New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as fuel | Environment | The Guardian

I've been very skeptical about nuclear power and have said as much several times in this blog. However, George Monbiot's advocacy of the fast reactor technology has begun to change my mind in respect of that technology as it would appear to address the issus I have with nuclear power:

The engineering firm GE Hitachi has submitted an alternative proposal based on its Prism fast reactor, which could consume the plutonium as fuel while generating electricity.

So it seems that it addresses the iddue of waste very helpfully by using it and in doing so rendering it relatively easy to deal with by comparison with current waste problems. It is also safer by using the laws of physics and so less vulnerable to terrorist co-option. In addition it seems cheaper to build and quicker, thus dealing wiht the econmic and strategic objecgtions.
New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as fuel | Environment | The Guardian

Lib Dems U-turn on nuclear power?

The charge levelled is this: "The Liberal Democrats have ditched one of their most distinctive election pledges and will approve a new generation of nuclear power stations,"
I think that's misleading. Oh yes, it plays nicely into the typical journalistic trope about U-turns; dramatising and stirring emotional responses out of very little really. Is it really a U-turn by the Lib-Dems? I think not, and here's why.

Those of us opposing nukes for power have been saying for years(heck; search this blog for 'nuclear power' and you'll find stuff going back years on this) that -leaving aside the issues about storage and dangerous substances, terrorism and security- one of the big issues is that in 60 years of developing the technology, it's never been able to pay its way. It can only exist with subsidy. So, cannily, by insisting on no subsidy this becomes a de facto moratorium on nuclear power. In fact, if you see a nuke being built, you'll know a subsidy has been found somehow.

Of course the trick will be to hold the line on the subsidy issue. But remember, unlike most green tech may be enjoying temporary subsidies to build capacity, but that will be temporary. Nukes seem incapable of existing without subs.

Lib Dems perform U-turn on nuclear power | Politics | The Guardian

A bright nuclear future?

I think I recall blogging about a number of these. Worth revisiting if you're beginning to think 'what the hey; surely nuclear must have a place at the table?' A bright nuclear future: true or false? | Jeremy Leggett | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk Here are some of my 'favourites':

This July, a heatwave shut a third of French reactors, because rivers became too hot to act as coolant. France was forced to import electricity from the UK.

6) Things got little better as winter approached. With almost one third of France's reactors out of service for maintenance and other reasons, France will have to import electricity at peak hours during the winter – for the second year running – to avoid the risk of blackouts.
...There were 1,767 leaks, breakdowns, or other safety "events" at British nuclear plants between 2001 and 2008. A Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) report says about half were serious enough "to have had the potential to challenge a nuclear safety system".

9) A radioactive leak, undiscovered for 14 months, was found at Sellafield just before a visit by the prime minister. A board of inquiry concluded the leak went unnoticed because "managerial controls over the line were insufficient and there was inadequate inspection". Meanwhile, elsewhere on the site two containers of highly radioactive material went missing. The operator said it was most likely that "the anomaly lies within the accounting procedures".

Now while some of those are fixable, I'm still left concerned that human error or mismanagement could be a factor when the stuff we're talking about is so scary ...

Accidents tarnish nuclear dream

According to this report, there is a problem in the nuclear idyll that was France. 'It feels like a sci-fi film' - accidents tarnish nuclear dream | Environment | The Guardian: "Until now most locals have accepted the plant as a risk-free part of everyday life in nuclear-dependent France. More than 80% of France's electricity is generated by the country's 58 nuclear reactors - the world's highest ratio. But the leak has shaken French trust in nuclear safety and embarrassed Nicolas Sarkozy as he crusades for a French-led world renaissance in atomic power."
So yet another cautionary tale for those who would tell us that nuclear power is the only way to go ...

Labour goes nuclear

At first when I read this Labour goes nuclear but row erupts over who will foot bill I thought, that perhaps the government had been cunningly green: 'yes you can have nuclear power but you will pay all the costs' "Private companies who wanted to build new stations would have to pay for the entire cost while 'meeting the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs', argued Hutton who said atomic power was needed to reduce carbon and the growing reliance on energy imports." It would have been vaguely good news, because as I've written before, it looks unlikely that unsubsidised nuclear power could actually survive in a power market.
HOWEVER
all is not really so good:

he government is effectively making electricity generated by coal or gas more expensive by promising "greater certainty for investors" through unilateral action to underpin the price of carbon. Coal and gas power stations emit relatively large quantities of CO2 for which they will need costly permits while atomic power is virtually carbon free.

· The public purse could ultimately be used for all decommissioning of new plants and waste disposal. The current bill for dismantling existing plants is estimated at over £70bn with an additional £20bn for the disposal of waste.

