Poisoning the Well
“During the next 50 years, as Earth’s population expands from 6 billion toward 9 billion, humanity will consume more energy than the combined total used in all previous history.” - World Nuclear Association
Recently there is a renewed interest in nuclear energy because it could partially address both dwindling oil reserves and global warming with fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than fossil fuel. Nuclear power is generated by nuclear fission reactions that generate a huge amount of heat. This heat is turned into kinetic energy by means of a steam turbine and then a generator for electricity production.
However, I do not subscribe to the view that nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy. Sure, current fossil fuelled power plants don’t meet these criteria and needs to be replaced, but replacing them with nuclear plants will only be temporary solution with its own permanent problems as they too require a non-renewable fuel in the form of an ore known as Uranium and produces radioactive nuclear waste that has to be stored “somewhere”. The nuclear chain begins with uranium mining, a polluting activity that devastates large areas. Uranium ore sometimes contains as little as 500 grams recoverable uranium per 1000 kilograms of earth. So, enormous amounts of rock have to be dug up, crushed and chemically processed to extract the uranium. The remaining wastes, which still contain large amounts of radioactivity, remain at the mines. These “tailings” are often stored in a very poor condition, resulting in the contamination of surface- and groundwater [1].
“At the present rate of use, there are 50 years left of low-cost known uranium reserves - however, given that the cost of fuel is a minor cost factor for fission power, more expensive lower-grade sources of uranium could be used in the future “ - Wikipedia on Nuclear power’s fuel resources
Sounds familiar? It seems that we are replacing one problem with another. Even if thorium, which is three times more abundant in Earth’s crust than uranium, is used as an alternative for fission, history has made it quite clear that humankind has a nasty talent for completely devastating any resource that was once abundant.
Then there is the unavoidable problem with waste that a nuclear plant produces and has to be stored “somewhere”. Nuclear power has a unique solid waste problem as it produces spent fuel. Because spent nuclear fuel is radioactive, extra care and forethought need to be taken to facilitate their safe storage.
“The waste from highly radioactive spent fuel needs to be handled with great care and forethought due to the long half-lives of the radioactive isotopes in the waste. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time - after 40 years 99.9% of radiation disappears.” - Wikipedia on Nuclear power’s solid waste
In 1997 spent fuel storage capacity at the reactors was 148,000 tonnes, with 59% of this utilized in the 20 countries which account for most of the world’s nuclear power generation. Away-from-reactor storage capacity was 78,000 tonnes, with 44% utilised. With an addition of about 12,000 tonnes a year some argue that issues regarding storage are not immediate [2]. Not dealing with issues that aren’t immediate, is exactly what got us into our current dilemma with global warming in the first place. Dangerously radioactive nuclear waste is stored in a hole somewhere and forgotten about for decades. At the rate of our civilizations growing energy needs, it makes sense to assume that the amount of spent fuel that is produced will increase dramatically hence affecting the size and amount of irradiated waste dumps deep underground. Cutting down on greenhouse emissions is definitely a step forward to solving global warming, but irradiated groundwater (among other things), thanks to old deteriorated waste dumps, does not sound like a good compromise to me.
It is my belief that by greatly optimizing our energy needs, reducing the waste of it and using Renewable power – like solar, geothermal, wind and biomass – to fill those energy needs are purer, although more challenging, ways to truly achieve green energy. It is our lack of ability to solve problems with more foresight and responsibility that inevitably cause us to become our own greatest problem.
Hear also:
Nuclear Energy - SciFri Podcast - 2006022412
See also:
World Nuclear Association
WISE
Wikipedia:
Power plant
Nuclear power
Nuclear waste
Plutonium
Proliferation
December 21st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
This is pretty scary!! I don’t know what it is called but how about water turbines that they use at dam walls…as the water flows towards the wall they channel it so that it picks up speed/pressure and as it comes down the force turns the turbines which in turn generates electricity?? This should also be a good solution.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:17 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 3:30 am
The problem of energy sources depletion seems to become more and more desperate for mankind. With the current ratio of the world development vs. natural resources consumption it appears that different areas of the planet will be gradually thrown into feudal stage of history if no changes are made in the technological sphere of resource substitution. Of course there are investigations and investments in investigatons for a new panacea, but when will they come into life and how much will it cost us to maintain same level of consumption?
