Greenwash

[ljn]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/13/renewableenergy.energy

Government officials have secretly briefed ministers that Britain has no hope of getting remotely near the new European Union renewable energy target that Tony Blair signed up to in the spring - and have suggested that they find ways of wriggling out of it.

The EU target is 20% renewables by 2020, The UK will struggle to meet 9%.

Other European countries seem to very well. Germany, which hopes to achieve a 27% has developed an economy around green issues- try to build a "green" house and you'll probably be importing knowledge and maaterials from Germany.


Instead of boosting investment in a sector that could save our economy and tha plnet, the government is going to lobby to get Nuclear energy re-classed as a renewable...

 

[biffvernon]

Yep, now that we've done the easy stuff, insulated the loft and changed the light bulbs, it's time to face reality.

 

[NT]

Hardly a surprise about the targets. Nuke though is one of the greenest energy options we have. Whether its renewable is of little significance (in the specific case of nuke).


NT

 

[tom.harrigan]

An interesting recent paper comparing nuclear with renewable energy sources by can be found:

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/biblio.php#1

The paper highlights just how environmentally damaging renewables are!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

An interesting recent paper comparing nuclear with renewable energy sources by can be found:

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/biblio.php#1

The paper highlights just how environmentally damaging renewables are!

well,it says:

Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.

Hmm, yes. But that's not the only consideration. What's the worst that could happen with wind power? the turbine might fall over.

What's the worst that could happen with nuclear power?

You see, it's all very well US business interests sponsoring research that shows that renewables aren't as "good" as (insert more dangerous alternative here), but the conclusion we are expected to draw from that sort of paper is nonsense in terms of combatting pollution or climate change.

 

[Nemesis]

No doubt a flick through on t'intenet will find a paper saying exactly the opposite of course.

I'm sure if you try hard you will find something.

(Mind you, I still think that wind turbines can be environmentally damaging - all that concrete, and not too great in beauty spots...)

 

[tom.harrigan]

Nemesis said:

No doubt a flick through on t'intenet will find a paper saying exactly the opposite of course.


Why don't you find one then?

 

[Nemesis]

Can't be arsed. Leave that to you.

 

[NT]

> http://phe.rockefeller.edu/biblio.php#1

silly hydrogen promoter


> The paper highlights just how environmentally damaging renewables are!

>> Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.

> Hmm, yes. But that's not the only consideration. What's the worst that could happen with wind power? the turbine might fall over.

> What's the worst that could happen with nuclear power?


Chernobyl. But Chernobyl wont happen to any modern nuke design, it was a purposely precarious design that will never be copied in the west. If a total meltdown ever occurs in a future nuke plant, which is not impossible, the containment structure will make a lot of difference.

Chernobyl was a total meltdown with no containment. It cant get any worse. Yet the death toll was a tiny fraction of what had previously been expected from such a scenario.

The real q is not worst case, but what does happen in reality. Nuke and all the other main power sources have been working long enough for us to know and compare death rates. Nuke is not especially high, and if you want to predict the safety of future sensible nukes only, you would take chernobyl out of the picture and see a superb safety record. Chernobyl figures are only taken into account when looking at the safety of non-sensible historic designs as well. AFAIK we have nothing like Chernobyl in the west, and never have had.


NT

 

[NT]

> Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.

Not only is that not the only consideration, but for some apps its not a consideration at all. Whether your solar PV or solar thermal system occupies the whole roof or just a couple of square metres means absolutely nothing in terms of environmental damage - or anything else.


NT

 

[DaveBrigg]

Chernobyl was a total meltdown with no containment. It cant get any worse. Yet the death toll was a tiny fraction of what had previously been expected from such a scenario.

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster. (it may be several generations before we know the full death toll)

you would take chernobyl out of the picture and see a superb safety record.

