Larry, and fellow ASA-ers,
I've mentioned nuclear power in the past, and welcome your "invitation" to
get a discussion going on nuclear power.
Glenn and I have, on occasion, exchanged e-mails on the possibility to
supplant our fossil fuel supplies with nuclear power. He feels, if I recall
correctly, that it will be impossible to build nuclear power plants fast
enough to fill the gap in our energy supply when (not if!) the oil runs out.
He may well be right.
I guess the first question we, as Christians in the developed world, need to
address is our almost insatiable demands for energy, and I am saying this as
someone who has worked in the nuclear energy for the last 30+ years. Are we
being good stewards of God's creation while we adhere to a lifestyle that
demands the consumption of large amounts of oil and gas, leaving very little
to the rest of the world or next generation?
Having said this, the next thing we need to look at is the use of our energy
and to see how our energy needs can be supplied best by various energy
sources.
IHMO, the discovery of "portable energy" probably had the biggest impact on
the way our North American society has evolved. If we did not have gasoline
or diesel fuel, our transportation would be limited to human power (walking,
cycling), horses, oxen, coal-fired steam locomotives and coal-fired
steamships. North American cities would have been much more compact than
the sprawling cities that they evolved into. Compare, for example, Paris,
France and Phoenix, AZ. Without gasoline, we would not be able to use cars,
buses, or airplanes, nor would we be able to ship large quantities of
materials quickly over long distances. There simply is no alternative
portable fuel to gasoline and diesel fuel and, therefore, we will have to
reserve our ever-decreasing fossil fuels for this mode of transportation.
However, we should use the price increases of oil and gas and the sporadic
brownouts and blackouts in California to chart a better and more sustainable
life style. I’ll say a bit more about this later on.
For virtually all other energy requirements, we can use electricity. We can
heat our homes, churches, offices and factories electrically, if necessary.
It goes without saying that we should use passive or active solar power
where possible but, let's be honest about this, solar power is not going to
be the answer in many parts of the world. As I write this, it is cloudy
outside and the temperature has been hovering between -10 C and -5 C all
day. There's no way that solar power, be it photovoltaic panels or large
windows facing South, will keep me warm on a day like today.
To generate electricity, we have a number of energy supplies to our
disposal. However, none of these are without risk.
Hydroelectric dams tend to flood large areas of land and require the
dislocation of (in many cases aboriginal) local populations. Flooded lands
may release appreciable quantities of mercury. Besides, there are not many
rivers left that we can dam.
Burning coal releases vast quantities of carbon dioxide and releases heavy
metals such as Cd, Hg, U, and Th. These heavy metals go up the smokestacks,
are trapped on filters, or remain with the fly ash. The fly ash tends to
end up in landfill sites, although there are now attempts to incorporate the
fly ash in concrete; keeping it (at least temporarily) out of the
environment. Utilities in Alberta have recently decided to build more
coal-fired plants, even though this province has vast supplies of oil and
gas.
Burning natural gas and oil releases somewhat less carbon dioxide because
these fossil fuels contain hydrogen that will yield water.
Solar and wind power will only be able to supply a small fraction of our
energy requirements because the energy sources (solar flux and wind) are so
dilute.
I think that there is no question that nuclear power will come into its own
again. There is enough uranium to keep nuclear reactors going for quite
some time. The OECD NEA and IAEA estimate the known conventional resources
of uranium to be 4.3 million tonnes. Of that, 3 million tonnes is
“reasonably assured.” Annual production world wide is ~ 34 000 tonnes. In
addition, there are designs for breeder and near-breeder reactors that will
convert Th-232 into fissile U-233 and U-238 into Pu-239. The Canadian CANDU
(natural uranium-heavy water) design will run on mixed U/Th fuel and will
generate U-233 in the process. Reprocessing this fuel is a bit of a problem
because dissolution required a mixed nitric/hydrofluoric acid.
