Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Safest Way
Message-ID: <1685@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 17:49:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1685
Posted: Fri Sep 20 17:49:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 20:08:23 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> <5986@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 103
Summary: 


>>       Bearing in mind that we will be charged with safely storing nuclear
>>       waste for tens of thousands of years, such evidence is something
>>       I would be reluctant to bank on.
>
>We will be charged with safely storing hundreds of times as much toxic
>waste from coal for the rest of eternity, if we don't go nuclear.
>
>>       ... we aren't comparing chemical dumpsites and
>>       nuclear power. We are comparing the potential effects
>>       of wide-spread use of nuclear power with alternative sources.
>
>Since the major alternative to nuclear power is coal, we *are* worried
>about chemical dump sites.  Where do you think stack-scrubber waste from
>coal-burning plants goes?
>
>>       Let's WORRY about ALL waste materials, and let's not jump
>>       on a nuclear bandwagon before we know where it's going.
>
>Let's not jump OFF it until we know where the alternative is going.
>Other forms of power production have waste problems too, remember.
>-- 

After attending a video teleconference on Carbon Dioxide and the
Greenhouse Effect yesterday, I think Henry (>) understates the waste
problem of coal burning (which is at present the major alternative
to nuclear for the 21st century).  There exist techniques for reducing
the toxic wastes substantially (though probably not easily to the levels
of damage associated with nuclear power), but the very essence of obtaining
power from coal is to burn carbon and thereby form CO2.

One quarter of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been placed there by us
since 1850.  Eight percent, since 1960.  The rate is increasing.  Part
of this increase is due to deforestation, part to burning fossil fuel
(burning wood does not contribute, because the dead trees would decay
largely into CO2 in most cases).  If we burn much of the readily available
coal, we could increase the atmospheric CO2 by a factor of TEN over
a couple of centuries.

A doubling of CO2, according to the best models now available, is likely
to cause an increase of about 4 degC in the global average temperature,
but this increase is concentrated in high latitudes (near the N or S pole).
There may be feedback effects: a warm ocean accepts less CO2 (or releases
more) than a cold ocean; melting permafrost may release large amounts of
CO2 now held in frozen peat.  We may be looking at a 3 degC rise from
just the oil and coal burned to date.

This CO2 will NOT go away.  It will be a permanent addition to the
atmosphere, until over a period of millions of years enough vegetation
is buried to replace (in the earth) the carbon that we have extracted
to burn.  The long-term damage is LIKELY (not just possibly) much greater
from this cause alone than from any carelessly operated nuclear power
system.

Notice that although 3 degC does not sound like much, we are dealing
with annual averages, and it is a very exceptional year that is as
much as 1 degC hotter than normal.  Such a change means deserts where
now wheat is grown, changes in forest character, and unpredictable
changes in weather patterns; it means rises in sea level that could
make life very difficult for coastal towns, or lowlying areas.

Vegetation changes at high levels of CO2.  Leafy stuff may be less
nutritious, although having a higher biomass.  Some things grow better,
some become badly distorted.

Fred Williams gave the only long-term solution: reduce our population.
Nature will do this for us one way or another, so it would be better
if we planned for it.  But what about the short term (50-200 years)?
I think we have only one course if we are to survive: stop burning
fossil fuel as soon as we can, and replace it with other forms of energy
production, primarily nuclear, but including hydro, wood-burning, solar
and wind.  In the longer term, build solar power satellites.

(Somebody, I think Fred, argued against solar power satellites on
the grounds that they could become mis-aimed and flail around, thus
shedding high power density beams all over the place.  This is most
unlikely, for at least two reasons: (1) The solar collectors and the
antenna are delicate structures, unlikely to survive as a coherent
alignment if the satellite were to be hit by something that affected
its rotation.  There would then be no power beam. (2) The projected
power density of the beam is not high, not enough to cook (or bother)
birds flying through it, so it wouldn't matter if there was a beam
running amok -- this is both for safety reasons and for economy in
the transmitting antenna. )

It takes some 50 years for a power source to become established, and
100 years for it to take a major share of the total supply load (true
of all power sources so far developed by man, and probably likely to
remain true).  So I think we have to wait at least 50 and probably
100 years before we can rely mostly on solar power satellites (longer
for fusion power).  If we stop burning carbon, as I think we MUST,
then we have to build up our fission power plants as fast as we can.

P.S.  It might interest you to know that 15 years ago, I was a strong
anti-nuke, on the same grounds of difficult waste disposal that are
being brought up in this discussion.  Reading "Science" and other
technical journals changed my mind.  I suggest that contributors to
the discussion also read such material.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt