“Volvo in nuclear energy retreat”

This morning I had a good laugh after reading this:

Truck maker Volvo has announced that it will cease buying Swedish nuclear power at the end of this year. Volvo has signed a deal with Vattenfall ensuring that it does not receive energy from nuclear power sources, which it said did not sit well with the company's environmental goals.

Environmental goals, huh? Are they not an auto company whose products consume fossil fuels which create emissions? Last I heard, trucks, buses and cars still emit CO₂ during operation even if they burn biofuels. Seems to me they should be concerned more with their products and less with where their electricity comes from. Especially when you see below where Sweden gets its electricity.

Here’s their webpage on environmental commitment:

We constantly strive to improve energy efficiency in our own operations. And we currently plan for CO2 emission free production in all of our plants.

More on a different page:

The main approach is to gradually switch to wind power and biofuel as the energy sources for electricity and heating. Before the end of year 2007, all three plants will have reduced their CO₂emissions to as close to zero as technically possible.

Hmm. Volvo’s goal is to be CO₂ emission free yet they will use biofuels for electricity and heating. Do they not know that biomass energy consumption will boost CO₂ emissions? It hardly makes sense to take a CO₂ reducer and turn it into a CO₂ emitter.

Here’s the kick I get out of this. Only 3.4% of Sweden’s electricity actually came from fossil fuels in 2004. Where did the rest of Sweden’s electricity come from? 91 percent came from hydro and nuclear energy.

Emissions from the electric sector to power Volvo’s factories are about as low as they can get. What’s up with this big campaign then to reduce their emissions? This sums it up the best:

Trade Union IF Metall was unimpressed by Volvo Trucks' anti-nuclear stance.

"It sounds like Volvo is using environmental profiling as a PR stunt," spokesman Per Öhman told Dagens Nyheter.

A PR stunt is right. Apparently they need to become a little more educated on the effects of Sweden’s nuclear phase-out.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog