Report from Montreal

My colleague Lisa Stiles-Shell shot off a note to me this morning as she was getting ready to return to Washington after two weeks at COP-11, the UN Conference on Climate Change:

It’s been an exhausting but rewarding two weeks at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Montreal. NA-YGN members have been staffing exhibits and hosted a sidebar event in cooperation with the European Nuclear Society Young Generation Network (ENS YGN).

I have to admit that I don’t know much about the processes within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I’m not alone, though. Tim Hirsch of the BBC wrote an amusing article about the indecipherable bureaucracy of the UNFCCC.

What I do know is that nuclear is specifically excluded in the Kyoto Protocol as a Flexible Mechanism. That means that countries can’t take credit for carbon reductions due to nuclear as they work to meet their commitment under Kyoto. That particular issue won’t be negotiated at this conference, but in the future we hope that nuclear will be evaluated with the same set of objective criteria that is applied to other technologies. For that to happen, we must correct rampant misconceptions and that was the goal of our booth.

Because antinuclear extremist organizations have such a large presence at these conferences, we were a little concerned about our reception. But aside from our booth being in the very back corner, the atmosphere here has been mostly amicable. The vast majority of people that stop by the exhibit are willing to converse with us. The fuel pellet cards from NEI are particularly useful as a visual aid that attracts attention. People are consistently surprised by the power density of nuclear fuel. From there it is generally easy to move on to specific information about nuclear’s current contribution to carbon reduction and its possible role in the future. We have another interesting pamphlet from the IAEA showing the life-cycle carbon emitted and the waste generated per kW-hr produced for different energy technologies. This also prompts surprise in many people as they realize that no energy technology is carbon-free, that nuclear’s life-cycle carbon emissions are so low, and that the amount of toxic waste generated by solar power is comparable to that generated by nuclear.

To see the printed materials Lisa is talking about, click here (PDF), here (PDF) and here (PDF). And while I don't have a graphic of the fuel pellet card, here's the meat of the info it provides:

Compared to natural gas, a fuel also used to generate electricity, uranium is already relatively low in cost and less sensitive to fuel price increases. And a little goes a long way: one uranium fuel pellet—the size of the tip of your little finger—is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.

Back to Lisa's note:

At this point, we usually reiterate that we are not against the use of any energy technology. Our position is that nuclear should be given equal treatment and countries committed to carbon reduction should be able to consider it among a range of options.

The people that made the greatest impression on me were those from developing African nations. Representatives from Nigeria, Senegal, Togo and Nigeria all asked very detailed questions about nuclear power plants, how they work, and the how they are run. One gentleman asked how we could export our technology where there is no infrastructure to make sure that plants are operated safely. I told him about the IAEA and WANO and that companies and countries with well-developed nuclear programs do share their knowledge through these organizations because they realize that an accident anywhere affects every other operator.

There have been many people with a general bias against nuclear. However, I believe we made an impact with each of them willing to talk about their concerns. One woman that began with, “I’m against nuclear power,” left our booth saying, “Well, I’m less against nuclear power.” Score!

In my next installment, I’ll write about our sidebar with Dr. Patrick Moore and our encounters with antinuclear extremists.

Sounds like fun. Stop back later for more from Lisa.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Electricity, Natural Gas, Oil, Uranium, United Nations, Cop-11, Climate Change, Greenhouse Gases

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog