What Price: Nuclear Power?

What price will we pay for nuclear power? The price of uranium has now risen beyond $40 per pound after spending many years at around a quarter of that. One is reminded of the recent surge in oil prices, and it does enmesh into a prognosis that energy is going to become increasingly expensive, and probably rare. Although many other metals, notably copper, have also experienced a huge rise in their cost on the open market mainly from a massive demand for them in China, uranium has attracted interest from people who previously had paid no attention to it or indeed to nuclear power at all. This is a boon to the industry, but any benefits might prove purely short term gains, as speculators, who may well leave as quickly as they came, are thought to have caused some of the escalation in the price of uranium. There are now around 300 different companies who supply uranium, and it is generally believed that the world will need increasing quantities of it as a "primary" source (i.e. as dug out of the ground) in order to decrease its reliance on "secondary" uranium (i.e. as recovered from used nuclear fuel rods by reprocessing, or as fabricated from dismantled nuclear weapons). I was recently told by someone from a well known British nuclear energy company that the U.K. had sufficient uranium reserves in the form of nuclear warheads to provide the nation's 20% share of its electricity production for 100 years. That, I presume would mean using fast breeder reactors. In any event, the rising demand for nuclear power in China, Russia, India, the U.S. and the U.K. will necessitate the increased mining of uranium, although India is fortunate in having substantial reserves of thorium (232) which can be converted into the fissile nuclear fuel, uranium-233 by irradiation with neutrons, so this country may be less dependent on the flexings of the world uranium market.
However, as with "Peak Oil" there are few indicators that more uranium is in the pipeline. In both the years 2004 and 2005, world production of uranium was around 40,000 tonnes, and 2006 looks about the same. It is interesting to compare this figure with the approximately 75,000 tonnes of uranium that is actually "burnt" by the global nuclear powered electricity industry, and so nearly half of it must come from "secondary" sources, according to simple arithmetic, as has been the case for the past twenty years. There is considerable disagreement as to exactly how much uranium exists on Earth. It is true that along with other metals such as tin, tungsten and molybdenum, uranium is not geologically rare. However, it is the quality of the ore that is at issue, and there are only available reserves of high-grade uranium ore estimated at around 3-4 million tonnes, which is just sufficient to empower the world's static nuclear power industry for about 50 years. Any envisaged expansion must secure more uranium, or the current proposal, emphatically spoken of by the U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is at most a hugely costly short-term measure, and probably best avoided. Fast breeder reactors were heralded as "the future" in the 1970's, but little development of this technology has in fact materialised since then, mainly due to the perceived risks of handling plutonium as the reactor fuel, and the necessity to use liquid sodium metal or the liquid alloy of sodium and potassium, which explodes on contact with water, as the "coolant" (heat exchange medium). Neither ordinary (light, H2O) water nor heavy water (deuterium oxide, D2O) can be used to cool a fast breeder reactor since these materials moderate (slow down) the fast neutrons that are most effective in "breeding" uranium-238 into plutonium-239 as the fissile nuclear fuel.
Ultimately, the stage is realised at which more energy must be expended in extracting the uranium fuel than is actually recovered by its use in a nuclear power plant - a clearly self-defeating exercise, particularly if it is true that we need to employ nuclear in order to reduce our carbon emissions; obviously we would in this case be producing more CO2 by using nuclear than without it. The issue of security of supply remains a thorny matter, as Europe (which includes us in the U.K.) buys all its uranium from Russia, who get much of that from Kazakhstan, and one can only speculate upon the political situation that might prevail in 10, 20 or more years in this rapidly changing world, upon which we witness the shift in economic and political clout, which seems mainly to follow available resources and their implications. Perhaps the current "suppliers" of the various fuels we all depend upon (oil, gas, uranium and coal) will find it more expedient to simply hang on to them for their own use, rather than selling them on for cash.

Water: Drought in the U.K.

