Immediate Target: Only emit as much greenhouse gas (GHG), as the earth can absorb by 2050.
Using two methods:
Increase amount of GHGs absorbed by earth
1. Conserve carbon sinks (e.g soil, forests, coral reefs, mangroves) and the environment generally so that they can do their job well
2. Artificially capture and inject GHGs into bedrock
Reduce amount of GHGs we emit in the process of producing energy
1. Process nuclear waste for 100 years of clean energy (the only emissions come from building factories to process this waste)
2. Phase out all combustion energy sources and electrify technologies
Why to recycle nuclear waste?
More than 90% of the potential energy remains in the fuel once it has been used in a nuclear reactor.
This energy stored in existing nuclear waste is enough to provide our electricity for the next 100 years.
We have to find a permanent solution for this waste anyway (currently, most nuclear waste is stored in temporary casks that are only designed to last for a few decades)
Options for dealing with nuclear waste:
Bury it
(image of deep geological disposal)
Requires us to continue producing new nuclear power (extraction, use, storage, disposal)
An unforeseen event within the next 200,000 years* could cause a catastrophe, releasing the buried radiation and contaminating the soil, air and water
*rather plausible given that homosapiens have only existed for that long
Process it
(image of 4th gen fast reactor)
Generates 100 years worth of clean energy (only requires energy to build the processing facilities) - drastic action like this is needed to immediately slash emissions while we develop better infrastructure
Reduces waste volume, and time which it is dangerously radioactive for, significantly (e.g from 200,000 years to 200 years). This also makes it much more practical to store safely. Manageability further reduces the chance of catastrophe*
Even if we apply the same 1 in 4000 catastrophe rate to Gen 4 fast reactors**, given that nuclear material becomes less radioactive after processing, these catastrophes would have a smaller impact
*Furthermore, even if there were to be an unforeseen catastrophe, because the material would be degraded to a low level of radioactivity, it wouldn’t pose such a threat to humans
**Likely lower given the latest technology is used and the material isn't as reactive
Ultimately it seems to be much more advantageous, and possibly safer, to reprocess nuclear waste than to bury it.
The question is: is it more environmentally and economically viable? It may be...
The emissions from building Gen 4 reactors and reprocessing the existing waste would likely be less than the emissions from mining new nuclear material, generating new nuclear power then storing and burying the waste.
Similarly, the financial investment to build Gen 4 reactors or modernise current reactors for multi-cycle processing of existing nuclear waste and provide 100 years worth of clean energy in the process may be equivalent to the combined cost of producing 100 years worth of new nuclear energy by extracting new nuclear fuel and then expensively managing, storing and disposing of the waste.
Main Objection to Nuclear Recycling
Some countries have stated that they will not recycle nuclear waste due to concerns of nuclear proliferation. Let me show you why this is flawed logic.
Ultimately, if you are keen to prevent nuclear proliferation you should phase out nuclear fission as a power source given that traditional nuclear fission creates weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. By stopping nuclear fission, you can remove these materials from circulation altogether.
Let us say because of this we stop producing new nuclear energy, the question again is what should we do with that waste? Again, using it for energy is clearly more favourable than burying it. But in terms of nuclear proliferation, we must also think about the risk of plutonium being stolen or diverted.
I would hazard to say it is more likely to go missing from nuclear waste stored temporarily or shipped off to be buried because at that point nobody is really monitoring the contents, making for an easy diversion. Whereas, in a nuclear recycling facility, the amount of plutonium generated from the initial use of the nuclear material can be calculated and therefore expected to form the new fuel rods. If this plutonium doesn’t show up, it is obvious that it has been stolen and therefore, there is less chance that it will be stolen. You can more easily monitor it and know that it has been taken out of circulation, decommissioned and down-graded (no longer weapons grade) if you reprocess it yourself.
Ultimately, you cannot control what others do so by not recycling, you’re only really concerned about stopping moles in your own operation but that reflects badly on your technology and monitoring/security - this is something you can monitor and control. So if you don’t doubt this and there is no international ban, then there is no reason why you shouldn’t recycle.
So maybe you’re concerned about others proliferating nuclear weapons?
Opponents of yours can proliferate nuclear weapons under the cover of their nuclear energy program. They can recycle and divert the plutonium into bombs if they want to anyway. Indeed countries like North Korea aren’t even trying to be that covert about it, they are blatantly increasing their nuclear arsenal.
The only way to counter this is for an international ban on nuclear fission to be put in place.
This is another reason why I believe nuclear fission should be phased out.
And why I think we should reprocess existing nuclear waste so that there is no longer any weapons-grade nuclear material in circulation, it’s all decommissioned and degraded to 200-years of low radioactivity.
Unless you want to ban nuclear power, you can’t stop weapons grade plutonium proliferating (being created), you now have a choice whether you are going to decommission it by using it or not. Ultimately you should phase out nuclear power if you are keen to stop nuclear proliferation.
Moreover, another component of nuclear non proliferation is denuclearisation. We must decommission existing nuclear warheads. The question is should we bury the nuclear material or reprocess it? Deep geological disposal is done. But the only way to ensure it is out of circulation is to make it unusable and the only way to do that is changing its isotope through processing it.
Given that weapons use highly enriched weapons-grade uranium (90% U-235) and plutonium (93% P-239), this is perfect for use as new fuel rods. Good news, once it is used in a reactor as fuel it can no longer be used in weapons.