I don’t think either that nuclear power is a good way in the long term. You will need much more space to utilize waste, especially regarding its fission period of over a century. Thanks to Russia (this beautiful country that always helps us with the world problems at its own cost) that agreed to provide a utilization site east of Siberia for 20 bln bucks only, but as far as I heard the most polluted spot on Earth is near Chelyabinsk - exactly where Russians started their biggest nuclear plant back in the Soviet times and now opened this nuclear waste site. In fact, average death age is 30-35 there, mostly from radiation sickness. Though not everything seems to be ok with Russians, but isn’t that a good stop sign for mankind before a safe nuclear solution has been developed?
Speaking of other renewable or non-renewable resources, there seems to be no good examples either. Natural gas: good and cheap enough, but not that easy transportable (only liquid gas can be more or less delivered anywhere without designated pipes). Besides, not many countries possess supplies considerable in the world scale. The only country that managed to create such gas empire was Russia (up to 40% of the world’s operating gas industry), but the world leaders don’t seem to trust Russians that much.
Coal: does not provide efficiency comparable to other sources, the cost very high.
Atomic energy: a corner-stone question. Comparatively low cost, high efficiency, but higher risk. Besides turns onto a political plane - there will always be claims from the Bush’s administration for the world terrorism support and bomb development as soon as any sovereign country starts its own atomic industry (hope Iran does not repeat the destiny of its neighbor).
We will not consider new kinds of resources as there is nothing clear in that area. Most of the researches are at the initial stage only, some cost very much, the others cost very very very much.
Let’s talk about oil - the main thing that created civilization of the 20th century. Though this talk deserves a separate release, let’s do it here.
Why oil? Even nuclear power does not present the same scale of useful characteristics as oil. The world news nowadays often start with oil reports, the most frequent reason for world events is oil, oil seems to be the only category of stock goods that doesn’t comply to the logic price determination.
What makes the modern civilization a civilization? OIL. Oil is the face of the modern civilization. Oil is a car, without a car the civilization would be principally different. Oil is a truck which is the blood for the best retail system in the world. Imagine how poor and slow would be the life of a citizen without a car or a truck – supplies are made using horses, ambulance would be your feet, visiting a friend in Brackenhurst would take hours if you live in Joburg, and years (if ever) if you let’s say live in Moscow or Yaroslavl, or try it from … Awosting in Connecticut.
Oil is also heating and electric power - home generators. Oil is fertilizer and agriculture that America wouldn’t have this “food weapon” without. Roads (asphalt or concrete), plastic components in all consumer goods ranging from houseware to electronics… just think about how much the modern civilization is based upon oil. And what if there was no oil - evolution would go somewhere sideways (like in this new movie “Thunderstorm…”)
According to different sources the world reserves of oil will be enough for another 100-130 years. Here it is (oil amount/consumption ratio in years for each country as of 1995): UK 4.7, Canada 7.5, Norway 8.5, US 9.4, Egypt 12, China 22, Nigeria 30, Mexico 51, Iran 67, Venezuela 69, Saudi Arabia 89, Indonesia 106.5, UAE 124, Kuwait 129.
Some say the Year 2033 will be the point of no return (we used different sources, most of them are never gonna present the whole picture for some reasons, the most reliable might be [here]). Consider the growth of the developing states, the growth of the world population, gradual resources quality loss and prime cost growth - and you can divide the estimated time span by 2 or even 3. Of course, oil use is compensated by newly opened oilfields, but they add only 0,7-0,8% to the world’s cart annually (OPEC members up to 1% but their market share is 45%) which means every year of oil use is equal to only 8-9 months of crisis postpone. When will come this X hour?
When talking about mankind consuming oil, let us distinguish between those who do consume and those who don’t. Out of 6 billion people only 1 billion have a very high level of consumption. E.g., United States consume 25% of the world’s resources while their population hardly exceeds 4%. The level of consumption of an average American is equal to 1400 citizens of India. The dilemma is that America today has only 3 bln tons of strategic oil reserves which is enough for 3 years. Of course, Mexico is “helping” its American friend a lot, but Venezuelan President Ugo Chavez does not seem to be willing to extend his warmest greetings to Uncle Sam. And there’s nobody else in this area to feed Uncle Sam’s needs. (I mean the problem with Iraq was not Saddam or human rights but something else. Maybe.) By 2030 the countries in the Gulf of Persia will possess 90% of the world’s oil. Possess but not control. High time for some minor players to think it over.
The tendency of the modern world is that the developing countries (first of all China and other South-East Asian states) will be increasing their demand along their fast economic growth. How will US behave?
