Global Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

welsh

Junkmaster
Unless we stop now, we will really doom the lives of our descendants. If we just go on for another 40 or 50 years faffing around, they'll have no chance at all, it'll be back to the Stone Age. There'll be people around still. But civilisation will go."

James Lovelock,

Nuclear power and global warming

Seems there is something of a debate that says essentially, if we want to beat global climate change we need to turn back to nuclear power. Essentially, the argument seems to be that nuclear is clean, and the facilities are often safe.

Alternatively, no other viable means exists to replace global energy needs. That would mean that we would continue to rely on internal combustion engines and other makes carbon gases that lead to the green house effect.

What are your thoughts? Is this a crappy trade off? Should we embrace nuclear power more enthusiastically? Do we have a choice?

From a recent DOE report-
Nuclear fission power reactors represent a potential solution to many aspects of global change possibly induced by inputting of either particulate or carbon or sulfur oxides into the Earth`s atmosphere. Of proven technological feasibility, they presently produce high-grade heat for large-scale electricity generation, space heating and industrial process-energizing around the world, without emitting greenhouse gases or atmospheric particulates; importantly, electricity production costs from the best nuclear plants presently are closely comparable with those of the best fossil-fired plants. However, a substantial number of issues currently stand between nuclear power and widespread substitution for large stationary fossil fuel-fired systems. These include perceptual ones regarding both long-term and acute operational safety, plant decommissioning, fuel reprocessing, radwaste disposal, fissile materials diversion to military purposes and - perhaps most seriously- readily quantifiable concerns regarding long-term fuel supply and total unit electrical energy cost. We sketch a road-map for proceeding from the present situation toward a nuclear power-intensive world, addressing along the way each of the concerns which presently impede widespread nuclear substitution for fossil fuels, particularly for coal in the most populous and rapidly developing portions of the world, e.g., China and India. This`design to societal specifications` approach to large-scale nuclear fission power systems may lead to energy sources meeting essentially all stationary demands for high-temperature heat. Such advanced options offer a human population of ten billion the electricity supply levels currently enjoyed by Americans for 10,000 years. Nuclear power systems tailored to local needs-and-interests and having a common advanced technology base could reduce present-day world-wide C0{sub 2} emissions by two-fold, if universally employed. By application to small mobile demands, a second two-fold reduction might be attained. Even the first such halving of carbon intensivity of stationary-source energy production world-wide might permit continued slow power-demand growth in the highly developed countries and rapid development of the other 80% of the world, both without active governmental suppression of fossil fuel usage - while also stabilizing carbon input-rates into the Earth`s atmosphere. The second two-fold reduction might obviate most global warming concerns

DOE report on global nuclear power

Alternative views say forget it, nuclear power is not an alternative-
nuclear power as not an alternative
Yet nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing climate change, when the entire fuel chain is examined, nuclear power is found to be a producer of greenhouse gases. Adding enough nuclear power to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade or so, and, perhaps most significantly, squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change mitigation policies.

A UNESCO report also examines this question-
nuclear power as solution to global warming
 
Thank you for the topic Welsh. Is it safe? Of course with all the developments since the '50's. Is that true? The Europeans have had lots of generators for the longest time...no problem there. Isnt it the most dangerous pollution on the planet? Sure...yet its made in such small amounts its easily stored and contained.

Ya know what the real problem is? Environmentalists stand harder against the use of nuclear power than the use of oil due to the concentrated strength of nuclear waste. However this ultimately leads to non-nuclear power (oil) being used which, although the pollution is less concentrated, is less harmful to the point where it can just be expelled into the air. I dont know about you, but Id rather have pollution that can kill me stored away safely then mild poisons I cant avoid in my world.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Nuclear power > Fossil fuels. 'nuff said.

Sure Nuclear Power produces a small amount of very bad pollution, but to me this is a good trade off because it's not killing forests and you don't have to breathe it in.
 
According to this article, even hydroelectric power is not completely clean.

Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries' climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.

The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about."

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines.
"Drawdown" regions

Seasonal changes in water depth mean there is a continuous supply of decaying material. In the dry season plants colonise the banks of the reservoir only to be engulfed when the water level rises. For shallow-shelving reservoirs these "drawdown" regions can account for several thousand square kilometres.

In effect man-made reservoirs convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into methane. This is significant because methane's effect on global warming is 21 times stronger than carbon dioxide's.

Claiming that hydro projects are net producers of greenhouse gases is not new (New Scientist print edition, 3 June 2000) but the issue now appears to be climbing up the political agenda. In the next round of IPCC discussions in 2006, the proposed National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme, which calculates each country's carbon budget, will include emissions from artificially flooded regions.

But these guidelines will only take account of the first 10 years of a dam's operation and only include surface emissions. Methane production will go unchecked because climate scientists cannot agree on how significant this is; it will also vary between dams. But if Fearnside gets his way these full emissions would be included.

With the proposed IPCC guidelines, tropical countries that rely heavily on hydroelectricity, such as Brazil, could see their national greenhouse emissions inventories increased by as much as 7% (see map). Colder countries are less affected, he says, because cold conditions will be less favourable for producing greenhouse gases.

Despite a decade of research documenting the carbon emissions from man-made reservoirs, hydroelectric power still has an undeserved reputation for mitigating global warming. "I think it is important these emissions are counted," says Fearnside.
 
Back
Top