Part 2 - why nuclear power is not the silver built

With a move to an energy economy with less dependance on carbon, many tote nuclear power as the solution due to the lack of carbon emissions. But what about the rest of it (Plant failure issues completely aside)?

The waste is problematic to say the least. One source I read a while ago suggested that in the US there was an area set aside for the centralized storage of spent fuel rods in  sealed drums – however there was a few problems with this – first the heat form the sheer mass of fuel, and secondly the longevity of the storage containers.  Presently fuel is stored at the plant as an alternative. Some suggest jettisoning fuel into space, while other suggest dropping it into an oceanic trench – the first would require prohibitive amounts of energy (probably from carbon sources too), and the second would no doubt have an impact on oceanic ecosystems.

Next when considering nuclear power is the useful life and commissioning phases of a plant. Useful life is of the order of 40 years with commissioning and decommissioning phases each of the order of 5-20 years. That’s a bloody long time to muck about for the amount of useful life a plant gives! Not to mention extending plant life can be risky when it comes to issues such as metal fatigue (on internal pipework), and concrete cancer. Never the less, this has been done on a lot of nuclear plants in The States.

When looking at alternatives,  it must be said that as a member of the imeche, I found it interesting to read the amount of members willing to condemn wind power in the UK on the basis of the elctrical gride nearing capacity in early December 2010 due to low wind conditions and high demand due to the extreme cold. I must pose this question – did the lights go out? Nope. Not a failure in my mind. This does not suggest a failure of wind power and the immediate need for nuclear, what this does demonstrate however is the need for a robust grid. I dare remind those engineers that ‘robust’ when referring to a power grid means the ability to deliver energy under all manner of operating conditions.  Clearly a wind power grid is not robust then, but neither is a uniquely nuclear grid. No single power source on its own can be a silver built or the basis of a robust grid. What does build a robust system though is diversity.

How best to build a robust grid? Firstly there is a need for a variety of input sources – namely solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind power are all sensible options. None of these come anywhere near being robust on there own when compared with nuclear or coal/gas, individually but in combination it is hardly likely that a region is going to be dry, cloudy, and still at the same time. How best to manage these as a national grid? I personally believe that the majority of energy sources could be managed by the individual in a de-centralized grid of solar and wind power. This has several advantages, albeit not so obvious. When people are charged with managing their own resources they exhibit individual agency, and actively involve themselves in the situation – the individual can witness the direct cause and effect of their actions – i.e. leaving too many lights on will run the house out of stored power and the lights will stay out, or they will have to start paying for grid power. Essentially a de-centralized grid would make people more aware of how much energy they are using and graphically illustrate to them how to better manage their consumption. The second advantage is that the need for a heavy duty supply grid is secondary. Interestingly, prior to the wind power saga  brought forward by the imeche they claimed that Britain is in need of a more robust power distribution grid. If it is to survive a warmer future. I do not believe that global warming will significantly change weather in Britain – it has a cool, unstable maritime climate to begin with. More importantly, a robust distribution grid would not rely on stronger lines between user and power generation, but multiples of these – the very kind that would come from a de-centralized grid.

So why are we not seeing de-centralized grids at present? Well that is sadly because it is not yet financially viable for the masses. The thing that drives the nuclear and coal  power industries is capital investment, and good financial terms from governments. Home power rebates come and go, but the loans offered to build coal and nuclear power plants are still being paid off.  It is a pity to note that the same financial terms are cringed at when it comes to large scale wind farms!

I clearly believe that an individually managed de-centralized grid made up of renewables poses our best solution to the un popularity of carbon based fuels, and the hassles associated with nuclear power, but there is one major thing not typically considered – overall demand. With the rise and rise of computing, smart phones, and plasma tellies, not to mention population rise there is an ever increasing demand for power. So in the mean time, don’t bother with the GPS – use a map or your memory, read a book – the information will probably be more accurate anyhow, and don’t bloody breed too much!

Nuclear power – an alternative view

 Fukishima seems to have brought out both polarities in the nuclear power camp. One clearly for it – with the view that the situation is quite minor given the massive damage ithe plant sustained; the other seems to immediately condemn nuclear power as having the potential to reign absolute chaos in the event of plant failure.

So whats my take on all this? I’m no nuclear physicist, so speculating on a safe amount of radiation for humans to tolerate is not my forte. I do however think there are some critical  things all those bipolar parties are missing in the nuclear debate.

Those who are for nuclear power will probably cite the official toll from Chernobyl, and the fact that people continued working there for years in other reactors on the same site – but what about the conditions they were working in? They clearly would not have been eating food farmed in the exclusion zone, and would most probably have been sheltered to a massive degree within the concrete reactor buildings – as opposed to being in the vicinity of the fallout from the failed reactor. They were not living in the exclusion zone either.

On the other hand, those against nuclear energy seemingly impose a zero tolerance on any un-natural radiation. Arguably this tolerance is not really a cause for concern in most cases, owing to natural radiation from solar events, x-rays and medical imaging, and limited time of exposure. It would seem that both polarities here missing a critical parameter in their arguments - time of exposure. What this boils down to is this – it is possible to briefly experience high doses of radiation (as in an X-ray, or tourism to Chenobyl ), but you sure as hell would not want to live for a significant amount of time in the presence of it.

So total exposure is the main concern when it comes to radiation, but what about the impact on society? What about management efforts and finance as well? Some say that an incident at a chemical plant may be more problematic than a nuclear plant failure, but herein lies the difference. While a chemical plant may have a large scale immediate impact (in terms of fatalities and short term disaster management), the disaster will usually be under control  relatively quickly in comparison with a nuclear disaster - at Chernobyl the construction of a second sarcophagus is presently under construction (25 years later no less) to prevent further leaks. No doubt the monitoring of such a situation will continue a long way into the foreseeable future.

Even in terms of shorter term response, the sheer volume of those involved in the cleanup of Chernobyl cannot possibly be matched by any other disaster caused by man – there were an estimated 800,000 ‘liquidators’ involved in the Chernobyl cleanup. But it does not end with the sheer numbers. An individuals cumulative exposure must also be measured, and equipment handled and stored appropriately in order to prevent further contamination.  Sure the japanese disaster is no Chernoby - the containment is much more rigorous, however the crisis has now continued for some weeks and is still not fully under control. In essence the management of such a disaster is on-going and arduous.

Finally when It comes to a disaster such as this, the fear of radiation contamination plays on one of our most baser instincts of ‘fear of the unknown’ – whether or not this is perceived or a real threat is irrelevant to the anxiety it may cause an individual.

Perhaps humans can tolerate higher levels of radiation – what we cannot push for in the future however is over-dependance on one source of energy – let alone one that demands so many resources should something go wrong.