Skip to main content

A Finger in the Dyke

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.

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.
David Bradish said…
I think Mark is using intransigence to mean uncompromising.
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.
Such decisions are usually lobbied by companies supplying, let's say, coal :)
Starvid 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.
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?
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

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…