2006 seems to be a year for decade anniversaries: other than the oft applauded win of the World Cup by England in 1966, mostly of less than happy events. 40 years ago (also 1966) in the South Wales of my boyhood we witnessed the Aberfan Disaster, when a slag-heap "slipped" and engulfed a school wiping out, it is said, an entire generation. 20 years ago the unit 4 reactor exploded at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in what is now Ukraine. 30 years ago we had severe water shortages and fires, mostly caused by the extreme heat of the summer in 1976, and some by arsonists. Such was the extent of the drought that standpipes were introduced in some areas, the mains water was switched off and it was necessary to queue up with buckets to collect enough water for drinking, cooking and washing. Cars went about dirty, as the traditional British Sunday morning activity of "cleaning the car" wastefully with a hosepipe had to be suspended. Hosepipe bans had long been introduced by this stage of the season. Now it appears, we will suffer water shortages once again.
It is mainly the south east of England that will be affected, for various reasons. Number one is that about 20% of the entire U.K. population lives here, and accordingly the water demand is particularly high. Secondly, it doesn't rain that much in these parts, and both problems are compounded by the antiquated infrastructure used to deliver water. The latter is common throughout the country, but the pressures on demand in the south east are sufficient to lay bare the threads of the problem. Worst hit is Kent at "High Risk", with Greater London and its surrounds coming second in the "At risk" category. The rest of the country is at "Normal risk", so it's business as usual to the north and west of this corner of England. Wales, as I well remember is not short of rain: my childhood image of that neck of the woods is one of rain pouring down upon and running off grey slate roofs. I recall that the west country (Gloucestershire) where we moved to next was similarly provided with rain. I also remember the fresh green lushness and smell of the earth of both regions, especially after a good rainstorm, in those simpler times.
The aspect of "leakage" from the pipes used to transport water around the various parts of the country is very serious, since anywhere up to 25% of the water is lost en-route. This sums up to a total of 3.6 billion litres of water every day - a staggering total when one considers that in the U.K. each person uses an average of 150 litres, and so this amount of "lost" water would be enough to provide for 24 million people, or 40% of the entire U.K.'s population of 60 million. It could meet the water requirements of the south east of England twice over for that matter!
In all probability, if these holes in the infrastructure were plugged-up, there would be no water shortage, but to do so costs money, and therefore the price of water "at the tap" would increase. Since much water is used commercially, there would be a knock on affect in the price of other goods and services too, much as we shall see as we slide down the pricey edge of Hubbert's Peak, following Peak Oil, trumpeting out the age of cheap oil.
It is pretty much the same problem with providing that other essential: energy. The most cost-effective action would be to cut-back on waste, and implement energy efficiency schemes. We could easily use about half the water and less than half the energy that we do now, whereupon many of our problems would be eliminated: water shortages in the south east and the need to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, but some bizarre system of accounting always seems to get in the way of common sense; that and lack of clear elected leadership.

Hydrogen City: Independent of Oil.

