Pure Hydrogen equates to Weapons of Mass Destruction ...
WHEC XIV - World Hydrogen Energy Conference
Montreal, PQ. June 9 - 14, 2002 Keynote Speech - Geoffrey Ballard
I have been given strict instructions from Tapan Bose. I am to speak, briefly, between very good food and some great entertainment. I am supposed to add some dignity to our evening by talking for at least 10 minutes but no longer than 15. -- So you can set your watches and I will be gone in 12 minutes.
It is moments like this that I regret my misspent youth tinkering with cars, and wish I had learned several languages so that I could speak to each of you in your native tongue. Luckily, most of you speak several languages, so I can speak in English. However, even with only one language – I am No Wordsworth Dripping Gems Devine into the Golden Chalice of a Sonnet. Instead, I will use very plain English to make three points.
I want to comment on the Kyoto Protocol, Nuclear Energy and the growing body of data concerning the devastating pollution of our inner cities.
First, the Kyoto Protocol is, in my opinion, a band-aid approach to a massive hemorrhage. I believe no developed nation, which has seriously studied the environmental issues that confront us, can in good conscience sign this protocol. I believe, implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be a huge step backwards. I believe it would say – BUSINESS AS USUAL - but we will do some very creative book keeping to mask our unwillingness to face the real issues.
So what are the real issues.
Economic progress, as we know it, correlates very well with per capita energy consumption. So do all other forms of social progress. For society to continue its progress in medicine, social responsibility, science, education and quality of life, we must assure that there is an ever increasing supply of energy per capita. With human populations still on the rise, progress will not be sustained if we attempt to further reduce, or even stabilize, our energy production by reducing the emissions of the current energy source mix.
We must increase our supply of energy, not reduce it. The current energy mix, however, is too heavily weighted to the fossil fuel sources of energy to allow us to increase energy production the way we have in the past. In the long run, we need to limit, then reduce, the use of coal and petroleum, the carbon based fuels, in satisfying our energy needs.
In the short run, however, it may be necessary to fully utilize and perhaps increase our utilization of coal and petroleum based energy production; but this should be done with great care, utilizing the latest technologies and insisting on cleaning or sequestering the Green House Gases they emit.
A number of recent studies in the United States and Europe start with a preamble that express concerns with the supply of petroleum. I hold no such fears. Dr. Holger Rogner, head, planning and Economic Studies of The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, clearly shows that there is at least 200 years of petroleum available even under very pessimistic circumstances. We should not be changing the energy system because of a fear of limited petroleum reserves. We should change the energy system because the current system mitigates against energy security, unacceptably destroys our earth’s atmosphere, and sicken our children with inner city pollution. Petroleum should be focused to the petro-chemical industry, not to energy supply.
It is also paramount that Europe and North America develop and export economically sound, clean technologies to emerging nations. It would be devastating to planet earth to have the emerging nations adopt the same energy source mix as we did. Carbon based economies, supplying energy in the quantities necessary to assure progress in developing nations, would completely destroy Earth’s fragile atmosphere.
We have begun, and we need to accelerate the activity, to introduce a new Energy System. The Energy System most seriously considered is the Hydrogen Economy. It must be noted, Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is only a currency, but it is such a currency that it makes all sources of energy available to the Energy Economy. It is the first truly reversible currency.
With the advent of an economic hydrogen fuel cell, for the first time electricity can be stored efficiently in large quantities. Prior to the hydrogen fuel cell, large amounts of electricity could not be stored economically, and hence energy systems were basically single source dependant, and generating capacity had to be designed for peak loads rather than for average energy consumption.
The Hydrogen fuel cell allows us to use any primary energy source to fuel our economy, geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, coal and petroleum. With the Hydrogen Economy we are at choice. Any primary energy source can be used to produce electricity. And electricity can produce Hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored, used and shipped to again make electricity. This interchangeability will assure that electricity and hydrogen are our currencies of choice.
As the world progresses to the Hydrogen Economy, I believe Hydrogen and Electricity will become so indistinguishable from each other that they will be referred to as a joint currency called HYDRICITYTM. The Hydrogen Economy will be realized in the transportation sector, because there it cleans up the inner-city, reduces Green House Gas Emissions and forms the foundation for Energy and Homeland Security. I believe that we will eventually emerge to the HYDRICITYTM ECONOMY.
I said I wanted to comment on Nuclear Energy. My comments are a direct fallout of our need for a new energy system. If the new energy system is to be a hydrogen economy we have already mentioned the potential for this system to accommodate any primary energy source. In Iceland it may be geothermal, in Sweden it may be hydro-electric, in Argentina it may be wind driven. Throughout the world many remote applications will employ solar energy. But, environmentally desirable as these sources of energy are, they are unlikely to provide the vast amounts of primary energy that social progress will demand.
If carbon based energy sources must be set aside, and I believe they must, then the only remaining viable source, at this stage in our development, is nuclear. Yes, there will be other possibilities in the future. Recently there has been speculation in the press that Hydrogen could be mined directly from deep earth sources, and Hydrogen is the fuel and element of space. But within the scope of today’s technology, nuclear fission is the only viable, clean source of large quantities of energy.
During the last few years there has been a remarkable change in the rhetoric of economists, politicians, engineers and scientist on the subject of nuclear energy. On the science side, many thoughtful, world renowned, environmentalists have stated that they see no alternative to energy supply other than nuclear. Nuclear generated electric power does not pollute our atmosphere, and mitigates against global warming.
On the engineering side we are hearing that remarkable progress has been made in the realm of safety. The nuclear industry has established a solid safety record during the past decade. Engineers are taking a system-wide view of the nuclear fuel cycle from mining nuclear ore to waste management and disposal. To quote from Scientific America, The Case For Nuclear Power, “TODAY 438 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS generate about 16 percent of the world’s electricity. In the U.S. 103 nuclear power plants provide about 20 percent of the country’s electrical production. Although no new nuclear facilities have been ordered in the U.S. for more than two decades, the electrical output of U.S. generators has grown by almost 8 percent a year as the industry matured and became more efficient. In the past 10 years alone, American Nuclear Plants have added more than 23,000 megawatts – the equivalent of 23 large power plants – to the total electrical supply despite the lack of any new construction.”
From the economists we are hearing that much of the cost of previous nuclear plants was a lack of uniformity and replication. – each new plant being designed from scratch instead of evolving a standard and a pattern. Furthermore, the regulations that crept into the system to allay the public’s fears because of incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are largely unnecessary and not cost effective. These issues are being examined closely to build a level playing field for future nuclear plant construction.
From the politicians, at the highest levels of government, we are hearing that Nuclear power production deserves a second look.
Two general themes have dominated my work for the last decade; cleaning up the inner-city air and, on-road transportation vehicles as the key to our energy future.
Air pollution takes many adverse forms on earth, but the worst one to my mind is the foul atmosphere that we inflict on inhabitants of the inner city.
This has been widely ignored in the environmental debates, where the arguments are directed to cleaning up the upper atmosphere, ozone holes and depletion, and warming trends that could inundate the coast.
I acknowledge that the atmospheric conditions are meta-stable and we could tip over the events that would produce catastrophic changes such as shutting down the Gulf Stream.
However, the real down home truth is that burning fossil fuels is killing people today and this is not some probabilistic fear about the future. Millions of people through out the world are being sickened and killed by bad air. The World Health Organization attributes 700,000 annual deaths to air pollution.
The journal “Nature” reports that if the coal fired power plants of the Midwest United States reduced their emissions we would see a reduction of 3,000,000 sick days annually and 10,000 fewer asthma attacks.
From an August issue of the Canadian National Post commenting on this Nature article, I quote: “—An interesting example of this effect in Atlanta Georgia, during the 1996 Olympic Games, when increased bus service was put into effect to ease highway congestion. Fewer cars on the highway meant less gas was burned, and local greenhouse gas emissions fell by 30% for a short time.
The Georgia Medicaid health insurance provider noticed a 40% drop in claims for asthma attacks during this time, -- Afterward, (when the buses were removed and car volumes returned), the asthma rates climbed back to their normal levels.” End quote.
