mardi, mars 06, 2007

Good News, and a Question

According to this article, healing the ozone layer, as the Montreal Protocol essentially allowed, is really helping us out with respect to climate change.

Plugging the ozone hole cut global warming too

Global warming would be much worse if the world had not put a halt to the destruction of the ozone hole above Antarctica, say researchers.

They say the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which restricts the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, will cut warming by five or six times more than the Kyoto Protocol.

...

Oh, there's also a new sperm killer out there. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325935.900&feedId=online-news_rss20 . Kills sperm 25 times more effectively than the leading spermicide WITHOUT affecting the vaginal wall. Seems my boys might be in trouble. (I didn't feel like properly sourcing the articles like the others.)

While I'm writing about environmental stuff (with a short interlude into seamen), I was wondering, why are green politics so anti-nuclear? I've never understood this. I've always been environmentally conscious, I try to keep up to date with environmental news, etc, but I never understood why some hippies and environmentalists hate on Nuclear technology (and GMOs, but that's a different discussion).

I can understand why Green's are anti-hydro (Duncan Graham-Rowe, Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed), anti-coal (kind of obvious, so not going to source it), but everything I've read leads me to believe that Nuclear is the future of non-polluting power generation. Granted there is some nuclear waste that results from Nuclear plants — with effects on the environment that we do not fully know or understand — But surely with proper management of this waste (burying it underground) and other precautions, this shouldn't be a big issue.

One of my theories for people hating on it is the few plants that exploded, but to my knowledge, these plants were horribly managed and didn't come close to the standards we hold Canadian, US or European plants to.

Anti-nuclear sentiment is so popular that even the Kyoto Accord has stipulations in it that participating countries cannot count emission reductions that are a result of new Nuclear Power (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher Horner. Available from the Conservative Book Service :) ). Fortunately (in my opinion) this hasn't really discouraged nuclear power that much, Russia is going to build a bunch of new plants (Zeeya Merali, Nuclear power: Return of the atom), and I'm seeing more and more political movement on Nuclear power.

Essentially what I'm asking is, can any one justify to me why exactly, with evidence, environmentalists seem to be Anti-Nuclear.


References

  1. Duncan Graham-Rowe, 26 February 2005, Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed
    NewScientist, Magazine issue 2488
  2. Christopher Horner, 2006, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
  3. Zeeya Merali, 15 September 2006, Nuclear power: Return of the atom
    NewScientist, Magazine issue 2569


Here's something that may hurt my subscription :) Since the article "Nuclear power: Return of the atom" is only available for subscribers, here's the article:

Nuclear power: Return of the atom

  • 15 September 2006
  • Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
  • Zeeya Merali

"It's a phoenix. It was declared dead, but now it's rising from the ashes." That is the dramatic assessment of the state of the nuclear power industry by Charles Goodnight, an energy consultant based in Vienna, Virginia.

This upbeat view was echoed by most members of the World Nuclear Association (WNA) at its symposium in London last week, where many countries outlined plans for a massive expansion of nuclear power. Yet even as they trumpeted the rebirth of the industry, the excitement was tempered by problems posed by an ageing workforce, a possible shortfall in uranium supplies and worries over nuclear proliferation.

Despite such concerns, it is becoming increasingly clear that most countries now view nuclear power as the best way of meeting growing energy requirements while simultaneously combating climate change.

One of the nations spearheading this change is Russia. "We are living through a nuclear renaissance," says Sergei Kirienko, head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency. The country recently announced plans to construct at least 18 new reactors by 2020. The Russian plants will be joined by others in the US, elsewhere in Europe and in Asia (see Chart).

The scale of the Russian project has surprised even those in the industry. The number of proposed plants is almost double that forecast for Russia by the WNA only last year. Russia sees nuclear power as vital for its growth. "These plants are needed to counter the fact that economic growth and electricity consumption in Russia, and worldwide, is accelerating faster than predicted," says Kirienko. Conventional energy-saving measures such as more efficient appliances and transportation will help somewhat, but overall energy use will increase and alternative energy sources will be needed to plug the gap, he says.

The growing demand for energy is not the only argument for nuclear energy. Many countries now see nuclear power as "clean" technology because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide, and hence it is gaining favour as governments struggle to meet their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "There's been a big change in the past 18 months as politicians have realised that climate change is not the fantasy of mad scientists - it's on the doorstep," says Robert Davies, marketing director at Areva, a nuclear energy consultancy based in Paris, France. "Suddenly nuclear power isn't looking like such an evil."