A group of Danish companies have just released a visionary concept called H2PIA (to sound like "utopia") for the construction of the world's first hydrogen-powered city. The idea of using hydrogen as an energy source is not without its critics, including myself. It is a wonderful idea in principle, being so clean as a "fuel" that children could drink the combustion product from it "pure water" unharmed, as it dripped brightly from the exhaust pipe of a fuel-cell powered "green car". However, hydrogen is not a fuel, but an energy carrier, and it is necessary to generate the hydrogen in the first place using some primary form of energy, e.g. by reforming methane (which produces CO2) or by the electrolysis of water, which is impractical on the scale required to substitute for our current petroleum based fuel requirements using renewable sources of electricity. Interestingly, "petrol" is also an energy carrier, and contains a vast amount of energy generated by the geology of the earth over probably millions of years, as is true of all carbon based "fossil" fuels. Energy in the form of hydrogen, in contrast, would need to be locked in on a rather shorter timescale.
H2PIA is far more ambitious in concept, though, and aims to fuel an entire city using hydrogen, not just its vehicles. It is similarly based on fuel-cell technology, and the Danes plan to begin building it next year. The concept is based upon an almost utopian system of ethics: Freedom, Clean Energy; Creativity and Innovation. This sounds to me like something the European Union would have funded in the past, and maybe they still will? One great advantage is that the citizens of H2PIA will be independent of oil, which sounds fine, but an answer to the question of where the hydrogen is to come from is not obvious, not to me at least. I am not aware of any "hard sums" relating quantity to renewable energy provision, and so I am not yet convinced as to the viability of the scheme. However, if they can get around this matter they would indeed have "freedom". Clean energy: sure, if they can produce all the hydrogen from sun or wind, that would be true, but as I say, I would need to see some hard sums, including energy losses (e.g. at least 50% overall for water electrolysis and fuel-cell "combustion", even allowing for an at best 20% capacity factor efficiency for wind-energy).
Creativity and innovation? Who could argue that the notion is neither of these? It would bring together different kinds of business, research institutes and policies and obviate nasty smelly cars in a sustainable way. Again, I would like to see the sums. Perhaps it is practicable for a small city although as I have shown before, substituting the entire national fuel requirement of petrol by "renewable" hydrogen, e.g. from wind-power is not a realistic proposition.
H2PIA would be a complete urban community, with residential houses, businesses, shops, cars and roads. i.e. On the surface, it would look like a normal community, with all the amenities of say my own, the village of Caversham, with its population of just less than 10,000. It is intended to use cutting edge Danish technology, in terms of energy efficient buildings constructed from modern materials, and fabricated according to the latest energy research, so that energy efficiency is an intrinsic feature of the concept.
H2PIA Public: this is the city's central hydrogen production, storage and distribution network, and contains a central CHP (combined heating and power) plant based on hydrogen fuel cells. The hydrogen "filling station" would also be here, where you could load the car up with it.
H2PIA Share: this is the town centre with its stimulating mixture of shops, public spaces, businesses, recreational areas and all other amenities. It is claimed that on a deeper level, here H2PIA will provide the circumstances that allow for a fusion of work (yes, people will need jobs amid the concept), leisure and fun - and create a context for optimism, creativity, joy and life and confidence in the future. Steady on! This really does sound like utopia.
Villa Plugged: plugged constitutes a communal residence for the younger town residents, and is an open, creative and inspiring milieu, created by young people - for young people. Villa plugged gets electricity and heat from the central electricity supply.
Villa Unplugged: is created for families who enjoy light, air and freedom of movement. The villas are not attached to the communal energy supply, and manage their own personal storage of hydrogen and energy production for their homes and cars. Although presumably, they can still fill-up at the central store?
Villa Hybrid: (no, not cars), but this is a family residence where the concepts of plugged and unplugged are combined and so the families produce their own energy but are also connected to the common energy grid which they supply with any excess energy (electricity) they might produce. Interestingly, the car is also part of this and is made use of even when it is not on the road, when its fuel cell produces energy for the common grid.
It all sounds like communism to me: a great idea, but I doubt its egalitarian ideals would work smoothly in practice. Nonetheless, I shall watch this project with interest.

Water of Convenience.

It requires 50 litres of water to produce a single pack of lettuce, as stocked on the shelves of a typical high street supermarket. This is a striking reflection of the way modern western society squanders an increasingly precious resource, which along with oil will engender future conflicts and wars, as their supply dwindles in the face of a rising global population. I have written on the subject of water in a previous posting "Water Water Everywhere - but less than we think, in which I refer to the quantity of water that is used per day by the average citizen of various countries around the world: so, if an average American uses around 500 litres daily and a Britain about 150 litres, many in Africa have to get by on less than 10 litres a day. Hence, the production of a pack of lettuce in Kenya is equivalent to the daily water ration for five people. Shocking!
There is a growing appetite among western consumers for "out of season" products, rather than following the natural growing season as was the case certainly when I was a child. One even looked forward to particular favourites "coming into season" following the months during which they would ripen and fluorish. Apart from local "farmers' markets" this is largely no longer the case, and we expect to go into the local supermarket to buy whatever produce we like, whenever we want it, and at as low a price as possible. In the developing world, the production of cash crops is one of the few means out of poverty, although such activities run against the conflicting demands of globalisation and sustainability.
India is a good example, where major companies such as Coca-Cola (which used to contain cocaine in its original 19th century formulation) are encouraged to open factories which consume vast volumes of the available water, while at the same time small farmers are committing suicide in recored numbers, in the hopeless face of drought.
The main problem is our culture of convenience, also known as the "throw-away society" which along with the "disposable family" is hardly a route to great contentment or to sustainable lifestyles. Increasingly, our own home-grown fresh produce is bagged-up rather than being sold loose. I have often noticed that when the latter option is available, the price/kg reveals that the containment in the bag increases the price by anything up to five-fold. I always buy loose, as a matter of principle in equal measure with economic considerations. The bottled water industry transports millions of gallons of water between different countries: as world water shortages soar, "water" may become a major commodity, with the price of shares in it in the ascendent.
We can all sow the seeds by which to change this convenience culture, on a personal level, by encouraging demand for locally produced food and shunning that grown in an unsustainable fashion in the third world, thus sending the message to suppliers that a different kind of market is emerging. On both moral and economic grounds this must desist: the problems of water shortage are self-evident, and can only become more acute as global warming, drought and loss of clean water supplies occur through e.g. saline contamination as sea levels rise.
It is instructive to look on the packet and see where exactly particular crops were exported from, e.g. tomatoes from west Africa, which require the use of desalination plants to supply enough water to grow them, such is the pressure on this basic resource, which it has been said is "more precious than gold". Indeed it is so, since we can all live without gold, but not without enough clean water.
The acclaimed biologist Paul Erlich concluded in his book The Population Bomb, published forty years ago, that the world population was growing so fast that food production could not keep pace with it. The crash that he memorably forecast did not happen because of a combination of vast irrigation schemes that were introduced in the developing world, and cheap chemical fertilisers, derived from gas and oil. Today the world grows twice as much food as it did a generation back, but it requires three times as much water to do so. Around three quarters of all water extracted from the environment - from rivers, lakes and accessible aquifers - is used to irrigate crops. The situation cannot be maintained, and an increasing base level demand from numbers of population many of whom aspire to a western lifestyle will push humankind over the edge of stability. Undoubtedly wars will be fought over water, and as a salient example, the Egyptian government has threatened military action against any upstream country that dams the Nile or its tributaries, such is the country's economic dependence on exports of vegetables.
Particular environmental stresses on water are worth mentioning. To produce one litre of Coca-Cola requires three litres of water. Around one Coca-Cola bottling plant in India the water table has fallen by 10 metres since it opened, sucking local farms dry. In Ecuador, rose production with its attendent heavy use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides has contaminated rivers and ground water with the loss of large numbers of animal and plant species, and tainting drinking water that people need. An explosion of coffee plantations in Vietnam has provided much needed fiscal wealth but water scarcities are now common both in terms of volume and contamination of what remains available. In China, paddy fields expel 2,000 tonnes of water for every tonne of rice they produce.
The implications for future rice provision are clear, since half the entire world's population will depend on rice by 2025, including the west which demands ever increasing amounts of this staple food.

Hybrid Cars are not so Green?