A 10 year study of children funded by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resource Board concludes that inner-city smog can cause asthma in children. We have known for some time that smog can trigger asthma attacks but this is evidence that smog causes the asthma itself.
Scientists from St. Paul’s Hospital and the university of British Columbia say that air pollution caused by automobile emissions can now be added to the known risk factors for strokes and heart attacks.
Until very recently the California Air Resource Board did not include Carbon Dioxide as one of the emissions that defined the Zero Emission Vehicle, the ZEV. Carbon Dioxide was not considered to be a serious pollutant until it became politically correct to do so and hence publicly important. One of the important things about fuel cells and Hydricity is that they produce no carbon dioxide emissions at their point of use.
As long as we choose green, sustainable sources of power to produce the Hydrogen the well to wheels analysis of the fuel cell electric vehicle will show almost no Carbon Dioxide output.
Cleaning up the inner-city, by cleaning up transportation, has the associated effect of a major contribution to cleaning up the upper atmosphere of the greenhouse gas that has such a bad image in the public’s imagination.
Professor David King, the United Kingdom’s most senior scientific advisor to the government told The Independent last February that Britain should follow the example of Lombardy, a heavily industrialized area in northern Italy, which is to ban the sale of fossil-fuel powered cars from 1 January 2005.
It will take a combined effort of Academia, Government and Industry to bring about the change from a gasoline economy to a Hydricity economy. The forces are building and progress is being made. It is of major importance that a change of this magnitude not be forced on unwilling participants; but that all of us work for an economically viable path too change.
Thank you – enjoy the evening.
h2.ca ... original
Argonne National Laboratory report:
Proliferation assessment of future nuclear architectures
Nuclear: A major issue facing the development and expansion of nuclear power worldwide is the possibility for diversion of the technologies and materials to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). A challenge facing the United States is assessing and understanding the proliferation risks of future nuclear architectures (power plant and fuel cycle designs). A number of sophisticated decision theory techniques are to be considered including fault and event tree methods.
dep.anl.gov ... original report
Ireland unhappy as UK nuclear cargo leaves Japan
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND: July 8, 2002
DUBLIN - A shipment of nuclear material from Japan to Britain's Sellafield plant poses an "unacceptable risk" and is a potential terrorist target, the Irish government said.
As the first of two ships carrying a potentially weapons-usable mix of plutonium and uranium oxides (MOX) left the Japanese port of Takahama amid tight security, Ireland said it did not want the vessels passing through its waters.
"The shipment of such materials through the Irish Sea represents an unacceptable risk to the environment of Ireland and the health and economic wellbeing of its population," said Environment Minister Martin Cullen in a statement.
"There is also the enhanced risk of the shipments being the target of a terrorist attack or the materials being diverted into the hands of terrorists."
The MOX fuel is being returned to state-owned British Nuclear Fuels after Japan's Kansai Electric Power Co Inc discovered that data for a 1999 shipment from Britain had been deliberately falsified.
The planned route of the shipment has been kept secret for security reasons and BNFL insists all necessary safety measures have been taken.
"The Irish government is concerned to ensure that vessels carrying such materials do not pass through waters under Irish jurisdictions, and there are currently assurances from the UK authorities that they will not do so," said Cullen.
Sellafield, 110 miles (180 km) across the Irish Sea from Ireland on England's northwest coast, has been a long-running source of friction between the two countries, with repeated calls from the Irish government for its closure.
Ireland says the plant pollutes the Irish Sea and presents a serious risk from accident or terrorist attack, and fears have been heightened since the September 11 attacks on the U.S.
Britain first established nuclear facilities at Sellafield, formerly called Windscale, in the 1940s, and the world's first commercial nuclear power station opened there in 1956.
planetark.org ... original report
How secure are U.S. nuclear power plants? by Shelley Smithson (Grist Magazine) 26 Mar 2002
gristmagazine.com ... complete report
Here's a different example of the dangers resulting from a large amount of nuclear power proliferation needed to feed a pure hydrogen economy ...
