For nuclear power to be a viable solution to our future energy requirements, we need a plentiful supply of nuclear fuel which can be accessed without inordinate effort. There are occasional claims from anti-nuclear activists that there are insufficient rich ore bodies for an expansion of nuclear power, or that the energy used to mine and mill the fuel produces an excessive carbon footprint. The truth is that there are huge reserves of nuclear fuel available for exploitation in Earth's crust, and the carbon footprint associated with the nuclear fuel cycle is quite small now, and likely to shrink further in the future.
Current nuclear plants run on U-235 and sometimes on Pu-239 reprocessed from earlier fuel burns or recycled from decommissioned nuclear weapons. Natural uranium consists mainly of U-238, with U-235 making up only 0.7% of the total. In practice, this means that for roughly every 200 tonnes of natural uranium mined, only one ton of fissile U-235 fuel is produced (some U-235 is left behind by the enrichment process). It is possible to improve this figure by reprocessing used fuel to recover some of the unburned U-235 as well as the plutonium produced during the fuel burn, but this doesn't change the order-of-magnitude calculations on fuel availability for LWRs. As a rough rule of thumb, one tonne of fissile fuel can generate 1 GW.year (1GW.y) of energy as electricity. This is true of all three important fissile isotopes, U-235, Pu-239 and U-233.
How much generating capacity should we allow for? Demographic trends indicate the global population reaching about ten billion people mid-century and stabilising at that level. For that stability to be reached, people will need a certain minimum standard of living and energy consumption.
The average global electrical generating capacity for 2009 was about 2.2 terawatts (2.2TW, or 2.2 trillion watts). Divided among the estimated 6,790,000,000 humans alive as of July 2009, this provided 325 watts/person. Of that output, actual power consumed was 301 watts/person. For comparison, Chad currently consumes 1 watt/person, Ghana 27 watts/person, India 56 watts/person, China 293 watts/person, Poland 384 watts/person, South Africa 500 watts/person, Britain 646 watts/person, Germany 759 watts/person, France 780 watts/person, Netherlands 848 watts/person, Australia 1,176 watts/person, the United States 1,439 watts/person, and Sweden 1695 watts/person. These figures are for electricity consumption only.
If the global population plateaus at 10 billion, we will need a 50% increase in generating capacity by 2050, taking us up to 3.3TW, just to maintain the current per capita consumption. In reality there will be more development in the currently underdeveloped world, as well as in the First World. There is also likely to be greater electrification of the economy, with functions such as transportation, desalination, fertiliser production and other processes using electricity rather than fossil fuel combustion. It's not unreasonable to suggest that we may have around 5TW of electrical generating capacity by 2050.
If all this electricity were to come from nuclear power plants, we would need to burn 5000 tonnes of fissile fuel each year. Is this sustainable? Can we use more if necessary? Is this a permanent solution to the energy crisis, or is it at best a useful stopgap until a more sustainable power system can be developed? To answer these questions we need to understand the magnitude of the global nuclear fuel resource.
The table below was compiled for the January 1980 edition of Scientific American. Both it and the associated commentary are taken from the nuclearinfo.net site, reproduced here with the kind permission of Dr. Martin Sevior:
Uranium Distributions in the Earth's Crust
The following table is from Deffeyes & MacGregor, "World Uranium resources" Scientific American, Vol 242, No 1, January 1980, pp. 66-76.
type of deposit--------------------------------estimated tonnes-----estimated ppm
Vein deposits----------------------------------2 x 10^5--------------10,000+
Pegmatites, unconformity deposits-------2 x 10^6--------------2,000-10,000
fossil placers, sand stones------------------8 x 10^7--------------1,000-2,000
lower grade fossil placers,sandstones----1 x 10^8--------------200-1,000
volcanic deposits-----------------------------2 x 10^9--------------100-200
black shales-----------------------------------2 x 10^10-------------20-100
shales, phosphates---------------------------8 x 10^11-------------10-20
granites----------------------------------------2 x 10^12-------------3-10
average crust----------------------------------3 x 10^13-------------1-3
evaporites, siliceous ooze, chert-----------6 x 10^12-------------.2-1
oceanic igneous crust-----------------------8 x 10^11-------------.1-.2
ocean water----------------------------------2 x 10^10-------------.0002-.001
fresh water-----------------------------------2 x 10^6--------------.0001-.001
“The total abundance of Uranium in the Earth's crust is estimated to be approximately 40 trillion tonnes. The Rossing mine in Namibia mines uranium at an ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors. If the energy cost increases in inverse proportion to the ore concentration, shales and phosphates, with a uranium abundance of 10 - 20 ppm, could be mined with an energy gain of 16 - 32. The total amount of uranium in these rocks is estimated to be 8000 times greater than the deposits currently being exploited.”
In his book 'Sustainable Energy — without the hot air', Professor David Mackay, Dept. of Physics, University of Cambridge gives an estimate of how much of the uranium resource could be considered accessible with conventional extraction techniques. Noting that phosphate deposits have been mined for their uranium content in America and Belgium prior to 1998, Professor Mackay combines the current proven economic uranium reserves and the phosphate reserves to reach a figure of 27 million tonnes of easily recoverable uranium. This figure has increased a bit since the figures used by Mackay were published and will likely increase again, so we'll round it up to 30 million tonnes for our calculations. He also notes recent development work on the recovery of uranium dissolved in seawater by Japanese researchers, reported to be achievable at US$100-300/kg UO3. This reserve is calculated to be 4.5 billion tonnes.
Allowing for 5TW of nuclear power generation using LWRs burning 1 tonne of U-235/GWe.y we need 5000 tonnes of U-235 per annum, which equates to 1,000,000 tonnes of natural uranium per annum. This would exhaust our 30 million tonne reserve in just thirty years. Assuming we can extract half the oceanic uranium, we have a 2,000 year supply. This would require 220 million tonnes of the adsorbent cloth, with a cross-sectional collection area of 24,000 square kilometres submerged under the sea. This is not impossibly huge, but it is substantial, and could arguably have a significant impact on marine ecosystems. Nonetheless it is conceivable that with oceanic uranium extraction we could run our civilisation at above its current per capita electricity consumption for a span of time as long as that which separates us from the Roman Empire using technology no more advanced than current LWRs.
But will this be sufficient? The world currently boasts 2.2 TW of electrical generating capacity, but the average ongoing global energy use is around 15TW. Most of this comes from the burning of fossil fuels for transport, heating, industrial processes, agriculture, primary industry and so forth. The bounty of fossil fuel bequeathed to us by nature will one day no longer be available, whether by failure to effectively compete, legislative fiat, or eventual depletion. Can nuclear power replace non-electric energy applications, and if so, can it be sustained?
Fortunately the answer to the first question is yes, nuclear power can certainly replace most if not all applications presently met by fossil fuels. Nuclear reactors produce great quantities of heat which can be used as process heat for chemical industries, desalination, synthetic fuel production, fertiliser production, district heating, and many other applications. It is even thought that nuclear power may assist in making many processes more efficient than they are today. For instance, a fleet of electric cars with batteries charged by nuclear power plants would be considerably more energy-efficient than an equivalent fleet of our current petrol and diesel cars.
The answer to the second question depends on just how much energy is needed to cover all reasonable demands which civilisation might place on its power source. It has sometimes been suggested that 10-11TW would be sufficient for a well-organised nuclear powered world of ten billion people. This may be so, although such a world may be a bit more economically constrained on average than developed nations are today. In such a future, the ocean uranium reserve referred to previously still suffices to run things for an equivalent span of time separating the present from Saxon England.
The historical pattern of human energy utilisation, however, speaks against any assumption of reduced power use. The norm has been the opposite, with people using ever more power per capita as time goes by. This trend has continued in spite of occasional advances in energy efficiency. Also, in the long run it is likely that the developing world will catch up to the developed, and the aspirations of billions of people will force energy consumption ever higher. Eventually we should expect that First World standards will be the norm for all people. While increasing electrification of the world economy may result in some efficiencies, there are likely to be new uses for power, possibly including energy-intensive geoengineering efforts to mitigate climate fluctuations. The per capita power consumption from all sources (electric and non-electric) for the United States is now around 10kW. Accepting this as a convenient working figure for standard per capita consumption, we find we need to plan for 100 terawatts of electrical power generation to ensure sufficient capacity for a world population of 10 billion.
One hundred terawatts requires the fissioning of 100,000 tonnes of fissile fuel each year. If we are to rely on LWRs, this will consume 20 million tonnes of natural uranium per annum. Lets see how our various uranium reserves stack up:
Our initial uranium reserve of 30 million tonnes now disappears in a year and a half. The ocean reserve, once again assuming 2 billion tonnes, is exhausted after a century. Referring to the World Uranium Resources table above, we see there are about 22 billion tonnes of natural uranium present in concentrations of 20 ppm or more. This reserve is sufficient for 1,100 years. It is probably not possible to supply LWRs from uranium at lower concentrations.
Extracting large quantities of uranium from such low grade feedstock will require ever more infrastructure to maintain supply. The ocean extraction system, for example, would need 11 billion tonnes of adsorbent cloth with a cross-sectional collection area of nearly half a million square kilometres. Light water reactor technology now encounters its limits. The LWR can be a good stopgap measure, but it is not the key to a truly sustainable future. It is capable of taking us to through the middle of this century, but must soon after yield its dominant position to the breeder reactor.
Breeder reactors are nuclear reactors which utilise part of their neutron flux to transmute non-fissile nuclei into fissile nuclei which can then be burned in the reactor. Uranium-238 can be bred into plutonium-239, and thorium-232 into uranium-233. This capability gives breeder reactors a much greater supply of fissile fuel than LWRs. Plutonium breeders can fission the entire supply of natural uranium. All naturally occurring thorium, with an abundance four times that of uranium, can be bred into uranium-233 and fissioned. It is instructive to see how this impacts nuclear fuel reserves.
Our original 30 million tonnes of uranium now provides our 100TW civilisation with 300 years of power. The 2 billion tonne ocean reserve is good for 20,000 years. The larger 22 billion tonne reserve of uranium above 20 ppm concentration can now provide 220,000 years of power. But this is not the limit of the breeder's potential. As well as greatly extending the usefulness of existing reserves, breeder reactors also unlock vast quantities of low grade ore for our use. To demonstrate this, we'll take a look at how the capabilities of the breeder applied to average continental crust can revolutionise the scale of the energy resources available to humanity.
Average continental crust contains 2.7 ppm (parts per million) of uranium and 9.6 ppm of thorium, totalling 12.3 ppm of fissile and fertile fuel. We want to extract 100,000 tonnes of fuel each year for our 100TW civilisation. How much average rock and dirt do we need to dig up on an annual basis for this? The answer is we need to excavate about 8.2 billion tonnes of earth. For comparison, about 6.8 billion tonnes of coal was mined worldwide in 2009. Out of this, about 5 billion tonnes went to electricity production, which produced 40% of the world's electrical power, about 0.9TW (these figures were derived from information on the World Coal Institute website). It should be noted that the density of coal varies from around 1.1 to 1.5 tonnes/m^3, but the average density of Earth's crust is 2.7 tonnes/m^3. While the mass of material mined from average crust to obtain our 100,000 tonnes of nuclear fuel is greater than the mass of coal mined in 2009, the volume of material disrupted would be smaller.
Once we have mined our 8.2 billion tons of perfectly ordinary and unremarkable rock and dirt, we need to extract the nuclear fuel. This could be done by grinding, chemical treatment, pyroprocessing or whatever is most suitable for the particular minerals in question. We may get a reasonable estimate to the upper bounds of the energy required for this process by assuming the ore is completely melted. The power required to melt the same mass of silicon (the second most common element in Earth's crust after oxygen) is about 723 GW.y. It is likely that the whole separation process could be accomplished with less than 1TW.y of energy. This operation corresponds to an extraction and milling rate of 260 tonnes of crust each second.
What is the size of the resource? Let's assume that only the portion of continental crust currently under dry land is exploited for its uranium and thorium content, to a depth of roughly four kilometres (the deepest mine currently operating is the TauTona mine in Carletonville, South Africa at 3,900m, and the Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia is 12,262m). This represents a reserve of 20 trillion tonnes of fertile and fissile fuel, capable of powering our 100TW civilisation for 200 million years. This is the span of time separating us from the dawn of the Jurassic Period, when the supercontinent Pangaea was starting to break apart into Laurasia and Gondwana. Dinosaurs were just beginning to make their mark on the world, and the allosaurus, stegosaurus and diplodocus were yet to evolve.
It will be a very long time before whoever comes after us in the far distant future will need to worry about mining ordinary crust. The science is clear: There is more than enough high grade uranium ore in the short term to allow us to transition to a completely nuclear-powered economy during this century, and a supply of fuel for the breeder reactors of the future so vast as to leave no doubt that nuclear power is completely sustainable in any meaningful sense of the word for far beyond the probable lifetime of our civilisation, and indeed, of our species.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How Do Nuclear Reactors Work?