Properly designed, constructed and operated nuclear power plants do not pose
a significant danger to the population living nearby. The (admittedly very
serious) accident at Chornobyl was caused by improper operation of that
reactor and was exacerbated by the presence of large amounts of graphite in
the reactor core and lack of proper confinement of the reactor in the form
of a concrete dome. Yet, only few people were killed (the numbers often
cited in the media of 40 000 dead have no basis in fact). The nuclear
fatalities at the research reactor in Idaho Falls were also caused by
improper operation. The meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania
caused no fatalities, although malformations to cattle were attributed to
the accident. Nuclear power plants produce, comparably, only small volumes
of (highly radioactive) waste, but 25+ years of research worldwide have
shown that geological disposal is not a technically difficult problem.
I would like to see nuclear power plants supply the bulk of the electricity,
with the waste heat used for district heating. Because nuclear power plants
use water to transport the heat from the core to the heat exchangers, the
maximum operating temperature is 374 C, the critical temperature and
therefore a lot of heat is lost to the environment. About 20 years ago, we
developed an organic- cooled reactor that operated at 425 C and was,
therefore, more efficient. Higher temperatures can be (and have been)
achieved with gas-cooled reactors, e.g., one at Fort St. Vrain in Colorado.
Fossil fuels should be reserved for chemical feedstock, lubricants, and fuel
for airplanes that cannot use any other fuel.
But, more has to be done to reduce our demands for energy. Cities need to
become more compact so that public transit will be effective (why does
public transit not work in sprawling cities?). Housing may have to return
to row houses and/or apartments. Our house is a two-story, 24 x 32 foot
“detached” house with a floor space of 1536 square feet (plus basement).
Its outer surface area is about 1800 square feet (24 + 32) x 2 x 16) and
provides a considerable surface area for heat to radiate from the house to
the environment. If we lived in a row house, we could reduce that by 43%. I
addition, our neighbours would keep us warm. ;-).
By building more compact cities, we can reduce our transportation costs as
well. Urban transit can be electrically powered (subways, streetcars and
trolley buses) and, if deemed necessary, by nuclear power- or solar
power-generated hydrogen (although I can’t see that being a very efficient
way of using our resources)
Getting back to the California situation, this reminds me of a survey that
was done in the mid- to late-80s where utilities were asked how they planned
to meet any shortfall in generating capacity in the future. Most of them
said that they would buy it.
A final (for now) thought: I wonder how much of the blame for the current
price increase in natural gas can be laid at the feet of the nuclear critics
who, for years, have fought tooth and nail against the use of nuclear power.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Johnston [mailto:johnston@uidaho.edu]
Sent: Sunday January 21, 2001 10:30 AM
To: ASA@calvin.edu
Cc: Glenn Morton; Lawrence H Johnston
Subject: Nuclear power
Dear Glenn, and fellow ASA-ers:
Yes, I used the verboten N-word!
First, thank you Glenn for keeping us up to date on the shrinking supply of
fossil
fuels. That is a great service, you are our Expert in the business. I am
amazed
that nobody has come out and said what seems to me is an obvious answer -
Nuclear
Power! (NP). It's time has come, and then some.
In recent years, the reply has been that NP has insoluble
political
problems, like "Not in my backyard". But with rolling blackouts rolling in
California, I hope that some intrepid governor will come out with this
unpopular
truth, for which he will be elevated to the status of Statesman. Our new
President, during the campaign, used the N-word softly, perhaps as a trial
balloon.
I hope he gets some good solid advice, and says it out loud.
This happened long ago in France, which now produces most of
its
electric power by reactors. I think it was De Gaulle, who called in their
nuclear
protestors, and asked them whether they preferred to freeze in the dark, or
to have
well-designed Nuclear Reactors. They got the message, and didn't let out a
peep.
I am going out of town now for several days, so I hope when I
get back
I will find some good discussion going. It could be outlined as follows:
World supply of Uranium and Thorium
Disposal of wastes
Radiation danger from reaactors, compared to radiation burden from burning
coal
(Coal carries heavy metals, including Uranium, and puts them up its
stack)
Number of people killed per year by Coal-fired generators, compared to those
killed
by radiation from reaactors. (Yes, include the Russian accidents, including
Chernobyl) even tho these were cowboy-designed reactors.
All God's Best, Larry Johnston
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set
eternity in the hearts of men" - - Ecclesiastes 3:11, NIV trans
================================================
Lawrence H. Johnston home:917 E. 8th st.
professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843
University of Idaho (208) 882-2765
http://www.uidaho.edu/~johnston/ =====================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 09:25:11 EST