Is Opposition To Nuclear Power ‘Irrational’?
“Yes,” says Dr James Martin, Britain’s leading computer scientist and physicist.
This is likely to raise the hackles of groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, especially because Martin himself is a prominent green who has spent much of his large IT and publishing fortune on research into global warming and environmental science, says The Times.
“Though nuclear power generates very low carbon emissions, most green lobby groups are opposed to it because of the problem of disposing of waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years, and the risks of an accident.
“In The Meaning of the 21st Century, his new book published today, he names climate change as the greatest challenge currently facing humanity, and openly endorses nuclear power as part of the solution.
“The ‘fourth-generation’ nuclear plants that could be built now are profoundly different from older designs, with safety features that make meltdown impossible, low waste output, and fuel that is not suitable for bombs, Dr Martin said.
“He is keen on the pebble bed reactor, an experimental South African and Chinese design, in which the fuel is incapable of melting. A prototype has been built in Beijing. ‘With the pebble bed reactor, the fuel is easily disposed of, and it can be divorced absolutely from the bomb industry,’ he said.
“Green critics of nuclear power, he said, are delaying adoption of this technology.”
Nuclear power plants provide about 17 percent of the world’s electricity. Some countries depend more on nuclear power for electricity than others. In France, for instance, about 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In the United States, nuclear power supplies about 15 percent of the electricity overall, but some states get more power from nuclear plants than others. There are more than 400 nuclear power plants around the world, with more than 100 in the United States.To learn how nuclear power works click here.
More on nuclear power plant: “Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951 at the EBR-I experimental station near Arco, Idaho in the United States.
“On June 27, 1954, the world’s first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid started operations at Obninsk, USSR. The world’s first commercial scale power station, Calder Hall in England opened in October 17, 1956.”
11 Responses to “Is Opposition To Nuclear Power ‘Irrational’?”
Well, he’s absolutely right, but Greens and the NIMBY effect still stand in the way of reason.
There are two basic reasons why nuclear energy has to be considered as an alternative. First, it is the first step towards reducing our dependence on oil and other hydrocarbons. When over 70% of the proven reserves are located within the Middle East, a geopolitically unstable region of the globe to say the least, and when the U.S. consumes close to four times the amount of oil it produces, it only makes sense, from a national security perspective, to extricate ourselves as much as possible from the Middle East. Second, two words: global warming.
Yes it is irrational. I remember hearing about these fourth generation reactors a while ago. Given the threat of global warming, there is simply no good reason not to use nuclear energy.
I’m an environmentalist and pragmatic liberal, and I’ve been all for nuclear power since I was in junior high school and was assigned a report on nuclear energy for science class.
Never understimate the power of education to change your views on the world, even if the education makes you oppose your own parents’ opinions at the age of 13 or 14. I wish more people would educate themselves similarly (and not just about nuclear power, either).
Actually the first step towards reducing dependence on foreign oil is to reduce consumption to begin with. Everyday I see enormous energy waste from individuals and commercial spaces. For example, in So. Cal. it is possible to witness stores at our outdoor malls with the air conditioning blasting cold air and the front doors left wide open in the middle of summer. Another common sight is outside lights left on all day at grocery stores, malls, etc. These same people are the ones complaining about high energy costs and demanding that someone do something about it. Perhaps each of us should perform a personal audit on our home energy use and the energy use at our place of work and question wasteful habits. The energy policy should not be motivated by our present demand, just because we want something does not mean we can have it at any cost. Furthermore, the concern with nuclear is not limited to toxic waste and terrorist threats. We must consider the full life cycle of providing energy through Nuclear reaction, which includes raw material sourcing, and centralized distribution. I for one would prefer to have energy solutions that provide as much individual independence as possible. I don’t see putting small scale nuclear reactors in the hands of the public as a feasible option. On the other hand, we are already putting solar panels, wind generators, and small scale hydro in these same hands today. Thanks for the forum, think beyond personal wants towards how each of us can make small sacrifices for a sustainable energy future.
I’m not against nuclear, but don’t understand why we don’t subsidize renewable energy and conservation at a comparable level. In the U.S. direct subsidization of nuclear energy is at a rate ten times that of renewable energy research. A great share also goes to non-carbon neutral alternative energy as well. That says nothing for the billions being spent on the waste disposal process. Nuclear, especially the pebble bed design, should be looked at as one component among many towarsd getting off petroleum and natural gas. Right now however it is getting much more money than the renewable energy systems are.
