By Bart King
When I read that Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, sent a letter to Barack Obama asking that-among other things-he renew funding for nuclear research, it got my attention. I have been against the proliferation of nuclear power on the grounds that air and water pollution are bad enough. Radioactive pollution that remains a threat for thousands of years is simply abhorrent. Also, like many other people, I am frightened by nuclear’s unnaturally destructive potential.
However, I admit that my knowledge of what are called "fourth generation" nuclear power plants (NPPs) was exceedingly limited. Thus, when Hansen, whom I respect for his early and sustained warnings on climate change (not to mention his stand against the Bush Administration’s censoring of scientists) said a new class of NPPs could burn nuclear waste as fuel, I decided to get more informed.
Of course, doing so is no easy task, because when an industry is positioning itself for billions of dollars worth of investments and revenues, it’s easy to see how information might get "massaged" to fit a particular end. And on the other side of the fence there are people like myself, who-despite its unlikelihood-wish we could live in a nuclear-free world. Some of these folks, too, might not balance the scales before taking measurements of the situation.
The basics about proposed generation IV systems aren’t difficult to find. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF), chartered in 2001 lays it all out in relatively simple concepts. The 13-nation group, which includes the U.S., Japan, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, agreed that R&D should target systems that meet clean air objectives, minimize nuclear waste, enhance safety and compete financially with other energy sources-all objectives that current generation II and III systems arguably do not meet. GIF also identifies six different types of nuclear reactors for continued development and timelines ranging from 2015 to 2030 and beyond for deployment.
These reactors, most of which are called "fast reactors" or "breeders" are said to be capable of "burning" 99% of uranium used as fuel-compared to current generation reactors which use only 1%, resulting in the massive amounts of radioactive waste that no community wants stockpiled in its backyard (Google Yucca Mountain to open that can of worms).
Hansen said there is enough of this nuclear waste to feed generation IV reactors for two or three centuries, while simultaneously reducing that mountain of radioactive waste. There are other purported benefits of gen IV systems, but this is the one that I find most compelling.
However, a simple Internet search also returns a report, titled "Science or Fiction: Is There a Future for Nuclear," which systematically argues that GIF’s goals and proposed systems are misleading, unrealistic and based on unsuccessful technology. The report was published in November 2007 by the Austrian Institute of Ecology and sponsored by that nation’s Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management. It should be noted that Austria outlawed nuclear power in a 1978 referendum when 50.47% of the electorate voted against its use.
Furthermore, a comprehensive MIT report that argues nuclear should be kept on the table as a non-carbon energy source advises against fast reactors based on cost, the threat of weapons proliferation and fuel cycle safety. The 2003 report, "The Future of Nuclear Power," states that long-term waste reduction is outweighed by these concerns, and thus the U.S. should give priority to the continued development of "once-through" fuel cycle technology-the same technology that currentlyaccounts for 10,000 tons of radioactive waste a year according to the Austrians.
Furthermore, this doesn’t take into account the mining of uranium, a resource that will either be gone in three decades at current usage rates or support a tripling in the number of NPPs, depending on which report you believe. And Uranium extraction itself is said to generate 80% of today’s radioactive waste (by mass; not by radioactivity). To produce one ton of nuclear fuel, thousands of tons of uranium ore must be extracted from the earth leaving behind equal amounts of radioactive tailings. Is this the cost of combating climate change?
I don’t presume to know the answer, though I hope to make greater sense of the issue soon and hope that policy-makers will as well, because I do believe that it is past time to employ every viable method to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. I also trust that Hansen has a broader understanding of global energy demand and climate science than I do, which is why I am reconsidering nuclear. But it still seems like a deal with the devil.
In conclusion, I should point out that generation IV nuclear is #4 on Hansen’s priority list for fighting climate change. The first three I whole-heartedly support: 1) improve energy efficiency, (2 develop and deploy renewable energies, and (3) modernize and expand a ‘smart,’ low-loss electric grid. #5 on his list is developing carbon capture and sequestration, but that’s another editorial altogether.
Please share your thoughts and point me towards any unbiased information on the issue that you feel is worth reading.
++++
Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column is available for syndication.
Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com.
Loading...