"From the moment uranium is mined nuclear waste on a massive scale is produced. There is no secure, risk free way to store nuclear waste. No country in the world has a solution for high-level waste that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The least damaging option at this current time is for waste to be stored above ground, in dry storage at the site of origin, but this option also presents major challenges and the threats. "

"Several failures have happened during the construction. Many of them can increase the risk of a severe accident.
• There have been quality problems with all key components of the primary coolant circuit: reactor pressure vessel, pressurizer, steam generators and most recently the coolant pipes. A failure of any of these components can initiate a severe accident.
• Steel liner of reactor containment was manufactured by an incompetent Polish machine yard. Safety standards were violated during construction. The bottom of the liner is wavy and it was damaged during storage. The substandard quality of the liner can lead to higher radioactive releases in case of an accident.
• Concrete base slab of the reactor is more porous than was allowed, making the structure more vulnerable to chemically reactive substances. This can lead to long term deterioration of the reactor containment building. The concrete has a high water content, which could, under certain accident conditions, lead to rapid formation of cracks.
In response to failures to realize the required level of safety, Finnish authorities have in many cases loosened safety requirements. This has happened with the steel liner and the base slab." - (From a report on the most recent Finnish reactors)

"In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001. "
"building enough nuclear power stations 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, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. "

Quotes courtesy of Greenpeace

 

[NT]

Quotes courtesy of Greenpeace

that explains a lot. If I get more time I'll comment in detail on their point of view.


NT

 

[NT]

Chernobyl was a total meltdown with no containment. It cant get any worse. Yet the death toll was a tiny fraction of what had previously been expected from such a scenario.

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster. (it may be several generations before we know the full death toll)

We know that, deaths occur from all forms of large scle power gen. And no, children arent immune. Instead of getting emotional or hysterical, things get much clearer if one simply compares the facts. With Chernobyl we also know a lot of deaths have occurred as a direct result of the authorities actions. And as said before, a risky Chernobyl design doesnt tell us anything about more sensible designs, and no-one will build a Chernobyl again, not even in Russia.

"From the moment uranium is mined nuclear waste on a massive scale is produced. There is no secure, risk free way to store nuclear waste. No country in the world has a solution for high-level waste that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The least damaging option at this current time is for waste to be stored above ground, in dry storage at the site of origin, but this option also presents major challenges and the threats. "

Deep buried vitrified waste is as safe as it gets. But again this doesnt tell us much, what counts are the real figures.

"Several failures have happened during the construction. Many of them can increase the risk of a severe accident.

Not really, nuclear engineers arent that daft. All systems are thoroughly tested before commissioning. Things that need put right occur in all manufacturing felds and power technologies.

• There have been quality problems with all key components of the primary coolant circuit: reactor pressure vessel, pressurizer, steam generators and most recently the coolant pipes. A failure of any of these components can initiate a severe accident.

Again quality problems happen the world around, and are one reason nuclear reactor testing is so thorough, and the safety layers so many. A single faulty component does not initiate a severe accident, au contraire nukes are designed specifically to avoid this scenario. It is consumer grade goods where a single failure leads to system failure, again nuclear engineers are not morons.

• Steel liner of reactor containment was manufactured by an incompetent Polish machine yard. Safety standards were violated during construction. The bottom of the liner is wavy and it was damaged during storage. The substandard quality of the liner can lead to higher radioactive releases in case of an accident.
• Concrete base slab of the reactor is more porous than was allowed, making the structure more vulnerable to chemically reactive substances. This can lead to long term deterioration of the reactor containment building. The concrete has a high water content, which could, under certain accident conditions, lead to rapid formation of cracks.
In response to failures to realize the required level of safety, Finnish authorities have in many cases loosened safety requirements. This has happened with the steel liner and the base slab." - (From a report on the most recent Finnish reactors)

Sometimes in industry delivered goods arent as specified, and when the situation is reexamined it is found that in fact the delivered goods satisfy all the relevant criteria, so going ahead and using them is fine. The nulcear industry is not somehow immune to this, nor need it be. Your quote seems to understand little about engineering.

"In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001. "

IIUC the whole world does not vote to decide these things in the Hague, so the above interpretation is obviously not true.

As for whether nuclear power is sustainable or not, the question is irrelevant and the answer unknown.

"building enough nuclear power stations 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, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. "

Rubbish.

Quotes courtesy of Greenpeace

quite


NT

 

[skier-hughes]

Did anybody watch the piece on BBC4 last night about Dounreay, I started watching it, but fell asleep before the end.
I was amazed at the thoroughness of the work carried out there, paying welders huge sums to complete the work, but x-raying each weld to ensure it was perfect before paying them.

Graham

 

[DaveBrigg]

We know that, deaths occur from all forms of large scle power gen.
There are no totally reliable figures about Chernobyl casualties. Even the scientists can't agree, although several thousand seems to be a conservative figure. I don't have figures on coal-fired power, but imagine the total death count is higher. I couldn't find any references to fatalities from hydro power, wind farms, solar or biomass. You have made a strong argument for a move towards small scale, local generation, something which is being developed in other countries.

a risky Chernobyl design doesnt tell us anything about more sensible designs,
The Cernobyl reactor was not thought to be 'risky' when it was built. At the time, it was 'sensible'. The space shuttle had cutting edge technology and was 'sensible'. Sometimes even the best designs go wrong. It's just that some 'accidents' have greater consequences than others.

Deep buried vitrified waste is as safe as it gets. But again this doesnt tell us much, what counts are the real figures.
What is 'as safe as it gets'? Does anyone have the 'real' figures, whatever they are? 'As safe as it gets' sounds a little complacent when discussing something that will still be poisonous a few thousand years from now.

nuclear reactor testing is so thorough, and the safety layers so many. A single faulty component does not initiate a severe accident... again nuclear engineers are not morons.

Not all of them anyway. At Sellafield between 1950 and 2000 there have been 21 serious incidents or accidents involving some off-site radiological releases that merited a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, 5 at level 4 and 15 at level 3. The large 2005 Thorp plant leak of 83 000 litres of radioactive waste was not detected for nine months.

The OSPAR Commission reports an estimated 200 kg of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea. Cattle and fish in the area are contaminated with plutonium-239 and caesium-137 from these sediments and from other sources such as the radioactive rain that fell on the area after the Chernobyl disaster and the results of atmospheric atomic weapons tests prior to the partial test ban treaty in 1963. Most of the area's long-lived radioactive technetium comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the Sellafield facility.(Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. A1-A8, 2003. )
In 1999 it was discovered that the plant's staff had been falsifying some quality assurance data since 1996. An official investigation stated "in a plant with the proper safety culture, the events described in this report could not have happened"

The equipment does sometimes fail, and human error does occur.

when the situation is reexamined it is found that in fact the delivered goods satisfy all the relevant criteria, so going ahead and using them is fine. The point being made was that the faulty materials did NOT satisfy the specification demanded, and so standards were lowered. Why set the high standards in the first place if they were not necessary?

As for whether nuclear power is sustainable or not, the question is irrelevant and the answer unknown.
The question is certainly relevant. I don't want to leave a legacy of pollution that will be with my descendants for the next hundred generations. The answer, according to experts at the UN, is known, and is 'no'.

I have tried to include some facts for you, this time taken from Wikipedia and fully sourced. Can you either:
a) show that these facts are not true
Or
b) quote some attributal facts that show nuclear power to be at least as safe as the renewable methods mentioned above.

I know that renewables cannot replace nuclear at the moment, but with willpower it could happen. It is a fact that they cannot make the Irish sea one of the most polluted in the world, they cannot provide material for weapons and they will never leave the planet looking like this http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter5.html

 

[DaveBrigg]

- duplicate post deleted -

 

[biffvernon]

...Dounreay... the thoroughness of the work carried out there...

Ha, Dounreay, the beach where they find plutonium particles, and the breeder reacter that didn't work.

And did you also hear yesterday the report from Sweden about poor academic performance of children who were in the womb at the time of the Chernobul accident?

 

[skier-hughes]

Taken me slightly out of context there Biff, but I take your point.

Speak to any teacher of long standing and they'll tell you that some years are brainier than others, so unless they can prove those children have abnormal radioactive levels in their bodies, I'd take that one with a pinch of salt.

Dave's facts all sound great, but the worse one is stating they are taken from wikipedia, and the web these days is the worse place for taking facts, as any old person can place them there, they may well be correct, but they stand just as much chance of being worng.

 

[Nemesis]

Teachers may have found that in the limited sphere of their own classroom children vary from year to year, even a whole year intake, but over the whole country I think more than anecdotal evidence would be required to draw conclusions regarding cohorts.

Intake can vary annually too through a variety of external factors.

I presume that there has been some national year on year study in Sweden?

http://www.thelocal.se/8206/20070816/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4028729.stm

 

[CHRIS]

Skier-hughes

All offshore, shipping and Nuclear welding is quality controlled by Lloyds Register of shipping and this involves xraying most welding on platforms and Nuclear power plants.