Skip to main content

Life Cycle Emissions Facts Acceptance Reluctance

By
Last week I had an interesting email exchange with Dulce Fernandez, research and policy coordinator for the GRACE Energy Initiative. Ms. Fernandez emailed NEI looking for the International Energy Agency (IEA) study we cited in in last October's point-by-point rebuttal that took the air out of GRACE's claim that nuclear can't claim to have the "second-lowest emissions of greenhouse gases next to hydro electric, which is not a baseload electricity source."

I sent Ms. Fernandez the IEA report, "Externalities and Energy Policy: The Lifecycle Analysis Approach," (available by purchase from IEA), and even pointed her to the specific pages from which we pulled the information, including a chart on the NEI web site. I told her that unlike many organizations, NEI "validates our positions with facts; not blatant the-sky-is-falling myths and flagrant misrepresentations." I received the following response:
"As you certainly noted the study is based on data published from various sources and not on any original data acquisition, a situation that may raise questions regarding data consistency. Moreover, the wide range of emissions variation for each type of energy makes direct comparisons somewhat dubious, as acknowledged in the study itself. Therefore, this issue certainly warrants deeper scrutiny and the information you sent me is certainly useful for continuing to look for the best scientific information available concerning this topic.

Please feel free to send me any other information concerning this issue that you may find relevant."
Ms. Fernandes response is sadly typical of groups who come to a pre-determined conclusion and try to backfit data to support it. Not one to just shake my head and drop it, I wrote:
"I think you're missing the point by saying the results from different studies as pointed out on the NEI web site and the blog posting raise questions on data origination and consistency. First of all, I believe all the sources provided come to their conclusions by analyzing original data, but can't swear to it. You'd have to ask IEA, the professors at the University of Wisconsin, British Energy, etc.

In addition, putting aside certain minor differences in results (most likely due to slightly different methodology approaches as can be the case in public opinion polls) the fact that all these INDEPENDENT analysis show nuclear life-cycle emissions to be very low provides substantial proof that it is true. No amount of spinning can change that. As I learned a long time ago, if the sky is bright and the sun is warming you but you insist that it's gray and cold perhaps you should take a second look. But don't forget your sunglasses."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more