Other “Green” Initiatives – Compact Florescent Light Globes - Part 2

As I was suggesting at the end of part one, the harmonic distrotion effect is not the only problem with Compact Fluorescent bulb’s. Each bulb contains a small amount of mercury. Most of the environmental groups point to the fact that it is only a small amount of mercury and is not harmful whilst the bulb is intact. It is here that the issue becomes a potential problem. What about if the bulb breaks in your home? In this article Mercury in CFLs – special investigation by Ian Wishart, he reports:

We've all heard the marketing spin about so-called "energy-saver" light bulbs: they last seven times longer than an ordinary bulb, they use only a fifth of the (Real) power. In theory, compact fluorescent lights are the way of the future, a solution to soaring energy wastage and a sure-fire way to go green in the home and save cash doing it.

In theory.

Sometimes what looks good on paper turns out to be not so flash in practice, and when politicians get involved it can be a recipe for disaster.

There are suspicions the light bulb policy may suffer the same limitations. Before you read any further, however, here's a figure to keep in mind:

"The energy saving potential is of the order of 6% of domestic sector electricity use, or 2% of total electricity use," top science consultant David Cogan has told the New Zealand government in a briefing paper. 1 Remember that figure: the banning of ordinary light bulbs will reduce total electricity demand by 2%. The question is, after you've read the full story,
whether you think…the … plan to save 2% is worth the effort.

THE MERCURY ISSUE:

Perhaps the most serious issue for householders arising out of next year's compulsory switch to predominantly CFLs is their mercury content. So far, the New Zealand Government has played this aspect very low key.

The Ministry for the Environment, found guilty last year of letting political appointees write its briefing papers instead of independent public servants, has posted this claim on its website:

"Energy saving lamps contain a small amount of mercury which makes them operate much more efficiently than incandescent and halogen lamps. Mercury is toxic to human health and bioaccumulates [Bioaccumulate – the accumulation of a substance, such as a toxic chemical, in various tissues of a living organism.] in the environment but the amount inside an individual lamp is not large enough to pose a hazard to users."

The spin is clear. The lamps are "energy saving", it is only a "small amount" of mercury, which makes the lights operate "much more efficiently". Importantly, on the safety side, the Ministry for the Environment assures New Zealanders that "the amount…is not large enough to pose a hazard to users". That is the official NZ Government position. Now let's examine the reality.

In March 2007, Brandy Bridges, a mother in the town of Prospect, Maine, in the US, heard the publicity about the new energy-saver light bulbs and went out and purchased two dozen of the CFLs for the family home.

While installing one in her young daughter's bedroom, Bridges accidentally broke the new CFL bulb, which shattered and fell to the carpet. Remembering that the bulbs contained a trace amount of mercury, she called around for advice, eventually hitting the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) who suggested she call in a hazardous waste crew.

…the Maine DEP called in its own science team to run some experiments on broken CFLs. The DEP team smashed dozens of bulbs in a series of tests to see just how much mercury they emitted, and how much was left in the environment after various clean-up scenarios were tried. The experiments were conducted over bare floors, and carpeted floors.

The study team reported back just a few months ago, in February 2008, and the findings in their massive 160 page report have stunned US safety authorities.

First off, the often-cited claim that bulbs contain only 5mg of mercury was clarified: it's an average.

"Without the mercury, the lamp would not produce visible light. The average amount of mercury in a CFL is 5 mg with a range of 0.9 to 18 mg.“ Obviously, the smaller (in watts) the bulb, the less mercury. Higher power (brighter) bulbs generally have more, although there can be fluctuations between brands as well.

One busted bulb in a bedroom produced very disturbing results in their tests.

"Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3, and possibly over 100,000 ng/m3 from the breakage of a single compact fluorescent lamp," the report confirms.

That's up to 300 times higher than the recommended safe level of inhalable mercury vapour. From just one light bulb.

…when Maine DEP scientists went back to Brandy Bridges' house some three months after the breakage, they found mercury contamination in the bedroom was still as high as 2000 ng/m3 – three months later and despite following all the cleanup recommendations.

In the end, the DEP ripped out her carpet and disposed of it as toxic waste. And little wonder. According to the DEP scientific study, while the 300 ng/m3 limit is the maximum allowable daily dose of mercury for the sake of legislation, there is in fact no known safe level for mercury exposure.

"The Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 ng/m3 is identical to the EPA reference concentration (RfC), which is designed to protect against chronic exposure. The RfC is based on a number of occupational studies, in which tremor, fine motor deficits, electroencephalography (EEG) and autonomic nervous system abnormalities, and cognitive deficits were observed. "A no-effect level (the level at which no adverse affects are observed) was not identified in these studies."

To make matters worse, scientists believe the 300 ng/m3 limit may not protect children or infants.

"Sensitive populations are of particular concern with mercury exposures for a number of reasons. Mercury exposures have serious impacts on foetal and infant brain development. Elemental mercury can cross the placenta from a mother to fetus.

For these reasons, acute peaks could be particularly problematic during pregnancy. Infants and toddlers have much more vulnerable brains.

"Neurotoxicants identified in adults may have different and more severe effects in developing organisms. Infants and toddlers also have a much higher rate of respiration than adults. Therefore they have a higher exposure to similar concentrations. They also are lower to the floor and therefore closer to the source of the exposure and presumably more apt to obtain a concentrated dose of mercury.

"Elderly and unhealthy individuals may already be at comprised health and be more susceptible to mercury effects than a healthy individual. For example, mercury does kidney damage which could exacerbate an already existing kidney disease."

Additionally, pregnant women exposed to a broken CFL light bulb could literally destroy their baby, in the wrong circumstances:

"It is well established that the developing organism may be much more sensitive than the adult to neurotoxic agents," reports Maine's DEP study. "For example, methyl mercury exposure can produce devastating effects in the fetus, including cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, and even death, while producing no or minimal effects in the mother."

…The US scientists say it is possible that one single "spike" dose of mercury could be enough to damage a baby or a child's brain, even if there is no further ongoing exposure. With the experiments showing a 20 watt CFL (equivalent to 100 watts ordinary) bulb can produce a spike of 100,000 ng/m3 of air, 300 times the recommended allowable maximum, this could
be a major safety problem with making CFLs the light of choice when ordinary bulbs are banned.

…The real cost is not one light bulb breakage, but how badly affected homes will be after 20 years of amateur attempts to clean up one of the deadliest neurotoxins on the planet. A generation of children crawling on mercury-infested carpets would give new meaning to the phrase, "dumbed-down".

On the strength of these scenarios alone, there's a good case for actually banning the use of CFLs in homes, outright and immediately.

Other “Green” Initiatives – Compact Florescent Light Globes - Part 1

Finally, one of the other most visible changes has been to our sources of light in our households, marketed as a "clean green" technology. But is that marketing just that? Are they all they are hyped up to be? Or is this another piece of clever green spin we have all been led to believe?

Many governments have now legislated that only Compact Florescent style globes may be sold and that the older incandescent are being phased out. Whilst it is true that incandescent bulbs produced large amounts of heat in their production of heat and that that heat is wasted energy there are things about Compact Fluorescent bulbs that the general public is usually unaware. Incandescent bulbs are primarily resistive in nature, which is why they convert electrical energy to light and heat. The larger resistance is also why their power usage is higher than a compact florescent bulb. This type of power is referred to as “Real” power. Compact Fluorescent bulbs by comparison use a combination of resistance and inductance to produce an equivalent amount of light from a lower value of real power. Which is why a 15W Compact Fluorescent bulb is equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb. This is what the environmental movement concentrate on to demonstrate the improved efficiency.

However, the bit they always fail to mention is the “Reactive” power caused by the inductance of the Compact Fluorescent bulb. The reactive power is still power that is used by the circuit, but instead of being dissipated as heat or light it is stored by the light and returned to the circuit when the circuit is turned off. When combined vectorially with the Real power this is known as Apparent Power. This Apparent power is the largest of the three powers and must be produced by the power station to meet all these needs. So whilst you may be saving wasted heat at your home and therefore money, the CO2 is produced at the power station which is now having to produce the apparent power. In some larger houses, once they are fitted with out with Compact Fluorescent bulb’s they may require an electrician to add some capacitance to their meter-box in order to return what is known as their Power Factor back to the standard of 0.8.

