|
Post by Barry Brook on Jul 10, 2012 12:33:37 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/brook-vs-ludlumYesterday I debated nuclear energy and climate change on 891 ABC radio with Greens Senator Scott Ludlum, on the afternoon show hosted by Sonya Feldhoff. Many points raised, few covered in detail, so perhaps we can expand on some of these below. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by joffan on Jul 10, 2012 14:05:28 GMT 9.5
Wow. Well done for staying calm in the face of complete nonsense from Ludlum in the latter half of that session once the subject turned to Fukushima. "Hundreds of tons" released etc.
Canada, of course, produces nuclear electricity without any uranium enrichment.
|
|
|
Post by joffan on Jul 10, 2012 14:13:27 GMT 9.5
Presumably once it was started with a suitable initial fuel load of enhanced fissile material, the IFR could continue operation with natural uranium also.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jul 10, 2012 14:35:48 GMT 9.5
Yes, right, the IFR can use natural uranium, depleted uranium, or uranium metal derived from used nuclear oxide fuel (once reduced - but contaminated with minor actinides and trace fission products). Highly flexible!
Re: staying calm - you just have to accept that many things will go through to the keeper in a 38 min slot - it would take hours to address it all properly, alas!
|
|
|
Post by BrianH on Jul 10, 2012 17:19:27 GMT 9.5
Gah. The nukeophobics seem to take infinite liberties in just making shite up. Myself, I'm a proponent of the Expanded Hormesis program, which aims to bring world-wide irradiation of the populations back up to healthy levels, at a few orders of magnitude more than present. >
|
|
|
Post by Yanko Yanev on Jul 10, 2012 18:01:19 GMT 9.5
Nice discussion but doesn't yield more than a good good radio show. One has to go and see the "incompetency" of washing streets and roofs 1.5 year after the accident to understand that the millions of tons of artificially created radioactive waste are nothing more than a gesture to satisfy people like the opponent to nuclear in the show. Far from real radiation protection unfortunately and driven by politics and not by science. I have participated in the analysis and follow up action of Chernobyl. This is far from there and should not be compared by layman like the guy in the show. This is OK for a political meeting of the "party" or GP action, etc, nothing to do with science. There is no better scalable, efficient and cheap energy technology to stop climate change than nuclear and renewables wherever applicable at reasonable cost. The rest is just either undisclosed political ambitions or some sort of anti-human religion.
|
|
|
Post by marionbrook on Jul 10, 2012 22:31:53 GMT 9.5
Very well done Barry. Nice sign-off.
Regarding Ludlum's discussions on radiation and accidents, do you think he really believes what he says? He sounded genuinely scared to me. Where does this man get his information? Certainly not UNSCEAR.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Jul 10, 2012 23:11:21 GMT 9.5
Well done, Barry. Your approach is a fine example of how to present an argument on an emotionally charged topic.
Still, I suspect that nobody has been converted either way.
Here's hoping that at least some of the listeners were influenced to question their reasons and beliefs about low- and no-carbon energy sources, comparative safety of nuclear power and the practical limits to energy efficiency.
Ludlum pereformed as expected: no more, no less. At least he gave the impression of attempting to be rational, which is not always the case with politicians.
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jul 11, 2012 1:09:56 GMT 9.5
Barry, I haven't listened to the show but will later today. I have two questions however which I doubt is answered in this particular debate.
1. It's noted the different fuel sources for an IFR. Does that apply to this proposed build as well? Can fuel sources simply be changed between refueling?
2. The big question. What makes the IFR, and THIS IFR in particular, "itegral" as opposed to plain ol' Fast Reactor? We see both terms used but not all FRs are IFRs. Can you explain the difference and will this proposed British project be an actual IFR?
David
|
|
|
Post by joffan on Jul 11, 2012 7:55:02 GMT 9.5
2. The big question. What makes the IFR, and THIS IFR in particular, "integral" as opposed to plain ol' Fast Reactor? We see both terms used but not all FRs are IFRs. Can you explain the difference and will this proposed British project be an actual IFR? Hey David - Mark Lynas' article ( www.marklynas.org/2012/07/worlds-first-nuclear-waste-burning-prism-reactor-moves-a-step-closer-in-the-uk/) has an extensive interview with Eric Loewen, Chief Consulting Engineer Advanced Plants, GE Nuclear Energy. The PRISM they're proposing is not a full IFR but could be changed into one with the addition of another facility, presumably the electrorefiner.
