FW: Sequestration / nuclear option

[Keith.Millington@csiro.au]

Hi,



What are your thoughts on the similarity between underground sequestration

of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations vs storage of nuclear waste ? Has

anyone calculated the volume of CO2 storage required per 1000MW, say,

compared with fission , and also the costs involved in pumping the CO2

underground ?



The attached is some dialogue I have had with a proponent of this approach.



Regards, Keith Millington









-----Original Message-----

From: Millington, Keith (TFT, Geelong) 



Ian, 



Sadly I suspect that nuclear power is not being suggested here as a viable

option for eliminating greenhouse emissions, but as a threat. 



Whilst I think there is considerable merit in more research funding for

renewables, unless there is a significant breakthrough, fission remains the

only viable option for maintaining current and projected levels of

electricity demand for the future. At any rate if we're serious about

addressing global warming.



Underground sequestration of CO2 and storage of high-level nuclear waste are

very similar strategies - except for the vastly different volumes involved,

and of course the media beat-up whenever the word nuclear is mentioned.









Yes. A wonderful Hatchet job, something the press can be good at.



There is a saying that the closer the subject the press is reporting on the

less you believe what it says because you know about the subject, beware of

just believing the reporter, they control what parts of an interview are

shown, i.e. questions and answers and have in the past been caught out

putting answers against different questions.  



All the people critising Robin had a major conflict of interest in that they

wanted the money going to research in sequestration to go to their research,

I much stronger conflict of interest than Robin's.  I didn't notice much

criticism of their views of where the money should be spent on grounds of

potential "conflict of interest".  Consider the question of where money on

greenhouse could most effectively be spent.  Halving the carbon emissions

via sequestration or reducing dependence on coal by a small fraction with

the alternate energies, or maybe just go nuclear?







Regards





Ian 



HI Richard,

  Yes, I saw that last night.  The 7:30 report were trying to corner him on

a conflict of interest between his 5 digit salary as chief scientist and his

6 digit salary as a director of Rio Tinto.  The issue was on carbon

sequestration.  An idea supported by both the chief scientist and Rio Tinto.

Robin more or less argued that he has a split personality and the person

doing the Chief Scientist job is oblivious to the person doing the directory

job.  The interview appeared biased against Robin, but the potential for

conflict of interest is obvious.



Gavin 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/