Currently there is approximately 8 years worth of world energy contained in nuclear warheads. So, if we were to decommission all of these warheads, we could denuclearise the world whilst producing another decade’s worth of clean energy.
Future of energy
Processing nuclear waste buys us 100 years of combustion-free clean energy. But then what should our future sources of energy be?
Should combustion play a role in the future of energy?
Only in emergencies (shortages and need instant energy) and for technologies where other options are currently not available e.g aerospace.
Although we have just used nuclear fission to process the existing nuclear waste and generate 100 years worth of electricity:
Should nuclear fission play a role in the future of energy?
We don't really want to keep relying on nuclear fission because it is a highly problematic source of energy:
1. It keeps generating waste (dangerous, difficult & expensive to manage, unfathomable timescale) and even with the best recycling system, a large amount of contaminated material cannot be recycled but must be stores
2. Nuclear materials are finite, non-replenishable resources so, like fossil fuels, they cannot be depended upon long-term
3. It contributes to nuclear proliferation - nuclear power generates weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. It may be better to remove nuclear materials from circulation completely
4. Ultimately, it is a fairly dangerous way to produce energy with approximately a 1 in 4000 chance of catastrophe
Ultimately, processing our nuclear waste gives us 100 years in which to transition from wasteful energy production (combustion and nuclear), to harnessing the energy of natural forces.
What are the harnessable sources of energy?
Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydroelectric
Wind and Solar are intermittent sources of energy and require good quality batteries to store the excess energy and even power delivery.
Geothermal and Hydroelectric are not intermittent but very reliable.
They are ideal to be used in combination and co-located (for cheaper maintenance).
Waves tend to increase in the winter as solar and wind surges in the summer. Whilst geothermal is fairly consistent year round.
Ensuring these technologies can be recycled well, we can develop and build them with the low-GHG energy from nuclear recycling and have a low-impact energy transition to an even lower-impact yet higher-energy future.
Who is going to lead the way and make the change?
Investments are made and people don't want to lose their position or tank their shares/business/sector. Right of first refusal may be given to those that control energy to exchange their energy generation/invest to build new harnessing tech so that they don’t lose market share and to incentivise the transition.
Equitable Energy Transition
We’re not looking for equality - allowing them to painfully go through the destructive evolution we went through before learning how to build constructively again
We’re looking for equity where adjustments need to be made because we aren’t all at the same starting point.
People may say it is imposing an unfair western agenda on developing nations by saying they must reach certain targets when they should be allowed to develop as we did. No what is imposing an unfair western agenda is leaving them to develop by themselves because in doing so we keep them behind the curve of progress and in the perpetual category of ‘developing’ nations.
Allowing them to emit as much greenhouse gases as developed countries have historically per capita is flawed logic and hides the western agenda of creating debt and keeping others behind under the guise of allowing them the opportunity to evolve and industrialise. We did not have the understanding of climate issues or better technology, this came through evolution. So why should we keep them 200 years behind?
If you actually care for them you should put sharing technology and investment/funding into loss and damages sector to bring them to the same level of development and greater independence.
New technologies rather than coal to oil and gas to figuring out how to turn to renewables and clean up the mess like landlines to mobile phones. Better and cheaper and faster just to start with environment-tailored renewables. Then there’s gulf agenda for exportable goods.
They don't need to go through the messy and damaging evolution from combustion to harnessed energy - we can help them skip straight to harnessed.
75% of GHG emissions come from the energy sector therefore we need to focus on transforming this
Because the emissions output of smaller sectors such as agriculture can be balanced by inputs from the same sector e.g by conserving carbon sinks such as coral reefs and rainforests that sequester emissions.
Don’t focus on the 1-2 percenters like aviation and meat - focus on the big ones that don’t require diet changes
Harness not generate e.g pumped hydro and biomass also
We also need to focus on stopping leaks and inefficiencies such as fugitive emissions, crop burning and deforestation (accounts for almost 20% global GHG production). This will stop as we decommission combustion energy.
7.8% = Unallocated (emissions from energy production)
Decommission combustion (biomass | CHP | combustion on-site heaters) and other active energy (pumped hydro)
Increase emissions for new infrastructure (4th gen nuclear | energy harnessing tech)
Overall Reduction = 0%
5.8% = Fugitive oil, coal and gas
Stop leaks with secure transport of gas - proper pipe maintenance and closed vessels
Stop flaring at oil factories
Overall Reduction = 5.8%
3.5% = Crop Burning
Use chemical decomposition of crop stubble and only burning to get rid of infestations
Overall Reduction = 3%
2.2% = Deforestation
Don’t use as fuel but need timber for construction
Overall Reduction = 1.2%
Overall Reduction = 10%
+ energy and transportation reductions | agriculture can be balanced
Eliminate non-beneficial/purposeful emissions:
Stop leaks with secure transport of gas - proper pipe maintenance and closed vessels
Stop flaring at oil factories
Agriculture:
Use chemical decomposition of crop stubble and only burning to get rid of infestations
Don’t use timber as fuel but need timber for construction
Responsible farming for good soil health - biodiversity, rotations
Conserve carbon sinks (rainforests, coral reefs etc)
More natural fetilisers (reduce nitrous oxide in air + eutrophication + leaching)
E.g manure which already exists and the methane is much less potent
Electrify road transportation:
Increase charging infrastructure (rennovate fuel stations)
Decommission combustion vehicles
Transfer production from combustion to electric vehicles
Waste:
Transport and process wastewater properly so that gases aren’t emitted
Eliminate landfills by making products circular
