Bruno Comby: An Ecologist For Nuclear Power In The Oilsands

Bruno Comby is an engineer who writes health books, a son of the oilpatch who campaigns against global warming and an environmental activist who strongly favors nuclear power. "No technical subject is more misrepresented or exaggerated than radioactive waste disposal," asserts this Alberta-raised Frenchman. "Far from being the most dangerous source of energy, nuclear generation is demonstrably the safest, and it would be an environmentally clean source of electricity for the oilsands."

Ten years ago, Comby (shown at left) launched Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, a non-profit network which claims more than 8,000 supporters in 56 nations. The Paris-headquartered group, which goes by the initials EFN, has incorporated chapters in France, the United States, Canada, Japan, Britain and other countries. "We want the world to realise that there are genuine environmentalists on both sides of the nuclear question," says the French eco-crusader.

One gram of uranium produces as much energy as one tonne of oil. Most of the nuclear fuel waste is either recyclable or easily handled because it has only very low levels of radioactivity. The remaining waste - non-recyclable and highly radioactive - is very low volume, according to EFN. The electricity needed for one human lifetime leaves waste of this type equivalent in size to a golf ball. "The aspect of low mass is tremendously important factor in its safe handling," Comby says.

In his judgment, fission waste should be cast in glass, then encased in stainless steel or copper containers, and finally buried deeply in a stable geological formation. "This method, which has been exhaustively analysed, presents virtually no danger of underground leakage," he says. And if, against the odds, a leak does happen? In a recently published scientific paper, Comby cites data derived from 15 naturally occurring nuclear reactors (long dormant) within Gabon's uranium deposits. Research into this unusual subsurface fission indicates that its radioactive products have migrated no more than three metres in two billion years.

Comby came to Alberta in 1965 when his father Olivier helped open the Calgary office of Elf Aquitaine (now part of Total). The boy hunted partridges around the city, built hidden forts in Heritage Park and piloted an illicit wooden raft on Glenmore Reservoir. "I loved the plains and foothills, and my heart is still there," he says. Olivier Comby, now retired, has long believed global petroleum production will peak in the first decades of the 21st century, creating powerful international stresses. The exploration geologist also told his five children that nuclear power is the likeliest long-term solution, being emissions free and fuelled by plentifully available uranium.

In 1973, the family returned home to France. In due course, Bruno Comby graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique, an elite engineering institute founded in 1794. (Its motto, For fatherland, science and glory, was supplied by Napoleon Bonaparte). Comby went on to earn a post graduate degree as a nuclear engineer from ENSTA (Ecole Nationale Sup�©rieure de Techniques Avanc�©es) in Paris and then worked for Electricite de France. The EDF Group (whose head office in Paris is shown here) ranks as the largest electrical utility in the world. It operates 58 nuclear reactors (two generating sites are pictured below in this article) and has a substantial international presence as well.

The young man soon discovered within himself both a passionate social interest and an expressive flair. "On my free time, I started writing," Comby recalls. "My first book on how to stop smoking was immediately successful. French President Jacques Chirac, who used to be a heavy smoker, stopped smoking by reading this book, like hundreds of thousands of others. I decided my time was more usefully employed through writing about good lifestyle than as a young engineer working for EDF, who could hire plenty of other engineers." The prolific author explored sleep, edible insects, how to write exams, strengthening the immune system and other self-help topics.

While lecturing on natural health, the enthusiastic environmentalist found himself constantly confronting public misconceptions about nuclear technology. In particular, Greenpeace insistently painted atomic technology in shades of black while Comby believed its authentic colour is an especially pure green. He elucidated that theme in his eighth book, Un Ecologiste Pour le Nucl�©aire. Technically authoritative yet readable, the book sparked television coverage and public debate in France, leading to the founding of EFN as an unfunded lobby group.

As advocates, EFN remains unabashedly amateur, from its unpaid directors and staff to the unpolished website maintained by Comby himself. Even so, the pro-nuclear activists have attracted some heavy hitters. Best-known is James Lovelock, a British scientist whose work is viewed by many as the foundation of modern environmentalism. A medical doctor and biophysicist, Lovelock (shown here with Comby) devised the electron capture detector, which led to the detection of minute pesticide residues in the environment. He also earned international recognition for his Gaia Theory, which postulates that the planet is best understood as a self-regulating organism similar to a living creature.

The honorary chairman of EFN-Canada is Patrick Moore, who happens to be a co-founder of Greenpeace. In his youth, Moore sailed on the original Greenpeace to protest nuclear testing as well as the anti-whaling vessel Rainbow Warrior. The pioneering activist directed Greenpeace International for seven years but quit during controversies over what he considered the group's descent into radical politics at the expense of scientific ecology and workable solutions. This former foe of nuclear technology now maintains that it's a safe, essential source of electricity which should be harnessed alongside wind and solar power. EFN-Canada, formed in 2006, has recruited about 50 members to date.

In December 2005, the International Journal of Environmental Studies published a peer-reviewed paper titled The Solutions For Nuclear Waste, written by Comby. (This London-based scientific journal is more than 30 years old, and an institutional subscription costs about US$1,800.) The paper focuses on nuclear waste from power generation. "From an environmental point of view, an important advantage of radioactivity is that its activity diminishes spontaneously as time passes," the author states.

Spent nuclear fuel consists of 95% unburnt uranium and 1% plutonium. The French, British, Japanese and others reprocess this material for use as fuel. The remaining 4% of the spent nuclear fuel loses more than 90% of its initial radioactivity in ten years, and well over 95% in 30 years. It's solid and compact, and thus easier to contain compared to liquids or gases. Comby says it's a relatively simple to store these small quantities of radioactive material for several decades, vitrified in a glass matrix which is chemically inert.

To assess a longer term solution, the engineer points to nuclear chain reactions which occurred spontaneously about two billion years ago within uranium deposits at Oklo in central Gabon. "For over a million years, about 15 natural nuclear reactors operated with power levels of up to 100 kiloWatts," he says. "None of the fission products remain radioactive today, they have completely decayed. However, one finds their stable (non-radioactive) descendents still in place." Those fission products and plutonium, entirely uncontained, have remained in or near each natural reactor even though water must have been present for fission to have occurred.

Nuclear scientists wish to store their spent fuel in a similar fashion, with the important condition that the material vitrified material would be encased in stainless steel, plus surrounded with clay impermeable to water. In 5,000 years, the material will revert to a lower radioactivity than the original uranium. Comby says the degree of practical risk is nil. "Even in the worst case, and in the very long term, people living on the surface would be subjected to insignificant doses of radiation, much less than the natural radioactivity to which we are exposed all day long anywhere on the planet."

Nuclear power generation also irradiates the steel reactors themselves. "The first generation of reactors is now reaching the end of its life cycle," Comby says. Again, he thinks the disposal issues have been well analyzed and shown to be manageable. A retired reactor would remain encased within its three to six foot thick reinforced concrete containment for three decades while the initial cooling occurs. (The main source of radiation in the reactor structures is Cobalt 60 which has a half life of 5.2 years.)

Welders, either human or robotic, would then cut up the modest amount of contaminated steel into small pieces and place them within the reactor vessel for another century of storage. At that point, according to the French activist, the metal could be handled, albeit carefully. Melted down, it could be used for the fabrication of the steel containers encasing the vitrified waste to be geologically disposed. Alternatively, the metal could be heavily diluted with other steel and used for normal purposes.

Radiation is omnipresent. A few hours on an airline flight, for example, can expose an ordinary passenger to more radiation than he would receive by dwelling next to a nuclear power plant for years. Some locations in nature such as in the cities of Ramsar near the Persian Sea or Guarapari in Brazil, where Comby has studied natural radiation, show increases in radiation levels 100, 000 times higher than in the vicinity of a nuclear plant. Ironically, Comby comments, neighbours of a proposed nuclear project may struggle with their fear of the unknown while the inhabitants of Guarapari and Ramsar enjoy a happy stress-free life in a healthy environment. Comby and Moore both charge that anti-nuke advocates like Greenpeace distort the truth and greatly exaggerate the radiation risks to foster that panic.

"People do not recognize that by stalling nuclear power we are exposing the environment to far more serious risks," the EFN founder says. He worries that releasing 23 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere could have damaging consequences, not to mention the effects of sulphur dioxide (which can form acid rain), ashes, heavy metals and other byproducts of burning fossil fuels.

"Our civilization also produces vast quantities of industrial and household waste, some of which - the so-called special wastes - are very poisonous and will be with us forever since they are chemically stable. The volume of these highly toxic wastes is about 100 times greater than that of highly radioactive nuclear waste, they last longer, they are not always confined and they do not receive the same attention," Comby says. "In contrast, we have spent dozens of billions to research the proper handling and ecological recycling of used nuclear fuel and we know what to do."

"Albertans should be upset if their natural gas or even coal is wasted on oilsands extraction, separation and upgrading any longer than is absolutely necessary," the French engineer says. "First, there is the question of carbon dioxide and other uncontrolled emissions. Also, everyone should by now recognize the rising costs of fossil fuels versus the stable cost of nuclear power. And in future, humanity will need the long-chain hydrocarbon atoms to make petrochemicals and plastics. For reasons of economy and the environment, the use of nuclear energy in the oilsands is just a matter of time."

Editor's note: This column complements recent oilsands-related articles on gasification, an Alberta nuclear project and the need for an energy development strategy in this province.