What does all that mean? Well Power factor is a ratio of real power to apparent power. The industry standard says that the ideal power factor is that 80% of the apparent power must be dissipated as real power in the form of light or heat. Too many Compact Fluorescent bulb’s can throw this ratio out by their combined inductive effect and would need some adjusting capacitance fitted to the circuit to balance it out. This is important because if it is not done it can induce harmonic distortion into the system. This is normally only a problem for large factories and warehouses at the moment, but may become more prevalent with the wider introduction of Compact Fluorescent bulb’s. As seen from the linked article above:

The nasty waveform created by CFLs is another thing that is going to come back and bite us on the bum. Any spike waveform means that significant harmonics are added to the mains waveform, and although CFLs are only a small percentage of 'nasty waveform generators' at present, the situation will get a lot worse.

An anecdote on the power factor issue was sent to me ... Apparently a company in the UK installed a large number of CFLs in a building where the lighting was primarily on one phase. It burnt out the neutral link in the fuse box and caused a small fire! The high peak current of all non-power factor corrected CFLs can cause problems where they are used in large numbers.

This harmonic distortion is but one problem encountered with CFL's.

Other “Green” Initiatives – Hybrid/ Electric Cars

In a solution only a politician could have dreamed up, our governments solution to a problem (CO2 emissions) to stop global warming (that appears to have stopped at least 10 years earlier by itself); is to mandate an insignificant amount of fuel. In order that that insignificant amount be reached we must import fuel from an area Asia that means that rainforest must be cleared and endangered species made extinct. All so they can raise their credentials with the environmental movement, the Greens and the voters. ‘Sir Humphrey Appelby’ of 'Yes Minsiter' fame would be proud.

So what then of the other “Green” revolution for the road, the Hybrid Car? An example in the Honda Civic is shown above. Even this which is seen as a huge step forward by environmental groups has its critics:

When it comes to protecting the environment, senior citizens should concentrate more on the total energy consumed in building and operating a car than its fuel efficiency – no matter how impressive the statistics appear on the window sticker at the showroom.

A prime example is Toyota's Prius, a compact hybrid that's beloved by ardent environmentalists and that fetches premium prices because it gets nearly 50 miles-per gallon in combined highway/city driving. Yet, new data have emerged that show the Prius may not be quite as eco-friendly as first assumed - if you pencil in the environmental negatives of producing it in the first place. Like most hybrids, the Prius relies on two engines - one, a conventional 76-horsepower gasoline power plant, and a second, battery-powered, that kicks in 67 more horses. Most of the gas is consumed as the car goes from 0 to 30, according to alarmed Canadian environmentalists, who say Toyota's touting of the car's green appeal leaves out a few pertinent and disturbing facts.

The nickel for the battery, for instance, is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and smelted at nearby Nickel Centre, just north of the province's massive Georgian Bay. Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from the facility each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it's manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota's battery plant in Japan.

That alone creates a globe-trotting trail of carbon emissions that ought to seriously concern everyone involved in the fight against global warming. All told, the start-to finish journey travels more than 10,000 miles - mostly by container ship, but also by diesel locomotive.

But it's not just the clouds of greenhouse gases generated by all that smelting, refining, dealer and trade in their Priuses for Scion xBs. That would be the equivalent of reducing their energy footprint from a size 24D to about a size 5A. In the case of global warming, one small step for man may turn out to be a giant leap for mankind.

Further scrutiny of Hybrid or Electric technology cars is expressed in this article:

The Prius was amortized over 100,000-plus miles for a number of reasons.

The 100,000 mile life expectancy for Prius is time as well as distance sensitive. The historical data shows early Prius models were driven an average of only 6,700 miles per year (rounded). At that rate, the vehicle would require 15 years to reach 100,000 miles. It was our determination that is highly unlikely the '05 or '06 Prius models would still be in active service let alone serviceable 15 years from today.

… competitive vehicles to Prius are being planned by virtually all automakers using either Prius-like dual-mode or plug-in hybrid technology (e.g. Chevrolet Volt). This competition, looking at the historic context which is all we can do, is likely to drive the value of older technology Prius models lower. We've already seen the early stages of this happening with decreasing used values for all of the original batch of hybrids.

Can the Prius be driven more than 100,000 miles? Of course. The vehicle is superbly engineered. …Mechanically, there is no logical reason for the Prius not to last 130,000 miles or more. The latest data shows Prius owners are driving more than early Prius owners and the use of the vehicle is becoming a primary means of transportation in a household rather than a
novelty. But the average annual mileage, outside of certain southern-tier states, remains barely above 7,000 per year.

Other components on the Prius, such as tires, are less distance-mileage friendly than non-hybrids of the same size and weight. For example, surveys of Prius owners by us and other research companies show barely 16,000 miles average life for original-equipment tires compared to 43,000 for Toyota Corolla. This high-tech tire uses a compound and
design that reduces rolling resistance and thus improves fuel economy. But the typical replacement tire for a Prius will not likely be the OEM specialty variety, cutting both fuel economy and distance-per-battery charge of the Prius.

…the energy cost per mile is unequivocally going to decline for Prius over time as the technology continues to spread across other models and the disposal/scrap industry learns how to deal with its high-tech materials and components.

Once again there are hidden aspects to the cars of the green revolution such as a much larger “carbon footprint” in manufacture compared to even a “Hummer”. This is due to the Hummer using many common components with other GM brands and not needing all the special materials to be shipped around the world like the Prius. We see technology that will require new waste disposal methods or improved facilities to handle the amounts of waste that the special batteries will create. Special tyre technology that will have to be replaced more often, and if not replaced with the same expensive technology will dramatically effect its fuel efficiency and performance. The city-highway figures quoted for the fuel economy are aided by the city cycle, where the electric motor is used in braking, idle and slow travel such as car parks. In highway cycle, however, the electric motor and batteries that support it are dead weight as they are not used. Simple physics tells us that the smaller capacity petrol engine has to work harder to overcome all that additional weight, which must effect it’s fuel economy and probably its lifespan. So any
benefits are unlikely to be maximised if the owner does a lot of country miles or kilometres.

The Chevrolet Volt, which used plug in electric technology, has a maximum electric range of 64.4 kilometres, before requiring a recharge of its batteries, which takes a minimum of three hours. Again this technology is useless for any thing but inner city commuting, as it would likely run out of charge between towns in the country or on a round trip from some outer suburbs.

Both these technologies whilst improving are still fraught with many problems, that are glossed over by the environmental movement and a compliant media.

Other “Green” Initiatives - Biofuels

There are other “Green” initiatives that have arisen as a result of concerns over CO2 emissions.

These include biofuels, hybrid car technology (such as the Toyota Prius), and replacing filament light bulbs with compact fluorescent varieties. Each of these looks on the face of it as a marvellous step in the right direction and it is hard to argue otherwise but are they quite as environmentally friendly as they are presented?

Let us firstly examine the Biofuels:

Biofuels such as the 10% blended ethanol varieties are promoted as “green” alternatives to straight unleaded petrol as they are supposed to lower the CO2 emissions of the vehicle whilst causing no noticeable damage to the engine or drop off in performance. All of this appears to be true, despite the concerns raised initially about the effect on engines and subsequent warranty claims should something go wrong. So where is the harm?

In his article “The Great Biofuels Con”, (July 2008) environmental journalist Chris Booker examined the fallout caused by the rush to “green” our fuels in the West.

Two years ago biofuels were still being hailed as a dream solution to what was seen as one of the most urgent problems confronting mankind – our dependence on fossil fuels, which are not only finite but seemed to be threatening the world with the catastrophe of global warming.

In March 2007 the leaders of the European Union, in a package of measures designed to lead the world in the "fight against climate change", committed us by 2020 to deriving 10 per cent of all transport fuel from "renewables", above all biofuels, which theoretically gave off no more carbon dioxide than was absorbed in their growing.

Since then, however, the biofuels dream has been disintegrating with the speed of a collapsing card house.