· Ministers are also looking at putting a ceiling on the price private firms will have to pay for dismantling reactors at the end of their life, reducing companies' risks and making it cheaper for them to borrow.

Grrrr!

further hidden energy footprint of nuke power

Interesting and helpful material in this Celsias article. Nuclear Reactors for the UK - is this a Good Idea? � Celsias:

"is not so widely recognised is that the final disposal of waste will require a lot of energy. This begins to become clear when you think about what has to be done to keep high-level wastes safe for the thousands for years in which they must lie undisturbed. Containers have to be built from steel, lead and electrolytic copper; vast repositories have to be dug and lined with clay; much of the work needs to be done by robots; retired fuel-rods have to be kept cool and safe for a century or so before the final disposal programme begins. Then there is the energy-cost of dismantling and burying the old reactors, doing the best that can done to rehabilitate the disused uranium mines to some semblance of sustainability and safety, and dealing with the stocks of leaking depleted uranium hexafluoride gas. (It is “depleted” in the sense that it has been used as a source of the uranium-235 needed by reactors, but some uranium-235 and all the uranium-238 remains)."

I wonder whether that has been added to the carbon footprint of 'clean' nuclear energy?
In fact we're told how energetically expensive it is: "To deal with the total legacy of waste left by a nuclear reactor through its whole life-cycle requires energy equivalent to about 25 percent of the gross energy supplied by the reactor to the grid."
And remember, we have to add to that the footprint of building the thing in the first place.

The article is mostly, in fact, about the likely shortfall in uranium. So it looks like, if we do go down the nuclear road bigtime (God forbid), we will have to generate the energy for disposal from other means: ironically, this could have to be renewables.

Nuclear waste could power Britain | Science | The Observer

Okay, I'm a nuclear-power skeptic, but even I thought, when I first looked at this article, that if we have the stuff sitting there, it might be better to use it better. However, that was to reckon without this: "The Sellafield reprocessing plan would cost several billion pounds, a price that infuriates opponents of nuclear energy. 'There is no economic justification for this plan,' said Roger Higman, of Friends of the Earth. 'It would just be another massive subsidy for the nuclear industry. We should invest in renewables.'
Problem is still that it is uneconomic and presumably a better investment return comes from renewables. In addition the plutonium economy would involve yet further degradations to civil liberties. ID-cards and plutonium go together. One wonders whether there is a clue here to government agendas?
Nuclear waste could power Britain | Science | The Observer:

Nuclear Power – the carbon footprint rising

Part of a very interesting article on nuclear power, problematising considerably the claim that it is a solution to CO2 production associated with energy. Following an analyisis of how quickly useful uranium would be depleted, we then read:
"All processes of the nuclear system ..., except the reactor itself, consume fossil fuels and consequently emit CO2. The nuclear CO2 emission depends on the ore grade, ... With decreasing ore grade, the CO2 emission increases: ... The world average ore grade today is about 0.15% U3O8. and the world average CO2 emission is around 120 g/kWh (with a large spread). When poorer ores are to be mined, the specific CO2 emissions increase steeply with decreasing ore grade."
Nuclear Power – the Energy Balance � Celsias:

Cyberaction: resist nuke power in earthquake zone

It's hard to believe but there is a proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria in an earthquake-prone area. "The Belene project was planned in the early 1980s and from the start it was controversial because the nuclear plant would be situated in an earthquake zone. During the last large earthquake in 1977, over 120 people died only 14 kilometres from the Belene site. In 1984, Soviet scientists actually warned against building a nuclear plant at this location and in the 1990s the plan was scrapped."
We should recall the lasting effects of Chernobyl ... add your voice to opposing this by clicking on this link: FoE Europe - Anti-nuclear cyber action

Half of nuclear power stations closed for repairs

Perhaps, when we next hear a protagonist for more nuke power dissing wind power for its intermittancy, we should recall this. "Almost half Britain's nuclear power stations are currently shut down for repairs or maintenance, the Nuclear Industry Association said today. "

And then there is the difficulty of actually making sure they're safe when there is a pay squeeze on inspectors, leading to a shortage. "The government is so short of nuclear inspectors that the programme of new reactors being planned may have to be put on hold" (full article here)
Half of nuclear power stations closed for repairs | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited:

New nuclear row as green groups pull out

In a consultative democracy it's the people who frame the questions who hold the power. And that issue seems to be at the heart of a report that could herald the formal withdrawal of a green coalition from UK gov's consultation on nuclear power. The report "accuses the government of 'conducting a public relations stitch-up designed to deliver a preordained policy on new nuclear power' and 'rushing' a consultation process that its advisers say should take at least nine months. 'The new consultation is no different from the government's previous attempt at a nuclear consultation,' it says. 'It skirts over the many negative aspects of nuclear power, such as its enormous cost, what to do with all the radioactive waste new build will create, and how little nuclear power will do to help cut carbon emissions and guarantee energy security.' The document continues: 'It has become clear that the government has already made up its mind ... and that this new consultation is nothing more than an expensive sham.'"
Of course the difficulty is that it could simply be written off as a fit of pique at not getting their own way: however, we should note that this is about feeling they have been heard and that their position is articulated fairly. It's a fundamental rule of mediation and conciliation that each side is 'heard'. And at this point the purpose of the consultation is surely to let the arguments be heard properly and that means that each side should feel that they have been represented fairly.
New nuclear row as green groups pull out | Environment | The Guardian

Prime sites for nuclear power stations identified

Prime sites for nuclear power stations identified | Energy | Guardian Unlimited Environment: "The report highlights nuclear waste organisation Nirex's anxiety that the sites most prone to flooding from rising sea levels are in the low-lying areas of the south of England - exactly where electricity demand is forecast to be greatest."
It just seems that when we look into the details of nuclear power's proposed renaissance, it just gets worse. As a Greenpeace spokesbeing said:

"Scientists say the speed at which climate change is happening means that some of the sites suggested for new nuclear power stations are threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges. You have to question where the government thinks it's going to build these thing

Ministers to press on with new nuclear power stations

Despite the fact that, we are told, ministers are to press on with new nuclear power stations, we can hope that the coalition of the unwilling are enough: "A group of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs warn in a letter published in today's Guardian that 'we should not be politically panicked into accepting a technology that poses a continuing risk in terms of weapons proliferation and terrorism, produces a toxic waste for which no management solution is agreed, benefits from hidden subsidies and tends to undermine the prospects of renewable energy and efforts to increase efficiency'. The letter, also signed by Friends of the Earth, said it was a 'myth' that the lights would go out or that Britain would be far less dependent on gas imports without nuclear."
Apparently the figure in polls in the country show an interesting split. Overall it's 49% to 44% against nuke power. However if you separate out the genders, those in favour among men come out as 62% whereas among women it's 27%. Now why is that? Are men more 'macho' (raised knuckles in the air and grunt 'hunh, hunh') about technological fixes and the industrial scale solution? Are women more connected to the waste problem and empathise with the potential suffering? Can I be any more stereotyped? Could the stereotypes be true?

Anyway, a couple of other things to bear in mind. One is that the government have been forced by a Greenpeace legal challenge, to hold more public enquiry on the matter. The second is the proposed change in planning regulations. The sweetener for the latter is that ordinary people could find it easier to make changes to their houses and interestingly the sales pitch mentions solar panels and wind turbines (pause for raised eyebrow and clearing of throat). On the downside it would cut the time for nuke power stations, airport extra runways and more road to be proposed and then built. Hmmmm.
Thinking of emigrating to Ireland.
In relation to the cited article on planning regs, one commenter (Brian Drury, we salute you) wrote very wittily:

“someone in the audience should blow a raspberry and shout "hypocrite".”
And then they will be arrested, fingerprinted, DNA profiled and charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
New Labour: Tough on freedom - tough on the causes of freedom.

You know, I fear he may be right.

Brown plans UK's nuclear future

Bad news: Gordie seems to be an afficionado of the split atom as a solution to the carbon conundrum. Slightly good news is that there is parliamentary opposition, and the reasons for it are based on just my fears. "Brown was given a taste of a potential rebellion by his own MPs last night when a former environment minister expressed unease. Elliot Morley, the MP for Scunthorpe, said: 'Nuclear may or may not have a role to play in the new energy mix. My worry is that this will direct resources and investment away from new low-carbon technology, growth in renewables and energy efficiency. I am not sure nuclear is the best investment at this moment.'"
Now, of course, the big argument is TINA:

Darling says he now believes that Britain has no option but to remain nuclear. 'I respect the views of someone who says they don't want nuclear in any circumstances whatsoever. Fair enough. Right, tell me what the alternative is. If there was an easy answer that had low carbon, no cost, no eyesores somebody would have found it.'

Which argument I feel is a little disingenuos. There are answers, and if we had invested and continued to invest the kind of money that has been pumped into nukes, then it would have been obvious. Let's spell out that the 'answer' is more decentralised and varied: efficiency, insulation, tidal, wind, solar, self-generation of these, cleaner fossils ... etc. These will add up, create jobs and give us skills for a global market.
Brown plans UK's nuclear future | Politics | The Observer:

Best soundbite on a nuclear future

"'Reaching for nuclear power to solve climate change is like taking up smoking to lose weight. Is it a simple answer? Yes. Is it an effective answer to the climate change crisis? Absolutely not.'"
-Greenpeace Spokesbeing on Gordon Brown's dedication to Nuke power.
Brown plans UK's nuclear future | Politics | The Observer: