there was no public opposition (which is unlikely). Further, such dangerous technologies should never be rushed or things can easily go wrong (as we have seen various spills in Australian mines and English power plants).
Even in the UK, which produces about 19 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, there have been constant problems and a need to change the type of station being built: a process that has meant construction times have been long and the costs always much higher than predicted. A new station being built in Finland is experiencing similar problems: by December 2008 is two years behind schedule and its costs had escalated by about eu1.5 billion.
MD concludes that based on current technology, nuclear power is neither a short-term nor long-term solution to global warming. The so-called Generation 4 plants are at least 30 years away: if they ever arrive. In other words, nuclear power is a distraction from genuine solutions to global warming.
If you want more information on this issue, check out the article by Prof. Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)