This morning, both Reuters and Business Week wrote lengthy features concerning the publication of a report by U.K.-based Oxford Research claiming that nuclear energy can't serve as a solution when it comes to climate change.
From Business Week:
Sure enough, the section on total lifecycle emissions is authored by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, a man whose work David Bradish debunked here at NEI Nuclear Notes back in July 2005!
Here's what the World Nuclear Association said about Storm van Leeuwen's work in this area:
From Business Week:
Now, some scientists and other experts are beginning to raise a different question about nuclear power: Is it really as clean as supporters contend? A report, released on Mar. 26 by a British nongovernmental organization called the Oxford Research Group, disputes the popular perception that nuclear is a clean energy source. It argues that while nuclear plants may not generate carbon dioxide while they operate, the other steps necessary to produce nuclear power, including the mining of uranium and the storing of waste, result in substantial amounts of carbon dioxide pollution. "As this report shows, hopes for the climate-protecting potential of nuclear energy are entirely misplaced," says Jürgen Trittin, a former minister of the environment in Germany and a contributor to the report. "Nuclear power cannot be promoted on environmental grounds."As I opened the PDF copy of Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming, I couldn't help but be overcome by a sense of deja vu -- after all, the global anti-nuclear community has a habit of recycling old charges and using them over and over again in the hopes that nobody realizes the reports they issue aren't very new at all.
Sure enough, the section on total lifecycle emissions is authored by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, a man whose work David Bradish debunked here at NEI Nuclear Notes back in July 2005!
Here's what the World Nuclear Association said about Storm van Leeuwen's work in this area:
"The 2001 Storm van Leeuwen & Smith (SLS) paper dismisses arguments that nuclear energy is sustainable, either physically, environmentally or in terms of its energy costs, and this is repeated in the numerically-depleted May 2002 version. They purport to offer 'evidence'’ that building, operating and producing fuel for a nuclear plant produces as much carbon dioxide as a similar sized gas-fired plant. The foregoing WNA paper, quoting all the reputable studies we are aware of, shows that this is demonstrably wrong - there is a 20 to 50-fold difference in favour of nuclear. . ."Once again, what really annoys me is that this is an old charge, one that the nuclear industry has answered over and over again. No matter, we'll keep knocking it down as long as they keep floating the same old trial balloon.
"Finally, it should be pointed out that, even on the basis of their erroneous assumptions and using their inaccurate figures, Storm van Leeuwen & Smith still are forced to conclude that nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than fossil-fuelled plants, although in their view "‘the difference is not large". Others might see a 20 to 50-fold difference (between nuclear and gas or coal) as significant."”
Comments
I cannot accept the argument that "the market" will establish any scientific proposition as more valid than another. Especially when huge government subsidies are involved to distort the financial results.
In fact the need for those subsidies will dictate that government is involved and it most certainly will be a matter or which group can convince politicians to adapt one policy over another. Make no mistake about that. Clearly hte Nuclear Power Industry has then inside track with government a this time.
However what are the facts? Why is the Oxford group wrong? Your position is I'm afraid, seems to be another version of not liking the message so shoot the messenger.
Anonymous claims that renewables are getting more subsidies than nuclear. Simply not true. Since 1948 nuclear power has gotten the lion's share of government energy R&D according to the Congressional Research Service. If anonymous has a better source he should cite it.
Its not even really so much about the subsidies anyways, (even though this so-called "mature" industry can walk on its own) its about the demonstrated failure of what the n-industry did with it.
Despite the massive government financial involvment, industry still turned out $150 billion in cost overruns along with more than a hundred cancellations for what turns out to be 8% of the nation's energy output, or 20% of the electricity generating capacity.
In the meantime, they burned their bridge with private investment as a tremendous financial risk.
Moreover, the ultimate cost of long term nuclear waste management will eventually eclipse the cost of nuclear power generation.
Why one wonders does Charlie Brown even consider another kick at the football Lucy is holding out? We know he will wind up flat on his back again and again.
Now is not the time to have a nuclear relapse.
Gunter, NIRS
Interestingly enough, the environmental ministeries from Austria, Norway, Iceland and Norway all announced ... So there are new voices in a growing choir.
Indeed, the number of members of the choir must be growing quite large if they are allowed to count their members twice. Or does Norway have two environmental ministries? The Norwegians are quite rich from selling oil, so perhaps they can afford it.
Or maybe Gunter has something against the Irish. Ireland was the fourth partner in this example of extreme stupidity, but then again, they receive over 90% of their power from fossil fuels, so it is understandable if they oppose clean alternatives to their major source of energy.
For a less moronic take on this than what Mr. Gunter provides, look here.
Likewise on the resale of power back into the grid. There are laws on the books mandating a premium be paid to suppliers of electricity from so-called "green sources". As far as I know nuclear plants do not get a similar preferential treatment for supplying zero-emissions electricity at lower cost and considerably higher reliability than the greenies.
* * * * *
How many quotes from 1970s environmentalists like Amory Lovins about SOLAR power do I have to put up before this same argument applies to other renewable energies?
And I think that the suggestion of imposing a fair carbon tax on all industrial groups, including those in the energy field would be a practical and reasonable interim step.
I also think that your blog ought to prohibit ananymous posting. Just a thought.