Skip to main content

Is Nuclear Power Green? Part 2

Over at Gristmill, anti-nuclear zealot David Roberts is at it again. This time with the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced yesterday. Roberts:
The question is not whether nuclear power is "acceptable" or "good" by some subjective standard -- economic, moral, or otherwise. It's not even whether investments in nuclear power could lead to emission reductions. The question is: what is the maximum amount of climate change mitigation we can get for a given dollar of investment? Nuclear fails that test.
Hmmm, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Amory Lovins. Roberts quotes him in the post but that last sentence from Roberts above looks like he’s pawning Lovins’ words as his own.

We have dealt with Mr. Lovins’ arguments plenty of times, but we’ll go another round.
"It's easy to show that building more reactors makes climate change worse than it should have been," says Amory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank in Snowmass, Colo. "That's because a dollar put into new reactors gives two to 10 times less climate solution for the amount of coal-power displaced than if you had bought cheaper solutions with the same dollars.
So what are Lovins’ solutions? Efficiency, cogeneration and renewables. And which one of these can replace a baseload source of power like coal? Only cogeneration. And what is cogeneration fueled by? Natural gas. Unless my memory escaped me, doesn’t natural gas create emissions by burning it? And if you’re creating emissions, how is it a “climate solution”? According to EIA, natural gas accounts for 20% of the U.S.’ total CO2 emissions. You have to have some convoluted assumptions to come up with a way that natural gas is a greater solution to climate change than nuclear. Mr. Lovins’ argument doesn’t even pass the logic test.

Mr. Roberts needs to ask himself if some of Mr. Lovins’ quotes make sense. Lovins’ quote here: "It's easy to show that building more reactors makes climate change worse than it should have been," should raise a red flag to readers all over. But I guess not, since they go unquestioned and repeated as gospel by the antis. Oh well. All we can do is keep repeating our message that if we want clean, affordable and reliable power, nuclear energy needs to remain an option.

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…
You can put whatever colour you want on nuclear power, but coal is red, covered in blood. That is my primary reason for wanting to replace coal with safe nuclear power. If coal was mined and used as safely as uranium and thorium it would not be cost competitive. Recent statistics are now starting to show wind farms are as dangerous as coal when viewed as deaths per unit of energy delivered. Especially in Canada the ability of wind turbines to hurl ice is amazing. Electricity bills should arrive with little red dots on them, one for each mining and air pollution victim.
Anonymous said…
The oracle at Snowmass - Lovins - has to be one the worst thinkers on the planet. He's been at this almost three decades and has been proved right, by my count, zero times.

He aspires to some kind of mien as a "scientist," but science is predictive.

-NNadir

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …