backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by fredsky.. on Apr 7 at 1:40 PM


French nuclear plant at Belleville sur Loire.  (Source: The Guardian)
Combating climate change a prime focus of new technology deal

France generates over 78% of its electricity from nuclear power, giving the nation energy independence as well as one of the lowest electric rates in all of Europe. The French success story has attracted the interest of Great Britain, which is poised to announce a joint agreement between the nations to develop and market nuclear power around the globe.

In a deal lasting 15 years, Britain will license four French reactor designs and train a large workforce in their construction and maintenance. The two nations will work together to market the reactors to nations around the globe. The designs will also eventually replace Britain's aging network of nuclear power stations, which today comprise 20% of the nation's electric supply.

The plan, leaked to The Guardian earlier today, is to be announced early next week at the "Arsenal Summit," when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown meets with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Arsenal Soccer Club in London.

The French company Areva, whose designs are included in the plan, already has deals to build reactors or sell nuclear products to many nations, including Finland, South Korea, China, and the US.

Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, making it an attractive option for nations trying to meet Kyoto's emission reduction guidelines. Unlike many other renewable sources, nuclear is also cost competitive with fossil fuels, making it a cheap and abundant source of energy.

The agreement is already drawing fire from environmentalists. Friends of the Earth called it "nonsense" that will do nothing to reduce climate change. The Sierra Club said nuclear power is "dangerous and irresponsible" and said the focus should be on wind and solar instead.

German officials were quick to follow the pre-announcement, claiming the country needs to follow in the footsteps of the UK-France agreement to avoid blackouts.  The United Arab Emirates also pledged to invest more into its nuclear program within hours of the European announcements.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Truly better for the climate?
By marsbound2024 on 3/24/2008 12:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
I thought water vapor was almost just as contributing a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. I suppose at least it doesn't contribute to acid rain at least. It'd be nice to move away from cooling towers (and direct-to-ocean/river designs) to something different. Oh well, nothing's perfect.




RE: Truly better for the climate?
By KernD on 3/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Truly better for the climate?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2008 12:58:55 PM , Rating: 3
No, he is correct. Water vapor is by far the most potent greenhouse gas. In fact, until the 1950s, scientists believed CO2 couldn't possibly warm the earth at all, because water vapor absorbed infrared so much more readily.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By Oregonian2 on 3/24/2008 1:41:01 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, my understanding is that water vapor contributes more than 90% of the heat absorption from the sun ("greenhouse'ing").

Without it, we'd probably be frozen solid.

Water vapor doesn't make great press though, and it's hard to get people to be anti-water politically so it'll continue to be ignored.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By KernD on 3/24/2008 4:08:34 PM , Rating: 4
Yep water vapor does that, but unlike CO2 or other gas, water will come down in rain. I don't mind rain, except the acid one.

All of this doesn't matter much, humans aren't even close to understanding the immensely complex system that is the earth.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By marsbound2024 on 3/24/2008 1:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
Let me refer you to Mercury... now let me refer you to Venus. Mercury is closer, but Venus is hotter... why? Clouds.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By Chernobyl68 on 3/24/2008 1:35:33 PM , Rating: 1
Mercury is closer? Mercury has no atmosphere...


By marsbound2024 on 3/24/2008 1:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
Your point makes absolutely no sense, other than acknowledging that I was a bit ambiguous. Mercury is closer to the SUN. What do you mean by "Mercury has no atmosphere?" How is that relevant as a counterargument? My point was simply that Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus, but Venus is still hotter. The reason is that Venus has clouds.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By KernD on 3/24/2008 3:49:36 PM , Rating: 4
Your argument is BS, they're not clouds of water on Venus, they're clouds of CO2 (97% of it's atmosphere is CO2).

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusa...


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By marsbound2024 on 3/24/2008 3:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter, if you do your research you will know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapour

http://en.wikipedia.org/Greenhouse_gas


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By KernD on 3/24/2008 4:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
I already looked it up, yes it is, but your argument is still BS. When your right, why use bad arguments?


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By marsbound2024 on 3/24/2008 4:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ok you are essentially trolling now. Please re-read. I said that I thought water vapor was as contributing a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. You said no, I was mistaken, water vapor does nothing. You said clouds reflect light and thus water vapor somehow does the opposite of the greenhouse effect. I basically said that this was not really true because if you look at Venus, it is the second planet from the Sun and although Mercury is closest, Venus is hotter. It is hotter because of its clouds. Also, Earth keeps its nice warm temperatures and climate because of its atmosphere and clouds. Water vapor helps to keep the climate regulated. Anyways, unless you come up with something significant, I don't really see the point of debating on this.

My original statement was simply saying that I did not think nuclear energy was completely environmentally friendly and I took a look at one aspect of it (not the hazardous materials)--this being emissions. It emits steam, which is water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2008 4:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "Venus [is] hotter because of its clouds."

No. The clouds on Venus are primarily H2SO4, which increase the planet's albedo and reflect visible light. They actually exert a small cooling effect. The vast amounts of CO2 (250,000 times what we have on earth) aren't visible as clouds. In fact, the runaway warming on Venus is thought to have ocurred because of the total lack of moderating water vapor, such as we have on Earth.

Climate is very complex. On earth, water vapor -- in non cloud form -- is responsible for most of our GH effect. But as temperatures rise, that vapor increases, causing additional cloud cover, which acts as a negative feedback to cool the planet.

Finally, it's risky to attribute all of the excess heat on Venus to the GH effect. Recent data has suggested a large part may be due to geologic processes...the surface of the planet is covered with active and near-recent lava flows.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By rudy on 3/24/2008 2:28:06 PM , Rating: 5
Yes but when you burn fossil fuels to create electricity most plants heat steam to turn the turbines. So with fossil fuels you output steam and CO2. A nuclear power plant out puts nuclear waste and steam. What to do with the nuclear waste is a different matter but they do not just pump it into the air.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/24/2008 12:57:35 PM , Rating: 4
Sunlight evaporates many trillions of tons of water vapor each day. Nuclear power isn't going to add even a measurable fraction to that, even if we had 50 times the reactors operational we do today.


RE: Truly better for the climate?
By SectionEight on 3/24/2008 1:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Many reactors are cooled by man-made lakes instead of towers so no evaporation takes place. The side effect of cooling lakes is great fishing, year-round.

And masher2 is correct, sunlight does in a day what mankind couldn't do in a year with regards to evaporation.


I wouldn't worry about safety,...
By AnnihilatorX on 3/24/2008 12:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
Safety should be much better now than the 90s through technology. Just don't wire the nuclear control system to the Internet.

I worry more about nuclear waste and how to get rid of them.




RE: I wouldn't worry about safety,...
By headbox on 3/24/2008 12:50:28 PM , Rating: 4
There's plenty of room in Space for nuclear waste.


By marsbound2024 on 3/24/2008 12:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just send it the Sun's way... I am sure it'll make quick work of it all. All of our "junk" could certainly be recycled by dumping it into the Sun or even Jupiter or Saturn. There was one good show I was watching on television talking about space junk in orbit around Earth and how they proposed using powerful lasers in the future to essentially obliterate some of the smaller stuff that could pose threats as "micrometeorites" in a way.

In the future I am sure we will be mining the asteroid belt and disposing of our waste with gas giants and our very own parent star. Hopefully we'll recycle most things if possible, though.


RE: I wouldn't worry about safety,...
By ElFenix on 3/24/2008 1:17:00 PM , Rating: <