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jul 11, 2012 10:15:57 GMT 9.5
Joffan answered part 2. For part 1 of DW question, we are talking about the composition of the make-up fuel that is added during the fuel recycling, so the new fuel must be changed over. All in "Plentiful Energy", I strongly recommend you read this book.
Thanks to others for the feedback on the interview - at the very least if such interviews get a few people researching the topic themselves (even if they start off being determined to 'prove me wrong') then I think that is the best outcome of debates like this. We have an advantage over our opposition after all - facts, truth and science are on our side!
|
|
|
Post by John Morgan on Jul 11, 2012 17:55:29 GMT 9.5
I think the great achievement of Barry's advocacy has been to normalize the discussion of nuclear power. The debate with Ludlum was a calm and (mostly) reasonable discussion, without the heat the topic can engender, and without political partisanship. Its difficult to imagine such a discussion happening five years ago. And this is great - people aren't open to changing their minds if they feel defensive or if they think they're being badgered. But if the positions are put calmly they can absorb and consider what is said. And, as the recent IQ2 debate (which I wrote about here) showed, a lot of people are prepared to change their positions given just a little basic information. So this approach has good prospects for building public support. I liked the closing question to Ludlum - same as I put to Ian Lowe at IQ2. In future I think an answer in units of degrees should be insisted upon, for a passing grade.
|
|
|
Post by Carl Hellesen on Jul 12, 2012 1:03:50 GMT 9.5
What strikes me is how Ludlum introduced by stating that "we have tested nuclear for 60 years now, and it's failed to replace fossil". And for this reason we should continue with wind and solar instead.
This is pure nonsense. Where I live, Sweden, we (or they, I was just a child) transformed the entire electricity production with 12 reactors built between 1972 and 1985. As a consequence, CO2 per capita emissions are lower than e.g. China and almost four times lower than Australia. And this is despite Sweden being a cold country in the far north and with an energy intensive industry. What more proof do we need that nuclear can indeed replace fossil fuels?
I would turn the argument the other way. Solar and wind have failed to replace fossil. Our neighbors, Denmark, chose the other route, wind power. Their CO2 emissions per capita are twice of ours and they don't have heavy industry.
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jul 12, 2012 2:52:58 GMT 9.5
What strikes me is how Ludlum introduced by stating that "we have tested nuclear for 60 years now, and it's failed to replace fossil". And for this reason we should continue with wind and solar instead. Yes, this is at the level of 'urban legend' because people don't see that so much fossil has been replaced. You have to ask "if they didn't build nuclear then, what would they have built"? in fact, ever GWhour of nuclear has replaced an equal amount of fossil. In fact the United States got off of 95% of it's oil generation by going nuclear as did France and some other countries. So Ludlum needs to get his facts straight. Additionally, it was the anti-nuclear movement, in no small part, that kept nuclear's share of generation as low as it has been in many countries. If they didn't stop the plants those percentages, like in the US would be closer to 60% not the under 20% it is today. They are responsible for fossil's continued dominance in energy generation not nuclear's inability to phase it out.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 12, 2012 6:20:38 GMT 9.5
What more proof do we need that nuclear can indeed replace fossil fuels? Certainly as far as electricity generation nuclear and hydro overwhelmingly dominate in Sweden. But as far as oil even with a high gas tax, increasing efficiency and a not inconsiderable increased contribution from alternative energy sources the use of oil in Sweden has been remarkably consistent since 1984 which brings up the question of how much does nuclear operate as a substitute and how much as an add on, leading to increased growth rather than diminution of fossil fuel use. In all fairness Sweden has massive hydro-electric production which relatively flat Denmark doesn't whereas Denmark is rich in off shore oil and natural gas. I listened to the Brook-Ludlum debate and agree more with Barry up to a point but fail to see how nuclear is going to seriously displace fossil fuel overall without a commitment to a no growth economy and no growth population. Short of that I see nuclear power playing essentially an add on role to fossil fuel and virtually every expert projection I've read says the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Christine Brook on Jul 12, 2012 11:15:02 GMT 9.5
My answer to a statement regarding nuclear power's lack of contribution to electricity generation thus far, is to ask them how many fossil fuel fired stations have been replaced , worldwide by non-hydro renewables. And then to point out how successfully, and in such a short period, nuclear power has been built out in France and in some Scandinavian countries.
