Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Nuclear waste containers will not work, say scientists
Wendy Frew, Sydney Morning Herald
CERAMIC containers developed to “immobilise” highly radioactive waste may not prove durable enough to prevent the toxic material leaching into the environment, research published in Nature has found.
Certain kinds of nuclear waste stay highly toxic for tens of thousands of years, and scientists have sought ways of stabilising or capturing the radioactive elements long enough to allow the waste to degrade naturally.
Researchers at Cambridge University directly measured the radiation damage from nuclear waste to the ceramic containers and found they degraded faster than had been expected. The research team, led by Dr Ian Farnan, found radioactive waste could turn zirconium silicate, which the nuclear industry had hoped could safely store radioactive waste, into a less reliable material after 1400 years instead of the desired 250,000 years. ..
(17 Jan 2007)
UPDATE: Link to the Sydney Morning Herald doesn’t work at the moment. Instead, contributor Carl Etnier suggests this article which seems to reference the same research. -BA
With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look
Mark Landler, NY Times
FEW subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum’s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular, and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well intentioned, who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort.
And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda – and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe’s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland.
At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: unlike coal, oil, natural gas, or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings.
…Critics point out that nuclear reactors are astronomically expensive, and take a decade or more to build, even if environmental groups fail to block construction altogether.
Given the entrenched opposition in parts of Western Europe and America, some experts say that if the world does turn to nuclear power, most of the new plants will be in China, India and other developing countries.
They also point out that the issue of security cuts both ways. Building more plants may reduce a country’s reliance on imported oil and gas, but it also creates more targets for terrorist attacks.
…Of course, there is another alternative: energy efficiency. But under the snow-capped peaks of Davos, the idea of simply turning down the thermostat has not yet caught on.
(28 Jan 2007)
Does nuclear power now make financial sense?
John W. Schoen, MSNBC
On Sept. 16, 1954, in a speech to a group of science writers, Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, then head of the agency now known as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, made a bold prediction. The potential for peaceful uses of nuclear energy was so great, he said, that electricity produced by nuclear power plants would one day be “too cheap to meter.”
Over the coming decades, the economics of nuclear power turned out to be more problematic. Even before operational catastrophes at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Ukraine, the industry was reeling from a series of financial catastrophes that brought widespread project cancellations and effectively ended construction of new plants in the U.S.
Now, nearly three decades after the last new plant was approved, proponents of nuclear power say the economics of atom-splitting energy have dramatically improved. In fact, they argue, financial forces have become a driving force behind a new enthusiasm for nuclear energy as the power industry scrambles to meet growing demand for electricity with an aging fleet of generating stations.
But the industry still needs to raise tens of billions of dollars before the proposed round of new plants can be built. That means persuading Wall Street investors to put up the money and state utility regulators to bless the higher rates needed to pay for these multi-billion-dollar projects.
(26 Jan 2007)
This article claims the economic fundamentals are probably ok, thanks to various efficiency and other factors, that the problems are largely political. As noted in the article, MSNBC is a partial subsidiary of GE, who’s projects are being discussed, so it’s not necessarily an impartial article. -AF
Attack on Iran would be ‘catastrophic’, IAEA says
Stella Dawson, New Zealand Herald
DAVOS, Switzerland – An attack on Iran would be catastrophic and encourage it to develop a nuclear bomb, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday.
“It would be absolutely counterproductive, and it would be catastrophic,” ElBaradei said at a discussion on nuclear proliferation at the World Economic Forum.
(26 Jan 2007)