Nuclear fission reactors are machines that facilitate a sustained fission reaction in suitable materials, usually for the purpose of electrical power production. Most nuclear fission reactors currently in use are uranium-235 burning thermal spectrum light water reactors, so I shall describe this type first, then look at the alternatives.
Light Water Reactors:
Light water reactors get their name from their moderating fluid, which is ordinary water. This is called “light water” because the water molecules have ordinary hydrogen atoms with one proton and no neutrons as the H2 component of H2O. Some nuclear reactors use heavy water as a moderator, which has deuterium (heavy hydrogen), with one proton and one neutron, as the H2 component. Heavy water reactors will be described later. There are two basic types of light water reactor in popular use, the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) and the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). The PWR is the most common.
Pressurised Water Reactors:
Modern PWRs are built around certain basic components:
Reactor Core:
The reactor core is that part of the reactor where the nuclear fuel assemblies are located and the fission reaction takes place. The shell of the core is known as the pressure vessel in a light water reactor, as part of its function is to contain water and steam at high pressure.
Nuclear Fuel:
The fuel for a nuclear reactor generally consists of pellets of uranium oxide embedded within zirconium alloy (zircaloy) tubes, which are arranged into bundles called fuel assemblies. The uranium in the fuel has been enriched to consist of 3-5% fissile U-235 rather than the natural level of 0.7% U-235.
Moderator:
The moderator is a substance which slows neutrons emitted naturally by the uranium fuel to thermal velocities, enabling them to be captured by U-235 nuclei and initiate fission reactions. Moderator material needs a high proportion of very light elements in order to absorb the kinetic energy of the neutrons rather than just reflecting them with little loss of velocity. Hydrogen in water (H2O) is well suited to this purpose, and light water is used as the moderator in most current reactors.
Control Rods:
Control rods are long rods inserted between fuel assemblies for the purpose of absorbing neutrons before they can participate in a fission reaction, thus controlling the reaction rate. They are made of elements with high neutron absorption cross sections, such as silver, indium, cadmium, boron, and others.
Coolant:
The coolant is a fluid which keeps the temperature of the reactor core under control by removing heat. It also serves the critically important function of delivering this heat to a secondary cooling loop which drives a turbine to produce electric power. Because water is both a highly effective moderator and coolant, it serves both roles in a light water reactor.
-Primary coolant loop. The primary coolant loop pumps water in a continuous cycle through the reactor core, then through the steam generator of the secondary loop, then back into the core for the next cycle. The water is pressurised to remain liquid at operating temperature. There is no exchange of water between the primary loop and the secondary loop.
-Secondary coolant loop. The secondary coolant loop contains water which is boiled in the steam generator using heat from the primary loop. The steam is then used to drive a turbine for electricity production before being cooled by the tertiary loop and recondensed to flow through the steam generator again. There is no exchange of water with the primary or tertiary loop.
-Tertiary coolant loop. The tertiary loop is an open cycle which takes water from a source outside the plant and uses it to cool the secondary loop by condensing the steam after it has driven the turbine. This water has no direct contact with water in the secondary or primary loop. It is used once, then discharged into the environment, usually at a temperature a few degrees higher than it had when taken into the plant.
The basic features listed above show how a nuclear reactor works in broad outline; Fuel bundles are placed in the reactor core. Neutrons emitted naturally by the uranium fuel are slowed by the moderator to thermal velocity and then set off subsequent fission reactions which liberate more neutrons to continue the process. The energy released by these reactions heat the coolant, which transfers heat energy through the primary and secondary loops to drive a turbine for power production. The fission reaction rate is managed with the assistance of neutron-absorbing control rods. Excess heat is taken away by the tertiary cooling loop.
There are other important components to a nuclear plant not directly related to power generation.
Containment Structure:
Containment refers to the barriers built into the reactor to shield the environment from radioactive material. Modern light water reactors have multiple layers of containment. The first level is the ceramic structure of the uranium oxide fuel pellets which trap fission products within the lattice. The next is the zircaloy cladding for the fuel. The third is the reactor vessel and cooling system. The final containment is the steel-reinforced concrete structure known as the containment building in which the reactor is situated. This is the ultimate backup if all else fails, and is designed to withstand high internal pressure to contain the steam released by a breach of the pressure vessel. They are also now designed to withstand attacks from outside such as missile strikes and impacts of large aircraft.
Radwaste Facility:
Nuclear plants need a facility to store used fuel after it has been removed from the core. The used fuel contains highly radioactive fission products which must be sequestered from the environment for some time before it can be moved to permanent storage. The first unit in the radwaste system is the spent fuel pool. This is a pool about forty feet deep where the spent fuel is kept while it cools down for several years. Spent fuel initially has a high temperature, maintained by the decay of high-level fission products. Storage in the spent fuel pool helps to prevent melting, and also provides shielding from the high level radioactivity of the spent fuel.
After about a decade the shortest lived and most highly radioactive fission products have decayed away, and the spent fuel can be removed from the pool to be sealed in steel-reinforced concrete containers for above ground storage.
Boiling Water Reactors:
BWRs are similar to PWRs, but are operated at a lower pressure. Instead of maintaining the water in the pressure vessel as a pressurised liquid, the water in a BWR is allowed to partially boil and drive a steam turbine directly, without using a secondary coolant loop. Because the turbine is in direct contact with steam from the reactor core, extra containment precautions are taken in the turbine hall of a BWR.
In the United States, the civilian nuclear power plant fleet consists of 69 PWRs and 35 BWRs.
Alternative reactor types:
There are many possibilities for reactor design beyond the ordinary light water variety. We will look at these in turn in subsequent essays.
-Heavy water reactors.
-Fast breeder reactors.
-Gas-cooled reactors.
-Molten salt reactors.
-Aqueous reactors.
-Small modular reactors.
Light Water Reactors:
Light water reactors get their name from their moderating fluid, which is ordinary water. This is called “light water” because the water molecules have ordinary hydrogen atoms with one proton and no neutrons as the H2 component of H2O. Some nuclear reactors use heavy water as a moderator, which has deuterium (heavy hydrogen), with one proton and one neutron, as the H2 component. Heavy water reactors will be described later. There are two basic types of light water reactor in popular use, the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) and the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). The PWR is the most common.