Environmentalists, formerly keen on this "green energy", expressed horror at the havoc it was inflicting on the world's eco systems, not least the clearing of rainforests to grow fuel crops.

As the world suddenly faced its worst food shortage for decades, sending prices spiralling, experts pointed out that a major cause had been diverting millions of acres of farmland from food production to fuel. The damage this was inflicting on the world's poor led a United Nations official to describe the rush for biofuels as "a crime against humanity".

As damaging as anything to the belief that biofuels could help save the planet from global warming have been various studies showing that producing biofuels can give off more carbon dioxide than they save.

…the damage being done in the Third World, not least by the clearing for biofuels of vast areas of rainforest in Brazil and Indonesia, inter alia endangering the survival of Borneo's orang-utans.

According to the World Bank's top economist, Don Mitchell, biofuels had been responsible for three-quarters of the 140 per cent rise in world food prices between 2002 and 2008.

Most alarming of all to the global warming lobby, however, was a succession of studies showing that, far from helping to cut global CO2 emissions, biofuel production can often give off much more CO2 than it saves – not least by disturbing huge quantities of carbon dioxide locked in the soil which, according to the University of Minnesota, could release "17 to 420 times more CO2" than is saved by the fuels themselves.

So Biofuels are now looking more like a “cane toad” solution to Climate Change. Despite these findings in Europe and the call to look more towards second generation biofuels, which use crop wastes and wood chips, that do not compete with food production, the New South Wales State Government in an attempt to raise their “green” credentials has mandated a level of Bio-diesel for their state - 2 per cent this year, rising to 5 per cent when sufficient supplies become available. In this article by reporter Greg Roberts of The Australian (Jan 2009) he finds:

AUSTRALIA is contributing directly to the widespread destruction of tropical rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia by importing millions of tonnes of taxpayer-subsidised biodiesel made from palm oil.

Imports of the fuel are rising, undermining the Rudd Government's $200 million commitment to reduce deforestation in the region - a problem that globally contributes to 20 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.

The bulldozing of rainforests to make way for palm oil plantations is also putting further pressure on orangutans and other endangered wildlife throughout Southeast Asia. And the Australian biofuels industry says it is struggling to compete with the cheap imports from Asia, which are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to diesel.

Without action, the problem will only get worse, with demand for biodiesel imports likely to rise sharply when NSW legislates to introduce Australia's first biodiesel mandate - 2 per cent this year, rising to 5 per cent when sufficient supplies become available. But the Rudd Government is likely to come under pressure to follow the lead of other Western nations in banning imports of palm oil-based biodiesel. Biodiesel manufacturers in Australia use primarily tallow from abattoirs and recycled cooking oil.

Caltex, the biggest biodiesel customer in Australia, refuses to use palm oil-based fuel on environmental grounds, but it is being imported by independent operators.

Unlike imported ethanol, imported biodiesel is not subject to the 38.14c-a-litre fuel excise, so the biodiesel imports from Asia are effectively subsidised by Australian taxpayers.

…"Australia is seen as a dumping ground for palm oil-based biodiesel as there is no requirement for the fuel to be derived from sustainable resources." He said there was ample capacity in Australia to meet demand.

The Australian industry produces about 50 million litres of biodiesel a year, but has the capacity to produce much more. About 80 million litres will be needed annually to meet a 2 per cent mandate in NSW.

Indonesia has about 6 million hectares of palm oil plantation and Malaysia 4.5 million ha. Indonesia plans to double palm oil production by 2025 and is developing a plantation of 1.8 million ha in east Kalimantan.

To make way for the plantation, the largest remaining area of lowland rainforest in Kalimantan is being bulldozed, with the loss of habitat for orang-utans, clouded leopards and other rare animals.

Again we see that there are in these cases severe consequences for not fully thinking a "solution" through. People in very poor third world nations being deprived of the very staples of life because their food is now the first world nations fuel. All to placate an activist "Green" movement intent on pursuing their agenda. We also see the the potential destruction of endangered species habitat that environmentalists should be striving to protect in order to meet their lobbied demands that we use blended fuels. Blended fuels that cost as much in CO2 to produce as it would have cost in CO2 to burn the equivalent amount of fossil fuel, gaining nothing but these losses in humanity and habitat.