The piece of bread can be very small on the table, and you can stay reasonably hungry sharing it with your friends or you can grab it from table and be full while the others are starving. And what if there is a new candidate to cut a piece from your piece? Will this piece drive to peace? In other words is Chinese National Defense ready to stand up for its rights? This can be a topic for another discussion, that I would like you to initiate, my dear author of this site. And you think the Russians are not gonna help them with their vodka? The world history has proved that Russian vodka has made the world history.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 29th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Dimsy, thank your for you contribution as you highlight quite a few good points:
Countries in need of cash will sell space on their land for nuclear waste at seemingly ridiculous prices (what is the price tag to rent and completely spoil land for a century?). I won’t be surprised at all if African countries, who are mostly Third World, consider this an opportunity to get some extra income or if the First World offers to scratch Third World debt on condition that they can store their waste there. This will obviously have dire environmental consequences. Africa still has vast areas of unspoiled wildlife that will without a doubt be tainted by such agreements.
Since plutonium, which is produced by nuclear reactors, can be refined into a form that is suitable for bomb production there are proliferation concerns. The International Atomic Energy Agency was set up by the UN to help develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In other words they have strict controls on who has and aren’t allowed to have nuclear capabilities. This attempts to prevent warring countries from creating WMD, but countries that has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty are forced to seek out other alternatives to their energy needs or to purchase power from nuclear capable countries. As you said, this can turn out to be a political mine field.
Crude oil is indeed the cornerstone of modern civilisation’s energy diet (oil is to the world what vodka is to the Russians). Indeed it will initiate a serious change to the fabric of civilisation when we run out of it, but even if we have until 2030 we have immediate environmental issues when it is used as fuel that needs to be addressed today. It is therefore imperative that automobiles move over to alternative forms of propulsion in a phased (decreasing fuel oil usage) approach. The industry with perhaps a bleaker future is that of aviation. If there is no crude oil, there is no kerosene or jet fuel. I wonder what alternatives are being researched to propel aeroplanes. What will the world be like with a diminished aviation capacity?
As for who gets the biggest slice of the greasy oil cake? That discussion returns us to the minefield, but let’s just say that a fat kid really loves his cake. In fact, I think all countries need to sweat it out as we consume way more energy than we need to. How much does it cost to produce electronics versus how much energy and resources does producing electronics consume and how long does a particular piece of electronics last? Why do you need to replace your cell phone every two years? Why do you need a 24 hour call centre for insurance? Fast progress comes at a great, sometimes too great, cost.
January 11th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Our world is firmly engrossed within an age of consumption; therefore
depleting energy sources do not affect demand or usage in any way. In fact
demand seems to increase disproportionately to supply, thereby defying known
economic principles.
Another concern is our ever growing need for instant gratification. Super
size me NOW - means that food preparation equipment operates 24 hours a day
to ensure that no more than 60 seconds pass from order to pick up. This is
particularly wasteful, since they are probably only required for 10 hours.
Such examples are prevalent in most industries, organisations, homes,
communities etc.
I feel a bit humbled writing this response today, as this morning I got up,
switched on the TV in the lounge and another in my bedroom to ensure that I
got all the morning news from wherever I was in the house. Took a steaming
hot shower for about 40 minutes, had piping hot coffee, a slice of toast,
switched on all the lights due to it being overcast and drove to work. (not
in the most energy efficient way possible)
Whilst I do not propose a radical reversal in current lifestyle, I believe
that on the individual level some re-focusing is required. However to be
just, the average Joe is unconcerned due to lack of information surrounding
a looming energy crisis and the potential risks that this poses to current
and future generations.
So where then does governmental responsibility lie? Sadly, elections will
not be won based on energy saving policies as these are generally
characterised by some form of restrictions. And where does global
accountability lie for energy guzzling nations like America and the United
Kingdom? The USA strongly lobbies for these resources to be owned, managed
and regulated by the global community. This comes as no surprise due to the
fact that they remain firmly in control of most global bodies. So who
regulates the flip side - who becomes the watchdog of energy consumption and
should restrictions be placed on countries who contradict responsible
consumption.
My view is that whilst it is important to effect changes on the individual
level, there is greater responsibility on government and the global
community to introduce international policies to conserve energy, therefore
ensuring that we do not focus all our energy on exploiting new sources of
energy, but also on conserving the resources we do have.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Permanent problems indeed, well be stuck with less land than we started off with. The only real problem is that altough we can buy more of everything these days there is only so much land and that cannot be recreated once wasted, or contaminated. The face of the earth is only that big.
October 21st, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Afflict, yes exaggerated consumerism and over-development in a finite space (the face of the Earth) creates a lot of problems. It is important that we embrace and respect nature as much as we can in every thing we do or risk becoming the cancer of the planet as a species.