How Corporations Deal with Global Climate Change — In Both Word and Deed
Here’s an article noting that certain corporations talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to climate change. Isn’t that shocking? 🙂
Seriously, I hope I’ll soon be able to muster the resources to begin my “corporate role models” blog, as there are many millions of people doing some very noble things in the corporate work setting; and I’m anxious to start telling those stories.
Much of the content in the linked-to article comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Like many organizations, the performance of the UCS is checkered. For example, the UCS assumes that it is impossible to make nuclear plants that do not require water cooling. However, because of its higher operating temperatures, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) can use the Brayton cycle instead of the Rankine cycle, and use air cooling, thereby eliminating the problems associated with water cooling. The UCS has not even mentioned that possibility. Perhaps they hope we won’t notice that omission.
Also, a prime reason that the USC opposes waste recycling is that the plutonium could be extracted and used for weapons. However, as it turns out, that is not the easiest path to nuclear weapons. Iran is enriching uranium beyond what is required for pressurized water nuclear reactors, and there is a high probability that they are doing so to get weapons grade uranium, i.e, uranium that is > 90% U235. So, the fear that reprocessing waste fuel would lead to nuclear weapon proliferation is probably overstated considering that there are easier paths to getting nuclear weapon material. And, as long as we are using a very inefficient nuclear reactor technology, reprocessing waste would be a good way to reduce the waste to a small fraction of what we now have.
Consider also that operating a reactor to produce plutonium is different from operating it only to produce power. As the reactor operates, it uses the plutonium it creates to produce energy and the plutonium in the fuel is gradually reduced. To use the reactor to produce plutonium requires much more frequent refueling so as to maximize the amount of plutonium in the used fuel. Operating the reactor in that mode could easily be detected.
The UCS also states that within 20 years, we could be getting 40% of our electricity from renewable resources. That may be possible, but it is insufficient. And, ever getting beyond 40% seems unlikely because renewable sources of energy are intermittent; they require fossil fuel back-up. I do not know whether the USC has proposed any way to generate more than 40% of our electricity with renewables.
It should be noted that France, over a 20 year period, went from 0% nuclear to 80% nuclear which would do far more to reduce global warming than replacing only 40% of fossil fuel power with renewables.
No doubt our current nuclear technology has serious problems which is a good reason to develop better nuclear technologies to solve those problems. But even with its problems, it would still make sense to expand its use to limit global warming until we can develop a better nuclear technology. The dangers of our present nuclear technology pale in comparison with the dangers of global warming and the other problems of using fossil fuels. LFTR technology looks promising so we should be spending considerable funds on R & D to prepare it for implementation. But R & D funds should not not be limited to LFTR technology; it may be that some other nuclear technology would be better, a possibility that it would be premature to rule out. But we do need a nuclear technology that uses reactor fuel far more efficiently and is less expensive and safer.