Nuclear - Part 3

Then there is this from the Nuclear Industry:

The main use of nuclear energy is to generate electricity. This is simply a clean and efficient way of boiling water to make steam which drives turbine generators. Except for the reactor itself, a nuclear power station works like most coal or gas-fired power stations. Nuclear energy is best applied to medium and large-scale electricity generation on a continuous basis (ie meeting "base-load" demand). The fuel for it is basically uranium.

…Nuclear energy has distinct environmental advantages over fossil fuels, in that virtually all its wastes are contained and managed - nuclear power stations do not cause any pollution.

Nuclear energy supplies over 16% of the world's electricity, more than the world used from all sources in 1960. Today 31 countries use nuclear energy to generate up to three quarters of their electricity, and a substantial number of these depend on it for one quarter to one half of their supply. Some 10,500 reactor years of operational experience have been accumulated since the 1950s by the world's 440 nuclear power reactors (and nuclear reactors powering naval vessels have clocked up a similar amount).

Safety:

From the outset, safety of nuclear reactors has been a very high priority in their design and engineering. About one third of the cost of a typical reactor is due to safety systems and structures. The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was a reminder of the importance of this, whereas the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 showed that conventional safety systems work.

At Chernobyl in Ukraine 30 people were killed (mostly by high levels of radiation) and many more injured or adversely affected. This reactor lacked the basic engineering provisions necessary for licensing in most parts of the world (other reactors of that kind still operating have been significantly modified). At Three Mile Island in the USA with a similarly serious malfunction, the effects were contained and no-one suffered any harm or injury.

Economics:

Nuclear power reactors are expensive to build but relatively cheap to operate. Their economic competitiveness thus depends on keeping construction to schedule so that capital costs do not blow out, and then operating them at reasonably high capacity over many years. By way of contrast, gas-fired power plants are very cheap and quick to build, but relatively very expensive to operate due to the cost of their fuel. With rising gas prices, and the high cost of moving coal long distances, nuclear plants are generally competitive with both gas and coal in most parts of the world, and becoming more so.

Wastes:

Nuclear power produces wastes which are contained and managed, with the cost of this being met by the electricity customer at the time. It does not produce any significant wastes which are dispersed to the environment. It therefore avoids contributing to increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

The main wastes produced by "burning" uranium in a nuclear reactor are very hot and radioactive, placing them among the most unpleasant wastes from modern industry. However, these "high-level" nuclear wastes are modest in quantity. Handling and storing them safely is quite straight forward, they simply need to be shielded from human exposure, and cooled. Shielding can be by water, concrete, steel or other dense material, cooling is by air or water.

Transport of nuclear materials:

Safety is the prime requirement with nuclear transports, particularly those of highly-radioactive spent fuel, and the record is impressive. Shielding, and the security of that shielding in any accident, is the key with any nuclear materials, especially those which are significantly radioactive. There has never been any radiation release from an accident involving such materials.

Radiation:

Ionising radiation, such as occurs from uranium ores and nuclear wastes, is part of our human environment, and always has been so. At high levels it is hazardous, but at low levels it is harmless. Considerable effort is devoted to ensuring that those working with nuclear power are not exposed to harmful levels of radiation from it, and standards for the general public are set about 20 times lower still, well below the levels normally experienced by any of us from natural sources.

Avoiding weapons proliferation:

The initial development of atomic energy during and immediately after the second world war was to produce bombs. An early concern when the atom was harnessed for controlled civil use was that this nuclear power should not enable more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. Through the United Nations, procedures were set up to ensure this, and in fact they have been perhaps the most conspicuous success of that body. No nuclear materials such as uranium from the civil nuclear fuel cycle have ever been diverted to make weapons. In fact today the whole picture is reversed in that a lot of military uranium is being brought into the civil nuclear fuel cycle to make electricity, which is widely seen as a positive development, unimaginable 40 years ago. One tenth of US electricity is made from Russian military warheads.

Other uses:

Although this web site focuses on the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity, it is important to note that nuclear energy is also used to produce the radioisotopes used in many parts of our modern world, with health services, industry and even domestic safety very dependent on them. Many homes have smoke detectors which depend on a tiny amount of americium, derived from plutonium made in a nuclear reactor. In the developed countries, about one half of all people will depend on nuclear medicine at some stage of their lives.

This production of medical radioisotopes is all that Australia's reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney is used for, yet it has been subject to anti-nuclear and environmental protests in the past. It would also appear that should the world need to lower it CO2 Emissions then nuclear or a combination with nuclear at it’s centre for production of base load is the only real alternative to Coal or Gas fired power stations. Some further reading on the Myths and Realities on Nuclear Waste are available here.

Nuclear - Part 2

Let us contrast that against this section on Nuclear from the Energy Tribune:

Although nuclear power is not typically characterized as such, it is the only alternative energy source that offers substantial expansion potential beyond its current contribution. Even though plants emit only water vapour, radioactive waste containment and releases due to accidents or terrorism are issues of public concern. Safety records at nuclear facilities have been excellent, and technology advancements are further reducing risks and potential consequences. Waste problems could be reduced by recycling spent materials using breeder reactors, but this was outlawed during the Carter Administration due to concerns about proliferation of weapons-grade fuel that might fall into enemy hands.

It is interesting to note the reaction of former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore to his former organisations stand on nuclear energy with regard to Climate Change:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

A view supported by Professor James Lovelock (writer of the Gaia Hypothesis and climate change activist) who said:

"only nuclear power can now halt global warming".

"I have never regarded nuclear radiation or nuclear power as anything other than a normal and inevitable part of the environment. Our prokaryotic forebears evolved on a planet-sized lump of fallout from a star-sized nuclear explosion, a supernova that synthesised the elements that go to make our planet and ourselves."

"Modern nuclear power stations are useless for making bombs". This view may be based on fact that plutonium-239 from the nuclear reactor of a power plant is contaminated with a significant amount of plutonium- 240, complicating its use in nuclear weapons. It is easier to enrich uranium than to separate 240Pu from 239Pu to produce weapons-grade material, although even reactor-grade plutonium can in fact be used in weapons eg. dirty bombs.

Nuclear - Part 1

The figure above is of a modern efficient nuclear power plant.

It would seem that all the major forms of renewable energy that are proposed by environmental groups and activists are either very expensive and therefore aren’t cost effective, are limited in their location and aren’t capable of providing reliable base load power generation. This leaves just one real possibility for the generation of large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse impact and that is –Nuclear.

However, environmental groups such as “Greenpeace” and political parties such as “The Greens” and the “Australian Labor Party” won’t even entertain the thought of discussing it ‘s introduction into this and many other countries. Choosing instead to run “scare campaigns” when the subject is raisedby others raising the spectre of Chernobyl (seen above) revisited . After that disaster many myths were formed by the environmental movement with regards to Nuclear power, and Chernobyl in particular. The facts about Chernobyl can be read here and you will find they are nothing like the hype. Typical of these scare campaigns run by organisations like Greenpeace are the following claims:

It is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity.

Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade.

The risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting.

Safety:

No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack.

Waste:

From the moment uranium is mined nuclear waste on a massive scale is produced. There is no secure, risk free way to store nuclear waste. No country in the world has a solution for
high-level waste that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The least damaging option at this current time is for waste to be stored above ground, in dry storage at the site of origin, but this option also presents major challenges and the threats.

Weapons proliferation:

The possession of nuclear weapons by the US, Russia, France, the UK and China has encouraged the further proliferation of nuclear technology and materials. Every state that has a nuclear power capability, has the means to obtain nuclear material usable in a nuclear weapon. Basically this means that the 44 nuclear power states could become 44 nuclear
weapons states. Many nations that have active commercial nuclear power programs, began their research with two objectives – electricity generation and the option to develop nuclear weapons. Also nuclear programs based on reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel have dramatically increased the risk of proliferation as the creation of more plutonium, means more nuclear waste which in turn means more materials available for the creation of dirty bombs.

So like Greenpeace's campaign on Climate Change, lots of unsubstantiated scares and use of “weasel” words like “could”, “might”, etc.