Pressurised Water Reactors:
Modern PWRs are built around certain basic components:
Reactor Core:
The reactor core is that part of the reactor where the nuclear fuel assemblies are located and the fission reaction takes place. The shell of the core is known as the pressure vessel in a light water reactor, as part of its function is to contain water and steam at high pressure.
Nuclear Fuel:
The fuel for a nuclear reactor generally consists of pellets of uranium oxide embedded within zirconium alloy (zircaloy) tubes, which are arranged into bundles called fuel assemblies. The uranium in the fuel has been enriched to consist of 3-5% fissile U-235 rather than the natural level of 0.7% U-235.
Moderator:
The moderator is a substance which slows neutrons emitted naturally by the uranium fuel to thermal velocities, enabling them to be captured by U-235 nuclei and initiate fission reactions. Moderator material needs a high proportion of very light elements in order to absorb the kinetic energy of the neutrons rather than just reflecting them with little loss of velocity. Hydrogen in water (H2O) is well suited to this purpose, and light water is used as the moderator in most current reactors.
Control Rods:
Control rods are long rods inserted between fuel assemblies for the purpose of absorbing neutrons before they can participate in a fission reaction, thus controlling the reaction rate. They are made of elements with high neutron absorption cross sections, such as silver, indium, cadmium, boron, and others.
Coolant:
The coolant is a fluid which keeps the temperature of the reactor core under control by removing heat. It also serves the critically important function of delivering this heat to a secondary cooling loop which drives a turbine to produce electric power. Because water is both a highly effective moderator and coolant, it serves both roles in a light water reactor.
-Primary coolant loop. The primary coolant loop pumps water in a continuous cycle through the reactor core, then through the steam generator of the secondary loop, then back into the core for the next cycle. The water is pressurised to remain liquid at operating temperature. There is no exchange of water between the primary loop and the secondary loop.
-Secondary coolant loop. The secondary coolant loop contains water which is boiled in the steam generator using heat from the primary loop. The steam is then used to drive a turbine for electricity production before being cooled by the tertiary loop and recondensed to flow through the steam generator again. There is no exchange of water with the primary or tertiary loop.
-Tertiary coolant loop. The tertiary loop is an open cycle which takes water from a source outside the plant and uses it to cool the secondary loop by condensing the steam after it has driven the turbine. This water has no direct contact with water in the secondary or primary loop. It is used once, then discharged into the environment, usually at a temperature a few degrees higher than it had when taken into the plant.
The basic features listed above show how a nuclear reactor works in broad outline; Fuel bundles are placed in the reactor core. Neutrons emitted naturally by the uranium fuel are slowed by the moderator to thermal velocity and then set off subsequent fission reactions which liberate more neutrons to continue the process. The energy released by these reactions heat the coolant, which transfers heat energy through the primary and secondary loops to drive a turbine for power production. The fission reaction rate is managed with the assistance of neutron-absorbing control rods. Excess heat is taken away by the tertiary cooling loop.
There are other important components to a nuclear plant not directly related to power generation.
Containment Structure:
Containment refers to the barriers built into the reactor to shield the environment from radioactive material. Modern light water reactors have multiple layers of containment. The first level is the ceramic structure of the uranium oxide fuel pellets which trap fission products within the lattice. The next is the zircaloy cladding for the fuel. The third is the reactor vessel and cooling system. The final containment is the steel-reinforced concrete structure known as the containment building in which the reactor is situated. This is the ultimate backup if all else fails, and is designed to withstand high internal pressure to contain the steam released by a breach of the pressure vessel. They are also now designed to withstand attacks from outside such as missile strikes and impacts of large aircraft.
Radwaste Facility:
Nuclear plants need a facility to store used fuel after it has been removed from the core. The used fuel contains highly radioactive fission products which must be sequestered from the environment for some time before it can be moved to permanent storage. The first unit in the radwaste system is the spent fuel pool. This is a pool about forty feet deep where the spent fuel is kept while it cools down for several years. Spent fuel initially has a high temperature, maintained by the decay of high-level fission products. Storage in the spent fuel pool helps to prevent melting, and also provides shielding from the high level radioactivity of the spent fuel.
After about a decade the shortest lived and most highly radioactive fission products have decayed away, and the spent fuel can be removed from the pool to be sealed in steel-reinforced concrete containers for above ground storage.
Boiling Water Reactors:
BWRs are similar to PWRs, but are operated at a lower pressure. Instead of maintaining the water in the pressure vessel as a pressurised liquid, the water in a BWR is allowed to partially boil and drive a steam turbine directly, without using a secondary coolant loop. Because the turbine is in direct contact with steam from the reactor core, extra containment precautions are taken in the turbine hall of a BWR.
In the United States, the civilian nuclear power plant fleet consists of 69 PWRs and 35 BWRs.
Alternative reactor types:
There are many possibilities for reactor design beyond the ordinary light water variety. We will look at these in turn in subsequent essays.
-Heavy water reactors.
-Fast breeder reactors.
-Gas-cooled reactors.
-Molten salt reactors.
-Aqueous reactors.
-Small modular reactors.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
What Is Nuclear Fission?
Nuclear fission is a natural phenomenon where atomic nuclei split into smaller ‘daughter’ nuclei, releasing large amounts of energy in the process. Many atomic nuclei are fissionable, meaning that they can be split by being hit with neutrons. Out of these nuclei, three are of special interest to humanity because the manner in which they split releases enough free neutrons for a self-sustaining chain reaction to occur among neighbouring atoms of the same isotope. This makes it possible to build nuclear reactors for practical power production. The nuclei in question are two uranium isotopes, U-233 and U-235, and one plutonium isotope, Pu-239. These are called fissile isotopes.
Out of the three fissile isotopes, only U-235 occurs naturally on Earth, where it composes 0.7% of natural uranium. The other two can be produced artificially by exposing certain other nuclei to neutron radiation to transmute them into other isotopes which then undergo radioactive decay to become the desired fissile isotopes. This process of irradiating non-fissile nuclei in order to convert them into fissile nuclei is called breeding. Non-fissile nuclei which can be bred into fissile nuclei are called fertile. The precursor fertile isotopes are:
1) Thorium-232, which can be transmuted to Th-233, decaying to protactinium-233, then to U-233.
2) Uranium-238, which can be transmuted to uranium-239, which will then decay to neptunium-239, which ultimately decays to Pu-239.
Uranium-238 composes over 99% of natural uranium, which is roughly as abundant as tin in the earth's crust. Thorium is roughly four times as common as uranium, and consists of 100% Th-232.