However, Davies says that the biggest factor behind the global push for nuclear energy was last winter's gas crisis, during which Russia cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine. This was a wake-up call to many governments to cut their dependence on foreign oil and gas and invest in independent energy sources. "When Putin turned off the gas, it did more to boost the case for nuclear power than any worthy letter about the advantages of clean fuels. It was better than any advert we could have paid for," says Davies.

"There has been a big change as politicians have realised that climate change is not the fantasy of mad scientists"

That's not to say the push for more nuclear energy will be easy. Many speakers at the symposium expressed frustration and worry that the change in attitude may have come too late. In the UK, for example, planned reactors won't become operational for another decade, says Robert Hawley, the chairman of Berkeley Resources, a uranium exploration company based in Perth, Australia. In the meantime, existing plants are scheduled to close. "Annual energy increases mean that there will inevitably be a dash for gas in the UK," he says. "What a pity this wasn't recognised in the UK government's 2003 Energy Review, rather than in the 2006 Energy Review."

And with more than 30 countries that jointly represent two-thirds of the world's population showing a sudden interest in nuclear power, the worry is that the industry will not be able cope with the new demands on labour and raw material. "For 20 years we've been asked to cut costs - we became a skinny cow. Today we're being told to transform overnight into a fat cow - to get moving and produce more," says Ludovic Devos of Areva. "The real question is what the pace of the renaissance is, and will the industry be able to keep up?"

"When Putin turned off the gas to the Ukraine, it did more for nuclear power than any advert we could have paid for"

One significant issue is whether there will be sufficient uranium to fuel the planned expansion. "There's enough uranium in the ground," says Jeff Combs, president of the Ux Consulting Company based in Roswell, Georgia, which specialises in the nuclear fuel cycle. "But will the demand be made clear quickly enough for us to get it out?"

In the near-term, until about 2030, estimated uranium reserves should be sufficient, provided suppliers are given enough warning to mine it. It currently takes around 10 years to construct an operational mine, after a uranium source has been identified. This is roughly double what it took during the last big push for uranium in the 1970s, when environmental regulations were less strict.

Whatever the concerns over uranium supplies, the biggest problem in the west will be the lack of skilled staff to run the proposed plants. The lull in the nuclear industry over the past two decades has meant that few new recruits have been hired, leaving an ageing workforce in place. "I'm in my early 40s, but when I visit European and American plants, I'm one of the young ones," says Goodnight. When his company, Goodnight Consulting, studied representative plants in the US, they found that almost 50 per cent of the workforce was due to retire in the next few years. "When these baby boomers do retire, we'll be hit by a massive problem all of a sudden," says Goodnight.

Just where the new engineers, chemists, and environmental scientists will come from is a puzzle - especially for the US. "The number of people seeking engineering degrees in the US is not as high as it used to be, and not as high as it needs to be," says Stephen Tritch, president of Westinghouse Electric Company in Monroeville, Pennsylvania.

Even if recruits can be found, the challenge will be for today's senior employees to pass on their expertise before they retire, says Goodnight. Given that there will be fierce competition for experienced staff, Goodnight worries that new plants will tempt skilled employees away from older facilities, leaving them in a vulnerable state. "This will leave existing plants open to another Chernobyl," says Goodnight. "And that will put an end to any nuclear renaissance."

From issue 2569 of New Scientist magazine, 15 September 2006, page 6-7
Power without Paranoia

Nuclear proliferation is one of the major worries associated with the renewed interest in nuclear energy.

"We saw a dramatic situation with the Iranian nuclear problem," said Sergei Kirienko, head of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency, speaking at the World Nuclear Association symposium in London, last week. "Unfortunately, that won't be the last such problem." At the same time, though, he stresses that "it is impossible to ban newly emerging economies from having access to nuclear energy for moral or political reasons".

A case in point is Pakistan, which not so long ago was at the centre of a proliferation ring. According to Zia ul Hasan Siddiqui of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, the country is considering expanding its nuclear programme to satisfy its growing hunger for electricity. However, there are international embargoes on the transfer of nuclear power technology to Pakistan, so China is its only supplier.

To get around worries about proliferation, Siddiqui suggests setting up "nuclear parks" to supply electricity. "It's a very simple idea," he explains. Western suppliers would build and operate the plants, bringing in their own fuel and taking the profits in return for the energy. "We hope that will circumvent their concerns because our only need is energy," says Siddiqui.

Libellés :

posted by Matt @ 11:37 a.m.   0 comments