Earth Day round-up
Sunday was Earth Day, and the Greens took the opportunity to reinforce the Turn Down the Heat message with a number of events nationwide highlighting the possibility of rising sea levels as a consequence of climate change.
Wellington Greens got dressed up and had a beach party in Cuba Mall:
While those crazy Dunedinites (including Metiria) were brave enough to actually go into the water at St Clair. Global warming might be the problem, but that water still looks pretty cold.
Earth Day was marked with other events all over the country, including in Nelson, where Jeanette joined local Greens in marking the likely sea level in 2100 on the local council buildings.
Further afield, President Bush marked Earth Day by following up comments about America’s oil addiction in his State of the Union address with an address calling hydrogen the fuel of the future, and even Arnie took the opportunity to declare that “Man has created global warming”. Could the Bush administration finally be taking climate change seriously, or are they simply trying to head off what they know is rapidly building public concern by paying the problem some prominent lip service? Hmmm, I wonder.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Us Dunedinites are made of tough stuff!
April 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Quite a bit of flooding happening in North East Valley and Opoho with all this heavy rain.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:26 am
I read in todays Metro that Bush is also telling oil companies to use their profits to build more refineries and is taking the steps towards taking back tax credits from oil companies who are not contributing to fixing the problem.
Interesting!
April 27th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Without massive international development of nuclear power stations and electric trains and cars, CO2 emissions are unstoppable and will increase geometrically over our lifetimes.
Any sacrifice NZs make will be symbolic, and will make the green movement massively unpopular if it degrades quality of life or involves any ‘unnecessary’ hardship whatsoever. Realistically all NZ can do is come up with mitigation plans for any sea level rise and other predicted changes to the climate. Or lead by example and build a world class electric rail system powered by a new generation of geothermal and wind power. If Australia goes nuclear we should definitely think about it too.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:15 am
It’s not surprising that the unprofitable nuclear industry is promoting itself as the climate change saviour. Apart from the key issues of long term radioactive waste storage (still not solved after 40+ years of operation), liability issues (no commercial company/consortium will cover them), lack of profitability without govt subsidies, proliferation risks, and safety there are other physical and economic factors addressed below which demonstrate why nukes will not come to the rescue. Any money spent on nukes is money that is not available to invest in truly sustainable energy supplies.
Two independent Dutch physicists have published a comprehensive study concluding that
With regard to CO2 emissions
“A complete Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) shows that generating electricity with nuclear power emits 15-40% of the CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh) of a gas-fired system when the whole system is taken into account, if the uranium is extracted from rich ores … the specific CO2 emission rapidly rises with decreasing ore grade and surpasses that of a gas-fired power plant at grades of about 0.02 - 0.01% (200-100 grams uranium per tonne rock). Most of the world’s known uranium reserves are in the form of such low-grade ore (or even much lower grades).
The nuclear process chain emits other greenhouse gases (GHG’s) as well, apart from carbon dioxide, with far stronger greenhouse effect potential, such as chloro- and fluorohydrocarbons.”
And how much uranium is there ?
“In 2004 some 440 power reactors were operating worldwide, with a combined capacity of some 363 GW(e), requiring about 67 000 tonnes of natural uranium per year. The present reserves and resources (to 80 US$/kg U) are about 3.5 million tonnes. This is enough to last some 50 years at above mentioned consumption rate.”
So how long would this last ?
“Assume a thousand new nuclear power plants (NPP) with a combined capacity of 1500 GW(e) will be built during the coming decades, as proposed in an MIT study in 2003. A park of this capacity would supply about 10% of the present world energy consumption, but much less than 10% by the time the new NPP’s should come on line, because the world energy consumption will grow considerably during the next period.
The annual uranium consumption of the 1500 GW(e) park will be some 250 000 tonnes and the known uranium reserves and resources will be exhausted in about 14 years.
Even if large new rich uranium deposits are found, doubling the known reserves, which is not very probable from a geological point of view, the total reserves will last for less than 30 years in the scenario of the nuclear renaissance.”
Is it possible to extract uranium from Granite and Sea Water ?
“To fuel one reactor with a nominal capacity of 1 GW(e), each year about 162 tonnes natural uranium has to be extracted from earth’s crust. If the ore is granite, with an average uranium grade of 4 gram U per tonne rock, 162 tonnes uranium is in 40 million tonnes of granite. The rock has to be dug up, ground to fine powder and chemically treated with sulfuric acid and other chemicals to extract the uranium compound from the mass. Assuming an extraction yield of 50% (an unrealistically high estimate), 80 million tonnes granite have to be treated. This is a rock of dimensions 100 meters wide, 100 meters high and three kilometers long. Extracting the uranium from this huge rock would consume more than 30 times the energy generated in the reactor from the extracted uranium.
For comparison: a coal-fired power station of 1 GW(e) consumes about 2 million tonnes of black coal or about 10 million tonnes of brown coal (lignite) each year.”
and
“Seawater contains 3.3 milligram uranium per cubic meter seawater … so the oceans contain some [estimated] 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium. Technically it is possible to extract uranium from seawater .. but based on the very optimistic assumptions of the theoretical studies, the energy requirements may be roughly estimated at least 2-4 times the energy generated in the reactor from the extracted uranium”
The summary is at http://www.peakoil.com/static/nuclearpower_facts.pdf
and the full scientific paper is at http://www.stormsmith.nl/
April 27th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
“It’s not surprising that the unprofitable nuclear industry is promoting itself as the climate change saviour.”
The nuke stations in the US and UK are having bonanza profits due to the high cost of electricity. Their running costs are miniscule and their uptime is 90%+.
“Apart from the key issues of long term radioactive waste storage (still not solved after 40+ years of operation),”
Highly radioactive materials have a very short half life. After about 50 years the radiation is a few percent of the original level. There is no practical issue with long term storage, the Finns have worked it out. Plus if you reprocess (recycle) the fuel, it reduces the volume by 90%.
“… liability issues (no commercial company/consortium will cover them), ”
Both are due to the insane legal system in the US, whereby a litigant can bankrupt a company with little to no real damage.
“lack of profitability without govt subsidies, ”
not necessarily- its just cheaper to build coal.
“proliferation risks, and safety ”
Not an issue in developed nations.
“there are other physical and economic factors addressed below which demonstrate why nukes will not come to the rescue. ”
Nope, but they will be part of the solution. The Indians are perfecting a reactor which runs on Thorium, which is much more abundant and practically proliferation-proof. The japanese have a small portable reactor that is sealed and can produce enough power for a town for 25 years without any maintainence.
“Any money spent on nukes is money that is not available to invest in truly sustainable energy supplies.”
By sustainable, I guess you mean wood? Wind and Solar are not sustainable or renewable without advanced technological society. And advanced technological society requires large amounts of electricity.
So I guess your real alternatives are either coal, or a third world existence.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Your sources? You’re making some pretty hefty assumptions - and - extrapolating press releases out to workable solutions. Good luck if you’re expecting salvation via PR. And I’m sorry but the WNA and UIC propaganda doesn’t count. I prefer peer reviewed sources ior independent NGOs.
Even in the UK, there will be no new nuke plants without UK taxpayer money. And the UK taxpayer has assumed the liability and bill for decommissioning and long term storage is still being argued about.
“The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) also said that it envisaged that in the long term, radioactive waste will be disposed of deep underground. Experts have warned that the waste will leak from its containers within 500 years.
… CoRWM have highlighted a warning by security specialists that Britain’s nuclear waste is vulnerable to terrorist attack and that Government is failing to address this issue with adequate detail or priority.” Etc etc etc.
And,your understanding of sustainable seems to be “partial” at best.
Yes, wood is part of the solution. Wind and Solar can be captured locally with low tech devices - or with the higher tech devices we’re currently using. Use of one doesn’t preclude the the other. Our energy future will involve a massive switch to decentralised, intelligent generation. It’s the utilities worst nightmare - loss of control - no wonder they’re fighting it.
And if we do suffer from some regression in our technology, at least wind and solar are not going to go “critical” on us. Visual eyesores, maybe, but I’d contend in that situation it would be the least of our worries.
And your conclusion re “coal , or third world” leaves me puzzled.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:31 am
“And I’m sorry but the WNA and UIC propaganda doesn’t count.”
Nuclear energy is a strange thing- those who are involved in providing it are immediately discounted as biased, while political non-scientific groups such as FOE are taken seriously! Also I would note that ironically, FOE is against wind farms and tidal barrages here in the UK.
I’m not saying there aren’t questions about nuclear, but it’s better than the alternative- dirty old coal. The volume of fuel required and waste generated is tiny in comparison, and it isn’t dumped directly in the air and water.