To set us all a good example, would be Prime Minister David Cameron, and actual governmental ministers Gordon Brown (more likely to become the next P.M. after Tony Blair) and John Prescott have all got hybrid cars. A "hybrid", in this context at least, is a car with a self-charging electric motor that runs alongside a petrol engine. The hybrid is generally perceived as a "green" conscience smoother for those who can't or won't give up their cars, and are prepared to pay around 10 - 20% more for that priviledge, although the edge is taken off that by a very low road tax of anly £40 a year, to encourage the adoption of these vehicles more widely. Significantly, hybrids are also exempted from the £8 a day congestion charge in London - which Ken Livingstone looks set to raise for other kinds of vehicle.
The realities of hybrid efficiencies have been called into question as a result of a new study commisioned by "Which?" magazine, that has investigated three different makes of car. As one example, the recently promoted Honda Civic was found to achieve a mere 28 - 34 mile per gallon fuel-to-road output, which is by far lower than the most efficient petrol or diesel powered cars, and around only half the 54 mpg value claimed in Honda's advertising brochures. David Cameron drives a Toyota Lexus RX400, but this only provided 25 - 34 mpg during the Which? experiment, and is around twice the fuel consumption of the most efficient diesel-run car. The U.K.'s best selling hybrid, the Prius, did manage 45 - 50 mpg, but again this is rather shy of the 66 mpg figure claimed for it. Nonetheless, since it is shown that the car produces 44% less CO2 than a standard "non-hybrid" equivalent, it is still a promising machine.
A senior researcher at Which?, George Marshall-Thornhill said he was "surprised" by these results, and offered a possible explanation for them. In essence, rather than doing an in-house, "wheel on rollers" type of determination of the cars' efficiencies, under controlled laboratory conditions, the cars were just driven around as they would normally be in practice, on a variety of roads and at a range of speeds, which surely is a more reliable measure of a car's performance in reality. A spokesman from Toyota said the "claimed" figures were produced by the vehicle certification agency rather than the manufacturer, and that "all cars are tested in the same way - and the published figures come from those tests. Which?'s figures would have been greatly influenced by the road conditions at the time". Well, of course they would, as indeed will be the case when anyone buys a car and drives the kids to school in it, goes off to work, or for any other purpose for that matter. Real life is not conducted under clinical conditions.
On another tack, Which? have looked into bio-diesel, aiming at motorists who want to "go green" without stumping up the extra cash to buy a hybrid car. It is the old argument being trotted out agin, that because growing the crops to produce bio-diesel consumes CO2, then 70% of CO2 emissions can be eliminated overall, from that pumped into the atmosphere by burning the stuff in cars. I applaud this more realistic estimate of 70%, as opposed to the innumerate "bio-diesel is 'carbon neutral'" claims often made for it. However, to grow "bio-diesel" crops on sufficient scale to replace the 54 million tonnes of petroleum fuel that is currently burned in the U.K. alone, every year, is simply impractical. I have done the sums before (please see my previous posting for the details if you are interested: "Biofuels - How Practical are They?"), and concluded that we would need about 5 times the total area of arable land in the U.K. for this purpose. In other words, even if we were to stop growing food entirely and turn all our fertile land over to bio-diesel production, we could still only provide 20% of current fuel use. Makes you think, doesn't it?
In Sweden apparently, 13% of new cars are now sold that run on bio-ethanol, mixed with 15% petrol. Sounds good, but Sweden is a fairly small country, and is all their bio-ethanol home-grown? I doubt it, since Sweden has a very short growing season. A lovely country, where people traditionally eat a lot of meat, got from animals that can graze the moss under the snow during the rest of the year, i.e. Rudolph and his friends, many of which are still radioactive (though healthy) as a legacy of Chernobyl. I shall look into the energy economics of bio-ethanol, but my gut instinct is that it is not much better than bio-diesel as a truthfully effective substitution for petrol (gasoline). Ethanol has poor thermodynamics as a fuel, and can only deliver around 60% as much energy as petrol, pound for pound. It is also extremely acre- (hectare) intensive as a crop.
Assuming that we wished to run the U.K.'s transportation requirements on bio-ethanol, and presuming further that an equivalent quantity of fuel could be derived per unit area as bio-diesel, the"bio-fuel" sum becomes worse since we could only provide 20% x 60 % = 12% of our massive 54 million tonnes annual fuel budget by its means.
Apparently Ford and Saab now sell cars in the U.K. that will run on the 85% bio-ethanol:15% petrol mix, but vide supra, this is merely hype and a conscience tax imposed upon the gullible. I deliberately don't run a car, and remain firm in my conviction that cutting the number of cars by about 90% (possible by localising communities) and cutting unnecessary plane flights, which consume about a quarter of all fuel in the U.K., is the key to solving the problems threatening humankind by "Peak Oil". 10% of our current petrol equivalent might be provided by alternative means, e.g. from gas or coal liquifaction, and even a relatively small contribution from bio-fuels, but not the equivalent of 54 million tonnes of it. I think we should forget about hybrids and focus more directly on limiting our fuel use in the first place.