Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Controversy also surrounds end-storage in the ocean. The possibility exists that the
carbon dioxide will escape again into the atmosphere after a short period or will
have an extreme but not yet identifi able effect on the ecological system of the
oceans. This is an area that generally still requires extensive research. Other types
of storage areas are not available everywhere or would quickly be exhausted. If all
power plants in the world were required to dispose of their carbon dioxide in a way
that would not damage the climate, it would take an enormous logistical effort to
transport the carbon dioxide over what could sometimes be thousands of kilometres
to end - storage depositories.
Probably the most important argument against global sequestration of carbon
dioxide is the economic viability of doing so. Carbon dioxide sequestration gener-
ally reduces the effi ciency of a power plant. Added to this is the cost of the transport
and end storage of the carbon dioxide. It is diffi cult at present to estimate the exact
cost involved. Many estimates predict that the cost increases for electricity from
fossil power plants would be up to double present values (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, 2005). For many countries in the world this would rule out even
the possibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. In contrast, cost estimates for renew-
able power plants show that in many locations they would prove to be more eco-
nomical than fossil power plants within a relatively short period - regardless of
whether or not they have carbon dioxide sequestration.
■
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm
Background information on CO
2
separation and storage
4.1.3 Nuclear Energy - Squeaky Clean
Almost every discussion on climate ends up looking at nuclear energy as a possible
saviour. The arguments against nuclear energy have already been explained in detail
in previous chapters of this topic. Even if the very confl icting evaluated risks of
nuclear energy are disregarded, this solution does not offer an option for effective
climate protection in the medium term. The main reasons for this are:
■
The proportion of nuclear energy in the global primary energy supply is only
around 6%. In terms of fi nal energy consumption, the proportion is consider-
ably lower.
■
The amount of uranium that can be extracted economically is very limited.
The price of uranium has already increased signifi cantly in recent years.
■
Nuclear energy plants are diffi cult to regulate and therefore are not suitable
for joint operation with wind power and solar plants.
■
Although nuclear energy is practically carbon-free it gives rise to other risks,
such as nuclear accidents, terrorist attacks and the unresolved question of
end storage.
■
Nuclear fusion will not be ready for use for several decades and thus too late
to save the climate; it is also diffi cult to regulate and is extremely expensive.