My standard "proliferation" question is : How many nuclear weapons have been detonated, in anger, since the Second World War and have they not heard of the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Even the worst dictators or terrorist leaders value their own skin highly and know that any actions performed in their name, by their accolytes, would be tracked to source and that retribution would be severe and widespread. IMO it is the existence of nuclear weapons that has prevented another World War and limited the damage in other conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 12, 2012 18:49:23 GMT 9.5
Certainly as far as electricity generation nuclear and hydro overwhelmingly dominate in Sweden. But as far as oil even with a high gas tax, increasing efficiency and a not inconsiderable increased contribution from alternative energy sources the use of oil in Sweden has been remarkably consistent since 1984 which brings up the question of how much does nuclear operate as a substitute and how much as an add on, leading to increased growth rather than diminution of fossil fuel use. Oil was largely eliminated from use in electricity production by nuclear which does mean more available for transportation (but that happens to be where oil as a fuel source is at its best). Though of course Sweden didn't really get much electricity from oil back in 1984 (it was pretty much the same nuclear+hydro mix as now) so the oil consumption holding steady is what you'd expect. Still, even if nuclear managed to somehow do nothing to help global warming (because the fossil fuels it replaced just got used in transport or whatever) it'd still be a net win as the population would end up wealthier. In all fairness Sweden has massive hydro-electric production which relatively flat Denmark doesn't whereas Denmark is rich in off shore oil and natural gas. True, but hydro only accounts for about half of Sweden's electricity production (Norway is the one which is almost all hydro). I listened to the Brook-Ludlum debate and agree more with Barry up to a point but fail to see how nuclear is going to seriously displace fossil fuel overall without a commitment to a no growth economy and no growth population. Both of which are basically impossible in the short term. The commitment we need isn't to stop growth (the implications of stopping economic growth are worse than any realistic projections for environmental damage), but to build the power plants at a rate of at least one a day (averaged over the whole planet, though with SMRs we'd probably be aiming for at least ten a day) which I am confident we can manage if we really want it (Boeing can build one airliner a day and those are probably similar in complexity to an SMR). Short of that I see nuclear power playing essentially an add on role to fossil fuel and virtually every expert projection I've read says the same thing. Those 'expert' projections are based on doing things as we do them now including the same over-regulation of the nuclear industry (in fact expert predictions from the past were that nuclear would have largely taken over by now).
|
|
|
Post by Carl Hellesen on Jul 12, 2012 21:39:54 GMT 9.5
Certainly as far as electricity generation nuclear and hydro overwhelmingly dominate in Sweden. But as far as oil even with a high gas tax, increasing efficiency and a not inconsiderable increased contribution from alternative energy sources the use of oil in Sweden has been remarkably consistent since 1984 which brings up the question of how much does nuclear operate as a substitute and how much as an add on, leading to increased growth rather than diminution of fossil fuel use. As you point out, oil consumption has been fairly constant since 1984. This is also about the time when the last reactor came online. Had you looked at oil consumption from the early 1970's, instead of 1980, you'd see a drop by almost a factor 2. In fact, oil from non-transportation uses has dropped by a factor 4 since 1970. And this has not been replaced by neither gas, coal nor any other fossil fuel, but by nuclear. Though of course Sweden didn't really get much electricity from oil back in 1984 (it was pretty much the same nuclear+hydro mix as now) so the oil consumption holding steady is what you'd expect. It's true we did not get electricity from oil before nuclear, but residential heating was done by oil. This was transformed first to direct electric and later to heat pumps. In more recent years we also get a lot from district heating running on bio fuels. Cogeneration is also the main part of the non-hydro renewable electricity contribution. So I still claim that nuclear has indeed replaced fossil fuel. Its not just an add on. Other contries, e.g. Denmark, have chosen other options for heating. Coal and gas. The CO2 road has been their choice and has nothing to do with availability of hydro. So what remains of the oil consumption after mid 1980's is mainly transportation. As Barry hinted at in the interview, synthetic fuels could be made from nuclear. It might not make economical sense at the moment, but nuclear can replace fossils. And false claims of the opposite needs to be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 13, 2012 6:54:05 GMT 9.5