Why is coal the only alternative? Well a technological civilsation requires a stable baseload electricity supply. For countries that aren’t blessed with hydro like NZ, this requires either coal, oil or nuclear (or gas, but this is running out very quickly.) If you want people to regress to a non-technical civilisation you are going to have a pretty strong task convincing them.
Wind/Solar simply don’t generate enough power, and aren’t 24/7/365 when you need them. Recently in the UK, they had a day in winter when there was no sun and no wind across the entire country. Should people simply have to accept not having electricity and heating? Again, a hard sell.
I also think that decentralised generation with no grid connection is a boutique solution. You miss out on all the advantages of economies of scale, and maintenance costs go up at least a couple of orders of magnitude. Good if you are technical and have money to spend, but what about the poor?
And I would also ask about the vast amounts of concrete and steel and energy used in wind turbines, and the pretty nasty chemicals used in silicon solar cell production? These are sustainable?
As for your comment about ‘critical’, that actually refers to normal operation of a reactor, where the number of neutrons released is stable.
PS Just a note, I am not a nuke shill, just an interested scientist type who enjoys the debate.
April 30th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Still no answer as to your sources !
And I see you still have yet to read the research paper that I cited on the economics of nuke power, plus the sources of ore - because as this makes abundantly clear, fission is a technological cul-de-sac.
I think we’re talking past each other a bit here.
E.g. “no grid connection” I can’t see where I implied that. “nasty chemicals in silicon solar cell”, I can’t see where I implied that either. I was talking about solar thermal - should have been more explicit. Mea culpa.
My view of the future places us somewhere along the technology scale - between cavemen at one end and nuked out civilsation at the other.
Rather than engage in a point by point debate, because we actually both do recognise there is a problem - which is more than many authorities/polticians will acknowledge - I’ll leave it here.
P.S. I have a science background too. The key is to admit where the gaps are in human knowledge, rather than asssuming science has all the answers. Often times, it merely points out the questions that need asking.
Knowledge does not equal Wisdom
April 30th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
C’mon uk kiwi, now I’m going to have to call you on this one, where’s your source for “FOE is against wind farms and tidal barrages here in the UK”.
Also, what kind of a scientist are you if you diss the reputation of FOE?
May 1st, 2006 at 1:05 am
How about the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4898514.stm
This has not one, but three environmental groups against a tidal barrage plan, including the Friends of the Earth. I’m not ‘dissing’ them, but they seem pretty inconsistent, and very reactionary.
As for wind farms, well the FOE are apparently for them as long as they don’t have to live near them. However there are a number of other groups who are worried that they are spoiling the countryside.
And nuclear power, well I will agree to disagree with you on this one. All the research I have seen says it is a reasonable source of electricity for countries with few other options. NZ still has a few so I guess we won’t have to have that debate yet.
It’s a very interesting debate though
May 1st, 2006 at 2:41 pm
good grief uk kiwi, are you incapable of telling the difference between specific opposition to a single scheme and opposition in general to all tidal/wind generation schemes? Your wording above certainly implied that FOE were against all wind and wave generation, not a single mega scheme.
Must say this is similar to the Project Aqua proposal here in NZ. The story quotes an aging white male who needs to stroke his ego by building a MEGA project. What is wrong with distributed micro-generation I ask you.
Not all renewable generation is good. Of course FOE UK are in favour of renewable power generation, it is just that they are in favour of environmentally appropriate renewable power generation.
I think uk kiwi that you need to learn about subtlety and shades of grey - its not a black and white world.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 am
“Not all renewable generation is good. Of course FOE UK are in favour of renewable power generation, it is just that they are in favour of environmentally appropriate renewable power generation.”
The physics are against them. Throughout history human fuel and energy sources have got progressively more concentrated - from wood, to coal, to oil, to nuclear. Renewables have such low energy density that they need to be massive to be worthwhile and cost effective in comparison with FF. Distributed microgeneration misses out on economies of scale and requires much more maintenance and raw materials (steel, concrete, electronics etc).
For example, for 10,000 uk pounds you can buy a domestic wind turbine putting out about 1kW. To equal the performance of a single large wind turbine, you need 2000-3000 of them, at a cost of 20-30 million pounds! To replace a single cheap coal fired plant you would need 2-3 million, at a cost of 20-30 BILLION pounds ($NZ 50b or so). Thats a shedload of cash, especially if you are a government or power co having to justify paying for it.