What about thorium?
Not long ago, an article about Thorium as an alternative fuel for nuclear energy came to my attention. Thorium is radioactive, but is, by itself, sub-critical. That is, put enough Thorium together, and you don’t get a runaway chain-reaction, which you get with enriched uranium and, in the case of weapons, with Plutonium.
Thorium is attractive as an alternative fuel source for two reasons: In order to get a sustained reaction, you need something to start the reaction. Thorium rods with uranium/plutonium in their cores will work. Further, the core substances are spent in the process. So this BURNS UP URANIUM/PLUTONIUM. The spent Thorium fuel does have a long half life, yes. But not as long as Uranium/Plutonium’s: 500 years versus 10,000. It’s a hell of a lot easier to build containers that should last 500 years than ones designed to last 10,000 years.
Another way to start the reactor is to have a small particle accelerator to bombard the thorium with whatever necessary sub-atomic particles. No weapons-grade materials necessary, nor created as a by-product. No chance for runaway reactions. If something goes wrong, the accelerator stops, the particles no longer bombard, the reaction ceases. So here’s something for Iran, for North Korea, and other nations who do need power but not weapons.
According to the article, yes, more research is necessary, etc., etc. to bring about the particle-accelerator version n all, but the Thorium strategy looks a hell of a lot more hopeful for power generation long-term.
Susan Kitchens,
Yes. You are right. Thorium is another alternative I’ve heard kicked around before. Here is the Wikipedia entry on the element. It includes some information about its potential use as a nuclear fuel.
As far as reducing our dependence on Mideast oil, this research appears to be promising.
I don’t necessarily disagree with Dr. Martin, but I admit that as a long-time engineer in the nuclear industry, I usually find any scenario regarding atomic energy’s future to be either overly optimistic or grossly pessimistic. The reason is that neither pundits nor the public have much access to accurate information on this topic. Dr. Martin has a physics degree but I don’t believe he has worked in the energy field. Neither have most anti-nuclear commentators. Even energy company reps (who might offer a dose of the real world) must treat the topic as an opportunity for a few PR sound bites on the off chance they’ll get media coverage.
Would you buy a car based on the opinion of someone who doesn’t drive? For the most part, that is what public discourse on energy matters sounds like to an insider like me.
It is very hard to turn coal or wind or fissioning atoms into electricity on a consistent basis. The real world of energy production – and nuclear power in particular – is much different than what you might think. It is a weird mix of technology, politics and social science.
To make the best decisions about our energy future it would seem like a good idea to first understand our energy present. I can offer a tiny bit of help in that regard with my novel “Rad Decision“. It’s a techno-thriller that also serves as an entertaining lay person’s introduction to the world of nuclear power. The book is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com – and they seem to like it, judging from their comments on the homepage. “Rad Decision” looks at both the good and bad of nuclear – and there’s plenty of both. It can provide the reader with a useful sense of perspective that will be helpful when making and supporting future energy decisions.
I agree about doing more research into new plant designs and would also like to see more research into disposal methods for the waste. I actually think that NIMBY will outweigh radical environmentalism in slowing up the adoption of nuclear energy.
There are seven UK Advanced Gas cooled reactors (AGR’s) in the UK and like the pebble bed reactor they rely on graphite for moderation of the reaction. Unfortunately irradiated graphite is subject to dimensional change and stores energy by the Wigner effect.
The graphite blocks in the AGR’s are disintegrating and it is likely that the reactors will be closed prematurely. The problem is that if the channels in the blocks fill with debris it may not be possible to shut the reactor down as the control rods will be prevented from dropping.
The pebble bed reactor may have to be redesigned to avoid this problem or find another form of moderation.
The fire in Windscale Pile 1 in 1957 was due to an annealing process to relieve the Wigner energy, but the graphite caught fire. The higher working temperature in the AGR’s is supposed to anneal the graphite continously and avoid the problem, but the other unenvisaged problems now mean that the reactors have to be kept under constant scrutiny.
After 50 years Pile 1 is still not decommissioned – a method of releasing the Wigner energy without the graphite catching fire is needed.
PING:
TITLE: Energy Independence and Nuclear Energy
BLOG NAME: Telling Stories
No sooner did I publish my last post I found an op-ed piece that I substantially disagree with. And also from the LA Times! The culprit is Jeremy Rifkin’s piece titled Nuclear Energy: Still a Bad Idea. Rifkin starts the