Skip to main content

Dr. Caldicott vs. Nuclear Power – Round One

During the course of this week I plan to tackle each chapter of Dr. Caldicott’s book and battle the claims made against the nuclear industry. I can probably predict who’s going to win round one, as it is an issue we have beaten to death on this blog and others. But let’s see what I come up with before we declare a winner.

Chapter 1 – The Energetic Costs of Nuclear Power

The first sentence of Chapter 1 starts with:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the propaganda wing and trade group for the American nuclear industry, spends millions of dollars annually to engineer public opinion.
Don’t we feel special? I guess we should take it as a compliment that we’re mentioned right off the bat because that means we’ve been doing our job of getting nuclear industry messages out to the public.

But according to the author, our clean-air messages are “fallacious and misleading.” If you can guess what the topic of the first chapter is, you’re probably right -- the lifecycle emissions of nuclear power. And the source of hers and every anti’s claims on this issue is none other then Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith.

Last year we began to tackle this issue and have since accumulated more and more data that conflict with the two authors' conclusions. Here’s a post from earlier this month that includes five sources analyzing nuclear’s lifecycle CO2 emissions. Unlike van Leeuwen and Smith, who only compare nuclear to gas, these sources compare nuclear’s results to other fuels, and they reach roughly the same conclusions. And I should note that three of these five sources are non-nuclear.

Just to give you some numbers in this post, van Leeuwen and Smith’s analysis concludes that nuclear emits (Caldicott, Chapter 1, p.6):
one-third as much CO2 emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within nine years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly.
Two points: one is that the sources to which I reference conclude that nuclear’s lifecycle emissions are about 2 percent to 6 percent that of natural gas-fired plants, not 33 percent. And two, rich uranium ores are expected to be around in the “foreseeable future.” According to the World Nuclear Association, the UK Energy Review, the OECD’s “Red Book” and our own Dr. Clifton Farrell to name a few, there’s plenty of uranium to go around, to sustain a “nuclear renaissance” and then some.

Caldicott, Chapter 1, p.17:
With the knowledge about these topics that is now available, however, clearly the nuclear industry is running a public relations scam of massive proportions.
I don’t think so. Numerous sources have been provided here to back up our claims contrary to the only source Dr. Caldicott cites. And our sources reach the same conclusion, independent of each other. Coincidence?

If she thinks we are running a PR scam, I would be curious to hear what she thinks about the Metrobuses in DC that say "This bus is running on clean natural gas."

Stay close for round two; it's on one of my favorite issues -- economics.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…
Interesting to read that Dr. Caldicott thinks that the nuclear industry is running a large scale public relations campaign. There sure is not much evidence of it where I live. I frequently urge people in the industry to make more noise, shout out the good news. But they never do. The way I see it everyone in the nuclear field has been really intimidated by all the bad publicity during the past twenty years. Combine this with the culture of safety found in the industry, and you get people who are very cautious about making claims. Nuclear fission is a spectactular discovery and could transform our world into much nicer place than it is at the moment. People just are not ready for all this good news - pessimism is the fashion these days. So if the nuclear industry is about to start shouting, I say go for it, it is about time.
robert merkel said…
I find this argument really silly. If SLS (and by extension Caldicott) are correct, nuclear power will rapidly become so uneconomic that nuclear plants around the world will be shut down, because the cost of buying the fossil fuels burned to generate the inputs to the plant will cost more than the energy generated by the plant is worth.

Personally, I advocate a universal, global carbon charging scheme. If such a scheme is implemented, the carbon emissions involved in producing *every* form of energy, including nuclear, renewables, and fossil fuels, will end up being reflected in the final cost of the energy.
Anonymous said…
Something else to consider when looking at the oft-referenced "lifecycle emissions" paper....note that carbon content for the mining of uranium is included in nuclear's projections, while no such exercise is performed for natural gas. The comparison presented in this paper is patently invalid.
Daniel said…
Thanks for pointing me to Dr. Caldicott's book. I just ordered a copy for my edification. :)

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…