Nuclear fission can be further classified according to the velocity of the neutrons initiating the process. Neutrons emitted from an atomic nucleus typically have a velocity of around 14,000 km/s, about 5% of the speed of light. These are known as fast neutrons, and nuclear reactors which utilise them are known as fast reactors. The chief advantages of fast reactors is that they liberate more neutrons per collision in the fission process, which enables more efficient fuel breeding, and the energy of the collision is high enough to fission most actinides such as U-238, rather than just U-235 as usual. The chief disadvantage is that fast neutrons have a very small capture cross-section for their target nuclei, thus reducing the likelihood of fission-inducing collisions.
It is possible to slow neutrons down by exposing them to elements with light nuclei. These absorb most of the momentum of the collisions until the neutrons are travelling at only a couple of kilometres per second. This velocity corresponds to room temperature. These are known as thermal neutrons, and nuclear reactors designed to make use of them are known as thermal reactors. The vast majority of current nuclear power plants are thermal reactors. The chief advantage of thermal fission reactions is that they have a much larger capture cross-section with their target nuclei than fast reactions, thereby increasing the likelihood of a fission event. The disadvantages are that they cannot initiate fission in non-fissile nuclei such as U-238, and they release insufficient neutrons to achieve a break-even breeding rate for converting U-238 to Pu-239. Thermal neutrons can achieve break-even breeding of U-233 from Th-232, but this property has not yet been widely exploited.
Out of the three fissile isotopes, only U-235 occurs naturally on Earth, where it composes 0.7% of natural uranium. The other two can be produced artificially by exposing certain other nuclei to neutron radiation to transmute them into other isotopes which then undergo radioactive decay to become the desired fissile isotopes. This process of irradiating non-fissile nuclei in order to convert them into fissile nuclei is called breeding. Non-fissile nuclei which can be bred into fissile nuclei are called fertile. The precursor fertile isotopes are:
1) Thorium-232, which can be transmuted to Th-233, decaying to protactinium-233, then to U-233.
2) Uranium-238, which can be transmuted to uranium-239, which will then decay to neptunium-239, which ultimately decays to Pu-239.
Uranium-238 composes over 99% of natural uranium, which is roughly as abundant as tin in the earth's crust. Thorium is roughly four times as common as uranium, and consists of 100% Th-232.
Nuclear fission can be further classified according to the velocity of the neutrons initiating the process. Neutrons emitted from an atomic nucleus typically have a velocity of around 14,000 km/s, about 5% of the speed of light. These are known as fast neutrons, and nuclear reactors which utilise them are known as fast reactors. The chief advantages of fast reactors is that they liberate more neutrons per collision in the fission process, which enables more efficient fuel breeding, and the energy of the collision is high enough to fission most actinides such as U-238, rather than just U-235 as usual. The chief disadvantage is that fast neutrons have a very small capture cross-section for their target nuclei, thus reducing the likelihood of fission-inducing collisions.
It is possible to slow neutrons down by exposing them to elements with light nuclei. These absorb most of the momentum of the collisions until the neutrons are travelling at only a couple of kilometres per second. This velocity corresponds to room temperature. These are known as thermal neutrons, and nuclear reactors designed to make use of them are known as thermal reactors. The vast majority of current nuclear power plants are thermal reactors. The chief advantage of thermal fission reactions is that they have a much larger capture cross-section with their target nuclei than fast reactions, thereby increasing the likelihood of a fission event. The disadvantages are that they cannot initiate fission in non-fissile nuclei such as U-238, and they release insufficient neutrons to achieve a break-even breeding rate for converting U-238 to Pu-239. Thermal neutrons can achieve break-even breeding of U-233 from Th-232, but this property has not yet been widely exploited.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Pax Atomica: The Nuclear Peace.
Pax Atomica Prologue:
I'm posting the following material here so I can link to it when the topic arises in discussion and debate elsewhere. This post is an essay I wrote some time ago concerning the influence of nuclear weapons on the nature of international relations since the end of World War II. Shortly thereafter, pro-nuclear commenter DV8 2XL provided an analysis on the same subject which went into more specific detail concerning the strategic and tactical considerations of nuclear weapons. Whereas I look at the subject in the light of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, DV8 2XL asserts that the true value of nuclear weapons is their conferral of invulnerability to invasion to any country which possesses them. With nuclear weapons, a small state can repel invasion by huge conventional forces and also ward off the threat of nuclear attack by possessing a retaliatory capability. This shielding effect would be lost the instant it chose to use nuclear weapons in a first strike attack, so there would be strong incentive on both sides to maintain the peace.
Either way you look at it though, nuclear weapons have been an inadvertent force for peace in the world.
Pax Atomica
I have in my possession a most interesting tome. No doubt many here have heard of it. It's titled "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000", written by Paul Kennedy a professor of History at Yale University. There you will find an excellent description of the ongoing pattern of Great Power conflicts over that period. It's a very impressive read. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend that you obtain a copy and do so. You will almost certainly complete it with much greater knowledge and appreciation of the subject than you had when you started.
The book is partly a forecast, as it was written in 1986. Professor Kennedy's insight into the situation at the time was uncanny. He stated that the Soviet Union was in deep trouble a few years before its collapse, and wrote of the rise of China well before that topic became a mainstream day-to-day issue. Nothing in what he said about the remainder of the twentieth century needs much revision now that it's over, except perhaps that some of the projections overestimated the time frame for major changes, but you probably wouldn't have found too many people in 1986 asserting that Soviet communism was likely to collapse within five years. A 'Great Power' is defined as a nation capable of presenting a credible challenge to any other nation in the world. The nations in the first rank change over time, as various contenders get pushed out of the leader pack, while demographic and economic evolution thrusts others into it.
What really strikes me about the historical account is the dreary regularity with which the Great Powers take up arms against each other. Throughout most of modern European history, the Great Powers have engaged in ongoing struggles for dominance, with intervals of peace merely serving as prep time for the next bout. Every twenty years or so (or perhaps less, I haven't worked out the average), Europe would go through some huge convulsion to reach a new equilibrium in its internal tribal tensions.
Since the Renaissance there have been two periods of relative calm, during which direct Great Power wars have been rare or non-existent. The first of these ran from 1815 to 1914, from the victory of Britain and its allies over Napoleon's empire to the outbreak of World War One. That extended period of international peace appears chiefly to be the result of the dominance of one Great Power above all others. Britain found itself in a uniquely advantageous position after the Napoleonic Wars. In a bid to secure their thrones against any future revolutions, the freshly restored monarchies of the Continent established something called the Concert of Europe. Devised by the Austrian nobleman and diplomat Metternich, the 'Concert' was basically an agreement among the European absolutist monarchies to come to each other's aid to put down any popular revolution against any established regime which might threaten the status quo.
