Skip to main content

A Finger in the Dyke

By

The Guardian reports that the Dutch government is scaling back their nuclear activities in favor of coal with carbon capture. The writer, Reuters Carolyn Hornby, is less than impressed:

[Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer] said that coal, the most widely-used but also one of the most polluting energy sources on the planet, was a favoured option for the Netherlands because of its availability and easy access to Dutch ports, but also for security of supply.

This is the path-of-least-resistance approach to solving energy issues. Carbon capture is a more promising technology than the article allows; still, the Dutch have adopted it largely as a reaction against nuclear energy rather than as a better approach - and it must seem a little ironic to the environmentalists who took the upper hand in arguments against nuclear energy that they've ended up with more coal plants. Surely, an unintended consequence of their intransigence.

Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
Intransigence, like hypocrisy, is a strong and specific word. I think I would rather describe the dominant aspect of the environmental activists' fight against nuclear power as dogmatism.

Carbon capture may be "promising" but it needs to be much more than that, especially if basing a national carbon control policy on it. Also it needs to be driven by economic consequences for atmospheric carbon dumping.

I'm impressed by the change in tone towards nuclear power in the Guardian recently.
March 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM
David Bradish said…
I think Mark is using intransigence to mean uncompromising.
March 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM
DV8 2XL said…
Carbon capture isn't even "promising", it's nothing but a buzz phrase at this point. Even if technologies are developed to sequester carbon dioxide from coal combustion, it is not enough unless CO2 releases from all parts of that fuel cycle are also controlled. Given that there will be a significant energy cost to capture and store this greenhouse gas, failure to look at the whole process from mine to ash heap might well leave us worse off than before.
March 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Alexandra Prokopenko said…
Such decisions are usually lobbied by companies supplying, let's say, coal :)
March 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said…
Carbon capture is juat propaganda from the power industry. It doesn't work and it is expensive and inefficient. It is very much like fuel cells for the automotive industry, something to point at.

"Hey, we are doing stuff for the environment, jsut give us some time!" And then nothing ever happens.

Carbon capture and fuel cells? No thanks. I'll go for reality based technologies like nuclear power and plug in hybrids.
March 21, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said…
No one has successfully demonstrated large-scale CO2 capture, on the scale required for what is being proposed. For all the easy, breezy talk of CO2 sequestering, it seems like an environmental nightmare, a huge, huge volume of toxic material in a physical form that is extremely mobile in the biosphere. It has no half-life, so it is toxic essentially forever. You have to monitor it essentially forever to make sure it isn't suddenly released in an uncontrolled manner to the biosphere, with devastating effect. Lake Nyos, anyone?
March 21, 2008 at 9:12 AM
GRLCowan said…
The gas lobbyists calling themselves environmental activists -- and one cannot disagree that they're active on the environment -- are certainly to be condemned, but carbon capture and sequestration should be refuted where it is strong.

If weak CCS proposals are being offered, their weaknesses certainly should be exposed, but the exposer should point to a strong alternative, not pretend that the weak ones are the whole story. Pointing out CCS that works -- is working, as a no-cost side effect right now -- is what I do at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/20999.

Let the baby light matches in the fuel room
March 21, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more