The economics of distributed generation just don’t add up, renewables are ONLY viable when they are mega-projects like large wind farms, hydro power, or tidal barrages. (there are certainly some niches like solar hot water heating which make a lot of sense.) So if FOE is against this kind of project then they are against them all as it is the only way you can build them cost-effectively to compete with fossil fuels.
By the way, would you be for it if the project was being built by a young black woman? I don’t see what race has to do with it.
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Sources ?
Windsave have a 1kw turbine for approx #1500.
BBC Focus had an article showing prices for the same turbine as low as GBP1045.
Powergen in the UK are coming to the end of a three year trial of WhisperGen units - combined hotwater/central heating units with 850W of electrical output.
As many have stated before, there is no silngle answer. Massive demand side efficiencies plus new supplies are needed.
“By the way, would you be for it if the project was being built by a young black woman? I don’t see what race has to do with it.” ?????
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 am
And UK_kiwi
You’ve made the same mistake with small scale wind turbines you made with the hybrid cars. Wind turbines have never been mass produced, so prices are high. Mass production should reduce the manufacturing cost, although with a smaller decrease on installation costs.
If you’ve got a basic engineering skillset these things are quite easy and cheap to make yourself. The problem in an urban setting is finding somewhere windy enough to bother installing them. However, where there are tall buildings the economics changes - no requirement for tall masts etc.
The following report is also interesting reading.
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/small/mid-wales-microwind.pdf
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:08 pm
sorry the race thing was me, no it’s not about race, its about age and gender. I still contend that middle aged men need to feel their egos stoked by building huge mega projects, nothing else does it for them. Would I feel differently if a young woman had come up with the plan? I don’t think a young woman would ever come up with such a plan. There’s that meme about women don’t need to make monuments because they can give birth and create life, yes?
Its not just FOE that are advocating distributed micro-generation/energy efficiency, the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable’s new report, I Will If You Will, written after 18 months of consultations with members of the public, businesses and other stakeholders across Britain, advocates
# making on-site energy generation common in homes and public buildings
# rolling out “smart” meters to raise awareness of energy consumption
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4962416.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4856106.stm
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I’ve seen the costs for domestic turbines between £3000 and £20,000 so I just used an average. £1000 will be a short-lived toy, considering a 1kW inverter and licensed expert installation will be at least £500 of that.
Regular maintenance will be expensive and crucial- what happens if the owner neglects it? And when they reach the end of their lives? I would not want to live in a neighbourhood of broken, rattling turbines that were installed by fly-by-night companies, and whose owners are unable to remove them.
“Wind turbines have never been mass produced, so prices are high. Mass production should reduce the manufacturing cost, although with a smaller decrease on installation costs.”
Mass production would certainly reduce some costs, but there is no escaping the physics. Wind turbine output is directly proportional on the swept area - the square of blade length. To get decent output you need LONG blades, a high tower and complex yaw and pitch control circuitry- all of which can be better provided by a large windfarm for a fraction of the costs and much greater reliability.
Not to mention that 1kW of wind only displaces ~0.2kW of baseload, because of intermittent nature of wind. IMHO microgeneration is ideologically appealing but is unworkable and doesnt add up economically, especially in urban areas. And you would have to build a baseload power station anyway!
IMHO, so long as people are used to cheap reliable electricity, large centralised projects are likely to be the way forward for the forseeable future.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 am
microgeneration doesn’t have to be just wind, it can be solar-pv, biomass and hydro. It is possible to generate electricity from rainwater roof run-off.
Perfectly possible to build two water tanks, one above the other and use wind to pump water up for hydro electricity when there is no wind.
Agree that home generation is niche market, and that in homes, energy efficiency, insulation and solar hot water are the way to go. However that doesn’t stop prisons, hospitals, schools, etc etc etc having microgeneration.
And even if home micro-generation is niche, home energy saving is also an example of lots of decentralised small being just as good a single huge centralised.
The whole debate is also distorted by the fact that the electricity companies want to sell more electricity so they aren’t interested in energy saving measures, and the building industry wants the contracts to build more mega power stations.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Some more info just to hand on why nukes are not the answer.
Nuclear waste trains - terror targets on wheels
Where is the insurance cover for this type of damage I wonder ?