The reactionary nature of post-Napoleonic Continental governments slowed the introduction of industrial technology and modern representational management and government, and entrenched Britain's position as hegamon. This situation lasted until the late nineteenth century when the spread of industrialisation across Europe and the U.S. enabled Britain's rivals to close the gap. There were wars during this period, including a couple of direct clashes between Great Powers, but not on the scale of the previous century. The greatest military struggle by far in that historical period was the American Civil War, an internal matter for the United States rather than a Great Power conflict, and one which mirrored to some extent the tensions which also existed in Europe at the time between the old agrarian economic system and the new industrial system. The other notable struggles of this period occurred during the latter part of it, and mainly concerned the altering balance of power in Central Europe with the rise of Prussia/Germany.
As time went by, Britain slipped from overwhelming hegamon to first among equals in the Great Power game, and finally to eclipse at the rise of Germany, the US, Russia and others. Once it could no longer overawe its neighbours, Europe drifted into another Great Power war, this time dragging the rest of the world in with it. In the aftermath of the destruction wrought by WW1, many people from all levels of society across Europe and the rest of the world sought political solutions to the problem of war, such as the League of Nations, and invested great effort in devising them. In spite of their earnest efforts to avoid another disaster, the world was plunged into another, much worse, Great Power war two decades later. In spite of the best efforts of the forces of reason, the basic historical pattern had reasserted itself when the exceptional conditions which facilitated the long peace of the 19th Century vanished. Restoration of the normal distribution of power among the people of the globe meant restoration of business as usual, no matter what the angels of our better nature thought of it.
Then something peculiar happened. For some reason, direct armed clashes between the Great Powers have ceased. By now we should be up to about World War Five, or be desperately arming ourselves in preparation for it. The international situation at the end of World War Two certainly didn't encourage much optimism about the chances of avoiding future Great Power clashes, at least not if you used past history as any guide. Something happened to derail business as usual.
That something was, of course, nuclear weapons. The Balance of Terror, Mutually Assured Destruction, was bagged out in its time, but in retrospect, it seems to have served humanity rather well. Of course, it's still in effect. The fall of the USSR hasn't really changed the fundamental strategic situation that much. Russia could still destroy the US and China. The US could still destroy Russia and China. China could cause enough damage to the US or Russia to dissuade either of those Powers from attacking it. There are still client states and proxy wars, but there are no true Great Power wars. Such a conflict is still far too dangerous for any of the main players to countenance.
Since the thermonuclear bomb cannot be uninvented, I'm inclined to think that it must be acknowledged as a permanent feature of human politics from hereon in. Nukes or something even more powerful will be primary strategic considerations in human affairs for the rest of history. Even if some kind of defensive technology such as advanced ABM lasers, or interceptors, or something becomes possible, no one could ever be sure that an advanced delivery system couldn't get past the defence. The risk would be just too high to ever assume invulnerability to attack.
In short, the only way that nuclear aggression can ever possibly make sense in terms of a Great Power war is if the aggressor has good reason to think that its victim cannot retaliate. I don't know what it would take to convince a would-be nuclear conqueror that it was safe to launch a first strike, but it is certainly more likely to happen if the intended victim publicly declares itself to be disarmed, than if it has a habit of occasionally conducting an underground weapon test to prove to everyone that its nuke capability is current and effective.
The Pax Britannia lasted 99 years. The Pax Atomica is now nearly 63 years old. I wonder if it will outlive its predecessor, and if it does, by how long.
I'm posting the following material here so I can link to it when the topic arises in discussion and debate elsewhere. This post is an essay I wrote some time ago concerning the influence of nuclear weapons on the nature of international relations since the end of World War II. Shortly thereafter, pro-nuclear commenter DV8 2XL provided an analysis on the same subject which went into more specific detail concerning the strategic and tactical considerations of nuclear weapons. Whereas I look at the subject in the light of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, DV8 2XL asserts that the true value of nuclear weapons is their conferral of invulnerability to invasion to any country which possesses them. With nuclear weapons, a small state can repel invasion by huge conventional forces and also ward off the threat of nuclear attack by possessing a retaliatory capability. This shielding effect would be lost the instant it chose to use nuclear weapons in a first strike attack, so there would be strong incentive on both sides to maintain the peace.
Either way you look at it though, nuclear weapons have been an inadvertent force for peace in the world.
Pax Atomica
I have in my possession a most interesting tome. No doubt many here have heard of it. It's titled "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000", written by Paul Kennedy a professor of History at Yale University. There you will find an excellent description of the ongoing pattern of Great Power conflicts over that period. It's a very impressive read. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend that you obtain a copy and do so. You will almost certainly complete it with much greater knowledge and appreciation of the subject than you had when you started.
The book is partly a forecast, as it was written in 1986. Professor Kennedy's insight into the situation at the time was uncanny. He stated that the Soviet Union was in deep trouble a few years before its collapse, and wrote of the rise of China well before that topic became a mainstream day-to-day issue. Nothing in what he said about the remainder of the twentieth century needs much revision now that it's over, except perhaps that some of the projections overestimated the time frame for major changes, but you probably wouldn't have found too many people in 1986 asserting that Soviet communism was likely to collapse within five years. A 'Great Power' is defined as a nation capable of presenting a credible challenge to any other nation in the world. The nations in the first rank change over time, as various contenders get pushed out of the leader pack, while demographic and economic evolution thrusts others into it.
What really strikes me about the historical account is the dreary regularity with which the Great Powers take up arms against each other. Throughout most of modern European history, the Great Powers have engaged in ongoing struggles for dominance, with intervals of peace merely serving as prep time for the next bout. Every twenty years or so (or perhaps less, I haven't worked out the average), Europe would go through some huge convulsion to reach a new equilibrium in its internal tribal tensions.
Since the Renaissance there have been two periods of relative calm, during which direct Great Power wars have been rare or non-existent. The first of these ran from 1815 to 1914, from the victory of Britain and its allies over Napoleon's empire to the outbreak of World War One. That extended period of international peace appears chiefly to be the result of the dominance of one Great Power above all others. Britain found itself in a uniquely advantageous position after the Napoleonic Wars. In a bid to secure their thrones against any future revolutions, the freshly restored monarchies of the Continent established something called the Concert of Europe. Devised by the Austrian nobleman and diplomat Metternich, the 'Concert' was basically an agreement among the European absolutist monarchies to come to each other's aid to put down any popular revolution against any established regime which might threaten the status quo.
