nuclear-news

Nuclear “renaissance” dubious, and too late to influence Climate Change

Nuclear Energy at a Crossroads, OilPrice.com.  by Tyler Hamilton , 13 December 2011 For years the nuclear power lobby has muscled its way into international climate negotiations and asserted itself as a critical part of any serious effort to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions.

Not so much during climate talks in Durban, South Africa, these past two weeks. There were some media mentions and the occasional sound bite from industry officials, but the nuclear lobby — still sufferingfrom a Fukushima hangover — stayed relatively quiet this time around.

Even Patrick Moore, Greenpeace [alleged?] co-founder turned nuclear booster, seems to have moved on. His gig these days is defending the oil sands, part of a recent advertising campaign from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The Fukushima disaster in Japan certainly served a blow to the nuclear power industry. The low price of natural gas and the global economic downturn — and reduced demand for electricity — hasn’t helped matters. The economics of building new nuclear plants also remain in question. A report just released by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association
points out that even before the Fukushima accident, the decades-long trend of reactor projects being delayed and coming in dramatically over budget was still a reality, as recent experiences in Finland and France clearly show.

The Worldwatch Institute reported last week that generating capacity
of the world’s nuclear power fleet dropped 2.4 per cent in 2011,
causing nuclear’s share of the world energy mix to fall slightly.

The first 10 months of this year saw the closing of 13 reactors,
contributing to a reduction in the total number in operation around
the world to 433 from 441. Growth is happening in developing countries
such as China, India and Pakistan, but these are far outweighed by
reactor shutdowns in France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom.

So much for the much-heralded nuclear renaissance. “These numbers can
hardly encourage the (nuclear) industry,” said Worldwatch president
Robert Engelman.

As much as the anti-nuclear lobby must be cheering, these numbers also
beg the question: if not nuclear, then what?….
“For nuclear to gain significant share, it must change,” writes U.K.
journalist Mark Halper in a recent report on emerging nuclear
innovations, penned for Canadian cleantech consultancy Kachan & Co.
The Kachan report outlines a number of technology alternatives
currently in play, some of them based on designs or ideas that have
been around for several decades.

Included in this list are reactors that use thorium as fuel instead of
uranium, or which are cooled using gas. Molten salt, pebble bed and
fast-neutron reactors are also being seriously considered. And yes,
even fusion technology, including a mechanical reactor from
Vancouver-based General Fusion, is grabbing attention.

Some designs deal with the toxic waste and nuclear proliferation
issues. Others improve significantly on safety, such as eliminating
the potential for meltdown. This is all exciting news for those
outside the old boys nuclear club.

Unfortunately, they don’t offer a quick fix. Our nuclear regulators,
underfunded as they are, haven’t the resources and time to understand,
let alone establish rules for, new nuclear reactor designs. It will
take many years, perhaps decades, for competing technologies to take
hold.

But time is something severely lacking when it comes to avoiding the
worst effects of climate change. This, even with “old” nuclear
technology in decline and better alternatives on the rise, is the
conundrum we face.http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Energy-at-a-Crossroads.html

December 15, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general