Tritium releases from Candu reactors: Health hazards of radiation published by WISE News Communique on June 25, 1992
Two Canadian Government studies reveal that Down's Syndrome, central nervous system birth defects and child leukemia are likely caused by tritium emissions from Ontario Hydro's Pickering nuclear station.
(374/5.3679) WISE Amsterdam -
But, charges a report by David McArthur of Conception Research, the studies do not go far enough and their weak methodology may mask the full extent of the health hazards of radiation. New studies, says McArthur, are needed.
McArthur's report, "Birth Defects and Genetic Disease Due to Tritium Emissions from the Pickering Nuclear Station Suggested by Two AECB Health Studies", examines the findings of two studies commissioned by Canada's Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB): "Tritium Releases from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Birth Defects and Infant Mortality in Nearby Communities 1971-1988" a 1991 report by Health and Welfare Canada (HWC), and "Childhood Leukemia Around Canadian Nuclear Facilities", a 1991 report by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation (OCTRF) and the University of British Columbia (UBC). McArthur, whose earlier report (#CR-1) led to the present HWC report, concludes that despite their denials, the epidemiological evidence presented in the AECB reports in fact indicates that radioactive emissions from the Pickering station are causing birth defects in local children. The HWC birth defect study correlates tritium emissions with two types of birth defects. Specifically:
HWC found a "statistically significant" increase in Down's syndrome in Pickering: 24 cases (12.9 expected after maternal age adjustment) or 87% above the provincial rate. HWC correlated these cases with tritium releases to the air from the plant. McArthur says that although this is not a statistically significant correlation, this needs further research. The elimination of methodological biases (described below) could strengthen the correlation.
This finding is crucial since Down's Syndrome in children has been associated with parental radiation exposure by researchers in Canada, the US, Ireland, Scotland, England, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and India. The sources were maternal x-rays, high background radiation, or radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl (1986) and Windscale (1957) nuclear accidents.
HWC found a "statistically significant" correlation of central nervous system (CNS) birth defects with large releases of tritium to air: five Pickering infants with CNS defects (anencephaly, microcephaly, spina bifida with hydrocephalus, and two others whose defect code was not on record) were born in January-July 1978, following the airborne tritium releases of April-October 1977. Medical experts link CNS birth defects to radiation exposure, as found after the atomic bombing of Japan.
These conclusions, says McArthur, emerge despite HWC's biases, which likely mask the full extent of the radiation-birth defect connection. Conception Research predicts this correlation will tighten if a new study is done without the eight biases McArthur lists in his report.
The other AECB study concerned leukemia. It found a "nearly statistically significant" 34% elevation in child leukemia deaths within a 25 km radius of the Pickering plant. In this report, too, McArthur identified a major bias. For one thing, he says, the 25 km radius was unjustifiably large - much larger than that used in leukemia studies in the US (3.2 km) and other countries. The report itself admitted that the radius is too large, and inappropriate for the suburban Pickering area. This would likely have masked a statistically significant cluster of child leukemia in Pickering.
The new Conception Research report also describes the major, unique health hazards of the Pickering station, which routinely emits large amounts of radioactive tritium and carbon-14. Evidence suggests, says McArthur, that these accumulate in human tissue and DNA and cause higher radiation doses to chromosomes than existing standards acknowledge, and more genetic damage than "background radiation" and other radiation sources.
In February, The Durham Regional Municipality requested the Canadian government to conduct an objective, in-depth study of reproductive health in Pickering as recommended by the HWC report. The AECB and HWC have thus far refused to perform the study.
Note: The full Conception Research report (Report #CR-3, June 1992), 25 pp., is available for CDN$30 (plus $5 shipping) from the address below. Also available from Conception Research is a bibliography, "Birth Defects and Radiation: Some Selected Publications".
Source and Contact: Conception Research, Postal Station "B", Box One, Toronto Ontario, Canada M5T 2T2; tel: +1 416-598 0146; fax: -928-0243; e-mail: WEB:DMCART.
antenna.nl ... original report |
