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