In coverage of TVA's decision to complete the Watts Bar 2 nuclear reactor, we saw a familiar charge get aired by anti-nuclear activists concerning nuclear energy and total life-cycle emissions. First, here's an account from Knox News:
What both Johnson and Caldicott are referring to is total life-cycle emissions. In this case, they're claiming that despite the fact that nuclear reactors don't emit any greenhouse gases, the associated operations of the plant -- including the mining and enriching uranium -- cause more than enough carbon emissions to overwhelm any additional benefit in constrained carbon emissions.
Unfortunately for them, that's simply not the case -- something we've demonstrated over and over again here at NEI Nuclear Notes. In any number of cases, all reputable third-party studies concluded that total life-cycle emissions of nuclear energy are "comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants."
The study that is cited most frequently is probably Hydropower Internalized costs and externalized benefits, Frans Koch, International Energy Agency "Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes, 2000.
To download that view graph from the NEI Web site, click here.
In 2002, the University of Wisconsin-Madison published a study that came to a similar conclusion:
For that view graph, click here.
So what's the lesson? Don't believe everything you read. At least not before you check with us first.
Anti-nuclear activists criticized the description of nuclear power as “clean,” pointing to the nuclear waste created and the energy-intensive process of mining and enriching uranium for nuclear fuel.Next, here's a familiar face in the Chattanooga Times Free-Press:
“Nuclear power is not clean, and the idea that you all found no significant impacts on your environmental impact statement is a joke,” said Earth First! activist John Johnson, referring to a federally required environmental study released in June.
Helen Caldicott, president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is one of the most vocal critics of TVA's decision.Let's put aside the fact for the moment that completing Watts Bar 2 would mean avoiding the emission of 8 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by displacing the equivalent in coal-fired generating capacity -- that's 8 million tons per year for the entire lifetime of the reactor.
"I'm afraid this may be the beginning of a renaissance of nuclear power that will be extraordinarily dangerous and expensive for America," she said by telephone from her home in Australia.
Dr. Caldicott said radioactive wastes from such plants will linger for centuries, and nuclear plants contribute to global warming from carbons burned to mine, enrich, transport and dispose of uranium fuels.
What both Johnson and Caldicott are referring to is total life-cycle emissions. In this case, they're claiming that despite the fact that nuclear reactors don't emit any greenhouse gases, the associated operations of the plant -- including the mining and enriching uranium -- cause more than enough carbon emissions to overwhelm any additional benefit in constrained carbon emissions.
Unfortunately for them, that's simply not the case -- something we've demonstrated over and over again here at NEI Nuclear Notes. In any number of cases, all reputable third-party studies concluded that total life-cycle emissions of nuclear energy are "comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants."
The study that is cited most frequently is probably Hydropower Internalized costs and externalized benefits, Frans Koch, International Energy Agency "Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes, 2000.
To download that view graph from the NEI Web site, click here.
In 2002, the University of Wisconsin-Madison published a study that came to a similar conclusion:
For that view graph, click here.
So what's the lesson? Don't believe everything you read. At least not before you check with us first.
Comments
Otherwise you could assume that the wind is backed by combined cycle gas, since that would answer the intermittant nature of backup required. It's certainly tough to produce a single figure that captures all these real-world choices.
The green "alternatives" for energy would cause a real environmental problem if they were used to any meaningful extent. For instance, photo voltaic cells contnain poisonous materials and do not last for more than 20 to 30 years. If even 5% of our electric needs were provided by these cells, their residues would cover more volume than the residues of all our nuclear power plants combined multiplied by about 100.
Remove that sabotage by launching counter lawsuit against the greens; remove government subsidies and government insurance; let private insurance companies insure these plants, as they insure countless other sturctures.
Let us realize that insurance companies will provide such insurance only if they are assured that no untoward lawsuits against these plants will be allowed by judges. Let us also realize that the insurance companies will then see to it that these plants will meet their safety standards, as they do with granting insurance to other large structures.
Under such conditions it is certain that the construction of a U.S. nuclear power plants will take only three to four years from start to finish. The U.S. completed even greater projects during World War II, and can do this during this World War III, as a necessity to remove our need fore foreign oil, and drastically reduce the flow of petrodollars to our enemies.
Greens oppose this because their leaders hate free enterprise and seek a collapse of our system. They would have it replaced with a totalitarian regime that they hope to dominate.
Oooops, Its already happening, at least on an individual level.
That's a vast overgeneralization, based primarily on the positions of a few high-profile former environmentalists (Moore, Brand and Lovelock) who are now on the payroll of the nuclear industry.
Not true. Even the OVERNIGHT capital cost estimates, according to independent estimates such as MIT, are higher than coal and gas. That doesn't account for those horrible greens and their delaying tactics.
So what's your cost estimate? How much would a new NPP cost in the US if it were built to schedule, including timely NRC approval? It's easy to whine about environmentalists, tougher to back up the allegation.
However, I can't see how Moore's connection to the industry obviates the need for others to have an honest debate with him about the issues.
As for Lovelock and Brand, they have no ties to the nuclear energy industry at all, outside of Brand's appearance at the 2006 Nuclear Energy Assembly.
So are you saying that we should build gas and coal plants instead of nuclear because they're cheaper? If cost were the first priority we wouldn't even be considering renewables besides hydro.
Regardless, if you're quoting the 2003 MIT study that I think you are, you need to go back and look at the assumptions. Natural gas prices have tripled since then and the coal scenarios do not assume the cleanest available technology is used. The conclusions are no longer valid.
The flipping of priorities of anti-nukes never ceases to amaze me. Those that buy into Caldicott's farcical claims about emissions want to build up the case for renewables by espousing a philosophy of "we need to lower carbon and other emissions no matter what the price of the technology!" But when shown that the life-cycle emissions of nuclear are comparable to wind, suddenly the argument is "but nuclear is too expensive!"
Face it, no one, or even a handful, of technologies is going to solve all of our energy problems. Nuclear, being cleaner than everything but wind and hydro, and cheaper than everything but (perhaps) gas, hydro, and the dirtier coal technologies, needs to be a part of the mix.
And to the extent that they are deployed effectively and in a way that does not affect the stability of the grid, renewables like wind and solar must also be part of the mix.
Lisa