Skip to main content

“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 CO2 emissions 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.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is so funny. Volvo owns Renault Trucks, which of course is in France. Volvo will definitely continue to use electricity generated by nuclear.

So I guess the lesson for today is Swedish nuclear power "bad," French nuclear power "good."

Even as a PR stunt, this is pathetic.
Anonymous said…
Volvo is patently Green-sucking.

All energy on the grid is mixed, and indistinguishable. The virtual reality ploy of stating a preference for the source of the power changes nothing.

Nothing, but the entre of Volvo into the cynical holier than thou carbon(and other)credit-trading scam.

Volvo has just created a new currency in this virtual arena:

Nuke-bash credits.

I wanna do it too.

I myself hereby declare that I wish ONLY nuclear electricity on my next bill.

See?.... Carbon-Bash credits!
What Fun!

Now, just make all newly created Volvos run on solar panels, and you'll be doing something.

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 …