The reactionary nature of post-Napoleonic Continental governments slowed the introduction of industrial technology and modern representational management and government, and entrenched Britain's position as hegamon. This situation lasted until the late nineteenth century when the spread of industrialisation across Europe and the U.S. enabled Britain's rivals to close the gap. There were wars during this period, including a couple of direct clashes between Great Powers, but not on the scale of the previous century. The greatest military struggle by far in that historical period was the American Civil War, an internal matter for the United States rather than a Great Power conflict, and one which mirrored to some extent the tensions which also existed in Europe at the time between the old agrarian economic system and the new industrial system. The other notable struggles of this period occurred during the latter part of it, and mainly concerned the altering balance of power in Central Europe with the rise of Prussia/Germany.
As time went by, Britain slipped from overwhelming hegamon to first among equals in the Great Power game, and finally to eclipse at the rise of Germany, the US, Russia and others. Once it could no longer overawe its neighbours, Europe drifted into another Great Power war, this time dragging the rest of the world in with it. In the aftermath of the destruction wrought by WW1, many people from all levels of society across Europe and the rest of the world sought political solutions to the problem of war, such as the League of Nations, and invested great effort in devising them. In spite of their earnest efforts to avoid another disaster, the world was plunged into another, much worse, Great Power war two decades later. In spite of the best efforts of the forces of reason, the basic historical pattern had reasserted itself when the exceptional conditions which facilitated the long peace of the 19th Century vanished. Restoration of the normal distribution of power among the people of the globe meant restoration of business as usual, no matter what the angels of our better nature thought of it.
Then something peculiar happened. For some reason, direct armed clashes between the Great Powers have ceased. By now we should be up to about World War Five, or be desperately arming ourselves in preparation for it. The international situation at the end of World War Two certainly didn't encourage much optimism about the chances of avoiding future Great Power clashes, at least not if you used past history as any guide. Something happened to derail business as usual.
That something was, of course, nuclear weapons. The Balance of Terror, Mutually Assured Destruction, was bagged out in its time, but in retrospect, it seems to have served humanity rather well. Of course, it's still in effect. The fall of the USSR hasn't really changed the fundamental strategic situation that much. Russia could still destroy the US and China. The US could still destroy Russia and China. China could cause enough damage to the US or Russia to dissuade either of those Powers from attacking it. There are still client states and proxy wars, but there are no true Great Power wars. Such a conflict is still far too dangerous for any of the main players to countenance.
Since the thermonuclear bomb cannot be uninvented, I'm inclined to think that it must be acknowledged as a permanent feature of human politics from hereon in. Nukes or something even more powerful will be primary strategic considerations in human affairs for the rest of history. Even if some kind of defensive technology such as advanced ABM lasers, or interceptors, or something becomes possible, no one could ever be sure that an advanced delivery system couldn't get past the defence. The risk would be just too high to ever assume invulnerability to attack.
In short, the only way that nuclear aggression can ever possibly make sense in terms of a Great Power war is if the aggressor has good reason to think that its victim cannot retaliate. I don't know what it would take to convince a would-be nuclear conqueror that it was safe to launch a first strike, but it is certainly more likely to happen if the intended victim publicly declares itself to be disarmed, than if it has a habit of occasionally conducting an underground weapon test to prove to everyone that its nuke capability is current and effective.
The Pax Britannia lasted 99 years. The Pax Atomica is now nearly 63 years old. I wonder if it will outlive its predecessor, and if it does, by how long.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
The Pressing Need For Vast Power.
According to Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, the world has just six years to begin reducing its CO2 emissions or climate change catastrophe will ensue down the track:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547879.htm
There has also been some talk of geoengineering measures which might be taken to alleviate climate change if it does look like getting out of hand:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30112396/
I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to reach Professor Sackett's cutoff point for serious reductions. Too much time has been wasted, and we cannot build the necessary infrastructure by the target date. Even if sensible measures to reduce CO2 emissions are commenced tomorrow, we will still overshoot safe atmospheric CO2 levels by a huge margin.
Many years ago in the lost days of my youth, I lived downstairs from a young man who lived for cars... working on them, fixing them, talking about them, and above all, cheating death in them by pushing the limits of high-speed, hard-edged driving past the point which would turn any sane person pale with terror. I did not particularly like him, but we conversed occasionally, and while I regard most of what he had to say as self-justifying blither, he once said something to me which has peculiar relevance to the situation we find ourselves in now. The words were spoken about twenty-four years ago, so my memory of them may be a little off, but the gist is this:
"People think that small cars are safer than big cars, but they're not. You have less protection in a small car than a big car, and you can get yourself into just as much trouble in a small car. A small car has enough power to get you into real trouble, but not enough power to get you out of it. A big car has even more power to get you into trouble, but it has enough power to get you out of it again."
It was the most sensible thing I ever heard him say.
And so true! A small car can indeed get you into strife it does not have the power to avoid which a larger, more powerful car could (in the hands of a skilled driver) avert. Herein lies a metaphor for our AGW woes.
If we follow the advice of 'renewables' and 'conservation/efficiency' advocates, we will deliberately cast away our ability to implement large-scale geoengineering solutions to AGW. For the sake of our own safety, we must make sure a high-power, high-energy power production system is available to meet our needs. For a lot of obvious reasons ably articulated elsewhere (see links on right hand side of blog), nuclear fission must be the heart of such a system. We need to point out to people just what a dangerous path a low-energy future would really be, especially if (as seems likely) we need to address major climate change in a non-passive manner.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547879.htm
There has also been some talk of geoengineering measures which might be taken to alleviate climate change if it does look like getting out of hand:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30112396/
I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to reach Professor Sackett's cutoff point for serious reductions. Too much time has been wasted, and we cannot build the necessary infrastructure by the target date. Even if sensible measures to reduce CO2 emissions are commenced tomorrow, we will still overshoot safe atmospheric CO2 levels by a huge margin.
Many years ago in the lost days of my youth, I lived downstairs from a young man who lived for cars... working on them, fixing them, talking about them, and above all, cheating death in them by pushing the limits of high-speed, hard-edged driving past the point which would turn any sane person pale with terror. I did not particularly like him, but we conversed occasionally, and while I regard most of what he had to say as self-justifying blither, he once said something to me which has peculiar relevance to the situation we find ourselves in now. The words were spoken about twenty-four years ago, so my memory of them may be a little off, but the gist is this:
"People think that small cars are safer than big cars, but they're not. You have less protection in a small car than a big car, and you can get yourself into just as much trouble in a small car. A small car has enough power to get you into real trouble, but not enough power to get you out of it. A big car has even more power to get you into trouble, but it has enough power to get you out of it again."
It was the most sensible thing I ever heard him say.
And so true! A small car can indeed get you into strife it does not have the power to avoid which a larger, more powerful car could (in the hands of a skilled driver) avert. Herein lies a metaphor for our AGW woes.
If we follow the advice of 'renewables' and 'conservation/efficiency' advocates, we will deliberately cast away our ability to implement large-scale geoengineering solutions to AGW. For the sake of our own safety, we must make sure a high-power, high-energy power production system is available to meet our needs. For a lot of obvious reasons ably articulated elsewhere (see links on right hand side of blog), nuclear fission must be the heart of such a system. We need to point out to people just what a dangerous path a low-energy future would really be, especially if (as seems likely) we need to address major climate change in a non-passive manner.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Time for Australia to relent on the issue of uranium sales to India.
The United States has signalled its dismay with China’s decision to assist Pakistan with the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors:
http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20647§ionid=4&issueid=80&Itemid=1
China for its part is not really taking a lot of notice, and can be expected to move ahead with the deal. It is known that Pakistan is the nation with possibly the worst nuclear proliferation record in the world. Potential nuclear proliferation is, of course, the justification given by the Rudd government for not selling Australian uranium to India. Funnily enough, China’s long-standing relationship with Pakistan raised no red flags over the issue of uranium sales to China. In fact, Martin Ferguson is quite chirpy over the deal:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Australia_starts_shipping_uranium_to_China-2111086.html
It’s true Australia has insisted that Australian uranium only be used in certain designated reactors for electricity production, but since uranium is a fungible commodity this doesn’t really mean much. Uranium China has purchased from elsewhere will now be freed up for use in Pakistani reactors, and, who knows, perhaps eventually Pakistani bombs.
If we are willing to sell uranium to China and thus indirectly facilitate supplies to China’s allies such as Pakistan, why are we refusing to sell uranium to India? Surely it is in our interests to join with our western allies in fostering a strategic relationship with this emergent Great Power, not to mention our environmental interests to assist India to develop its CO2-free energy sector.
http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20647§ionid=4&issueid=80&Itemid=1
China for its part is not really taking a lot of notice, and can be expected to move ahead with the deal. It is known that Pakistan is the nation with possibly the worst nuclear proliferation record in the world. Potential nuclear proliferation is, of course, the justification given by the Rudd government for not selling Australian uranium to India. Funnily enough, China’s long-standing relationship with Pakistan raised no red flags over the issue of uranium sales to China. In fact, Martin Ferguson is quite chirpy over the deal:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Australia_starts_shipping_uranium_to_China-2111086.html
It’s true Australia has insisted that Australian uranium only be used in certain designated reactors for electricity production, but since uranium is a fungible commodity this doesn’t really mean much. Uranium China has purchased from elsewhere will now be freed up for use in Pakistani reactors, and, who knows, perhaps eventually Pakistani bombs.
If we are willing to sell uranium to China and thus indirectly facilitate supplies to China’s allies such as Pakistan, why are we refusing to sell uranium to India? Surely it is in our interests to join with our western allies in fostering a strategic relationship with this emergent Great Power, not to mention our environmental interests to assist India to develop its CO2-free energy sector.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Nuclear Power Enables German Utility To Offer Affordable CO2-Free Electricity Option.
German electricity utility RWE has come out swinging against Germany’s absurd nuclear phase-out policy with a new electricity purchasing package for consumers based on a mix of 68% nuclear power and 32% renewables, mainly hydroelectric. The story can be found here:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-RWE_launches_zero_carbon_supply_option-1411086.html
Although the power purchased through the scheme will be slightly more expensive than usual, RWE has stated that baring changes to taxes, the power will remain at a fixed cost until 2011. It is being promoted to consumers concerned about CO2-induced global warming.
This is not the first scheme of its kind to be marketed in Europe. Finnish utility Fortum has also marketed two carbon emission-free packages, one costing slightly more than usual based on nuclear power, and another devoted to electricity produced by non-nuclear renewable sources, which is more costly:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/energyEnvironment/Fortum_launches_electricity_eco-labels-210108.shtml
Predictably enough, reactionary anti-nuclear campaigners from the German chapter of Greenpeace have denounced the RWE initiative in their usual soundbite press release style.
“Greenpeace Germany is critical of the new plan. "'Pro-Climate' is just a label. The product is in no way ecological. It does nothing to help the environment," Andree Bohling, an energy expert with Greenpeace Germany, told Spiegel Online.”
Yeah, right. Anyhow, that quote comes from the following story:
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Power_company_offers_nuke-heavy_power_plan_999.html
I hope that German consumers will chose wisely with regard to this new option for purchasing their electricity and send a clear message to decision makers, underlined in Euros. Unfortunately it looks like it will be quite some time before Australian consumers will have the luxury of expressing a similar preference.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-RWE_launches_zero_carbon_supply_option-1411086.html
Although the power purchased through the scheme will be slightly more expensive than usual, RWE has stated that baring changes to taxes, the power will remain at a fixed cost until 2011. It is being promoted to consumers concerned about CO2-induced global warming.
This is not the first scheme of its kind to be marketed in Europe. Finnish utility Fortum has also marketed two carbon emission-free packages, one costing slightly more than usual based on nuclear power, and another devoted to electricity produced by non-nuclear renewable sources, which is more costly:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/energyEnvironment/Fortum_launches_electricity_eco-labels-210108.shtml
Predictably enough, reactionary anti-nuclear campaigners from the German chapter of Greenpeace have denounced the RWE initiative in their usual soundbite press release style.
“Greenpeace Germany is critical of the new plan. "'Pro-Climate' is just a label. The product is in no way ecological. It does nothing to help the environment," Andree Bohling, an energy expert with Greenpeace Germany, told Spiegel Online.”
Yeah, right. Anyhow, that quote comes from the following story:
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Power_company_offers_nuke-heavy_power_plan_999.html
I hope that German consumers will chose wisely with regard to this new option for purchasing their electricity and send a clear message to decision makers, underlined in Euros. Unfortunately it looks like it will be quite some time before Australian consumers will have the luxury of expressing a similar preference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