There are a lot of interesting tables here from the Swedish Energy Agency going back to 1970. No question that nuclear energy has been a big player here along with increased efficiency and biofuels. I still think from a purely short term pragmatic perspective it appears understandable why Sweden and Denmark approached their energy future somewhat differently,. Denmark had fairly plentiful reserves of oil and natural gas which Sweden didn't and had in addition a lot of off shore wind. If they had the hydro obviously they would have used it and if Sweden had had the oil and natural gas well who knows. From my reading of the data Denmark recently on a per capita basis puts out roughly 2/3 more CO2 than Sweden. Add a comparable level of hydro and I would guess that would cut it down to maybe 1/3. I understand there is a mutual sharing agreement between the Scandinavian countries so I guess the wind energy is able to be a more useful part of the energy production process. Still no doubt Denmark would have been better off with nuclear in the mix but the difference doesn't seem quite as bad choice driven as one might make it.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 13, 2012 11:01:25 GMT 9.5
I still think from a purely short term pragmatic perspective it appears understandable why Sweden and Denmark approached their energy future somewhat differently,. Denmark had fairly plentiful reserves of oil and natural gas which Sweden didn't and had in addition a lot of off shore wind. If they had the hydro obviously they would have used it and if Sweden had had the oil and natural gas well who knows. The strength of a countries anti-nuclear movement does appear to correlate with the amount of domestic fossil fuels that country has. From my reading of the data Denmark recently on a per capita basis puts out roughly 2/3 more CO2 than Sweden. Add a comparable level of hydro and I would guess that would cut it down to maybe 1/3. Probably about that, though Sweden does have higher per capita electricity usage than Denmark (more than double in fact). I understand there is a mutual sharing agreement between the Scandinavian countries so I guess the wind energy is able to be a more useful part of the energy production process. I wouldn't so much call it sharing as Norway and Sweden profiting off Denmark's mistake. Still no doubt Denmark would have been better off with nuclear in the mix but the difference doesn't seem quite as bad choice driven as one might make it. They have the economic disadvantage of expensive power and it isn't even all that clean, that does seem a bad choice (and had they made different choices they could have cheap, clean electricity like Sweden and France).
|
|
|
Post by brendan sutton on Jul 13, 2012 13:17:37 GMT 9.5
With Port Augusta, I think we missed an opportunity to make the point that waste heat from either a thorium MSR (LFTR) or an IFR could provide most of the power for a Multi effect desal unit (which can make around 35MegaLitres/100MWe of electric plant). Aside from the other benefits, this could secure the water supply for the local area, and quite possibly all the way down to Port Lincoln. The electrical consumption for MED-Thermal Vapour compression is less than 1Kw/m3
MED desal thru nuclear can be cheap enough to use for irrigation. Figures out of South Africa talk about US 9c /m3, which is on a par with MIA unsecured water charges or half the secured rights.
The same point could be made throughout South Australia, which I believe is building hordes of windmills to offset power for desalination, at more than 10 times the cost quoted above
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jul 14, 2012 2:03:31 GMT 9.5
From Lynas' article www.marklynas.org/2012/07/worlds-first-nuclear-waste-burning-prism-reactor-moves-a-step-closer-in-the-uk/ "A recent article in the Guardian revealed that these stockpiles combined already contain enough energy to run the entire country at current electricity consumption for five centuries – without the need to emit any CO2 or mine any new uranium. However, the current proposal for PRISM is much more narrowly-focused. ... ‘disposition’ [of] its plutonium liability ..." Given that the real promise of an IFR is contained in the first paragraph, is there any possibility to convince the UK not to make that promise much more difficult by only using the IFR for the purpose of disposition per the second paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jul 14, 2012 2:57:56 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 16, 2012 6:46:04 GMT 9.5
So I still claim that nuclear has indeed replaced fossil fuel. Its not just an add on. Certainly as far as electrical production and its reach throughout the nontransportation economy that is true. But when you widen the frame the picture does not look quite as clear. Since 1970: 1. Crude oil importation has increased. 2. Followed by an increasing export of oil refined products. 3. Natural gas importation and use has increased. 4. Ethanol importation has increased, having its fossil fuel component, not to mention other problems. 5. Biofuel has become a larger component of energy production and one needs to ask how particularly the rapid forestry growth which is critical to this is fossil fuel driven. In addition the peat component could be describe as early stage coal. 6. One would have to ask to what degree is the high per capita Swedish energy use, which is much greater than Denmark, encouraged by the benefits of hydro and nuclear. 7. And finally one might want to try and sort out the influences on Sweden's largely immigrant driven population increase and what are the implications there to a growing fossil fuel feedback. There is a kind of apparent anomaly here, with nuclear in one area substituting for fossil fuel but in other areas possibly facilitating it, kind of like pushing the balloon in in one section and having it expand out in others. And a couple of additional thoughts, the greater importing power of the Swedish consumer would not show up in the CO2 per capita statistics in Sweden and also the ability to derive investment income from those CO2 polluting industries would not show up on paper. It would transfer those statistics to other countries.
|
|
|
Post by chrispydog on Jul 16, 2012 11:11:13 GMT 9.5
I thought your debate was very well done Barry, but I can't help wondering why you bother to engage with the Greens when they are so much more like a religious cult than an evidence based party? Ironically the Greens only worship science when it's dealing with wind and solar, but have put nuclear in the Mephisto role.
Instead of convincing the Greens of the merits of nuclear power (which would be like convincing the Pope that Jesus was not the son of god), why not try and convince the major parties? Given that Labor will spend some time in the political wilderness, and that they will need to divorce themselves from the Greens to ever get back into government, the single biggest wedge issue would be nuclear power, one that the intransigent Greens would never countenance but a Labor opposition could see a huge voting potential in some years from now. This will take years, and they'll have years, and the first glimmers are already there (if one could ever imagine a glimmer coming from Martin Ferguson!).
The 'great moral issue of our time' is really why do we allow the Greens to swan around, holier than thou, making up their own 'facts' when carbon dioxide is THE enemy?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 16, 2012 22:48:11 GMT 9.5
It's not so much convincing the greens but the rest of the population.
In a lot of debates you're not doing it for the other side, but for the onlookers.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 17, 2012 10:14:48 GMT 9.5
David M --- Denmark has massive interconnects to the Nordic grid and thus has access to Norway's hydro. In the current scheme, the Danes pay the Norwegians to take their excess (wind) energy to pump water up so the Danes can pay once again to have it back when the wind isn't blowing (as hard).
Despite all this the Danes haven't been able to turn off a single one of their coal burners. [At least they haven't build any new ones the way the Germans are going to do.]
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Jul 17, 2012 10:45:51 GMT 9.5
That's my view Anon - if the 'debate' can just get a few listeners to read more - know more - even if they initially disagree with me, then it is worth it. It's incremental but cumulative, and the hope with radio debates like this, community events, and other engagement, is to create a snowball effect. Right the ball is small and the hill is shallow, but it is rolling...
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jul 17, 2012 17:09:20 GMT 9.5
Wow. Well done for staying calm in the face of complete nonsense from Ludlum in the latter half of that session once the subject turned to Fukushima. "Hundreds of tons" released etc. Canada, of course, produces nuclear electricity without any uranium enrichment. India planned a whole 3-stage program of breeder reactors and thorium fueled without enrichment but with chemical processing. Imported reactors and enriched fuel came in later as additionalities. Now use of thorium with 20%LEU is also being considered.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 17, 2012 20:29:16 GMT 9.5
David M --- Denmark has massive interconnects to the Nordic grid and thus has access to Norway's hydro. In the current scheme, the Danes pay the Norwegians to take their excess (wind) energy to pump water up so the Danes can pay once again to have it back when the wind isn't blowing (as hard).
Despite all this the Danes haven't been able to turn off a single one of their coal burners. [At least they haven't build any new ones the way the Germans are going to do.] On the face of it it would seem domestic storage of wind power surplus could be managed. Assuming sufficient number of batteries, hydrogen fuel cells and hot water tanks, simply shunting of the surplus to all these storage sources would be all that is required. Being a tech challenged guy I'm sure I'm missing something. However back to my main point, there appear to be a lot of matters affecting Sweden's real contribution to world ghgs that are not being factored in.
|
|