Skip to main content

“Volvo in nuclear energy retreat”

By
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.

Labels:

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.
October 13, 2007 at 4:09 AM
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.
October 15, 2007 at 7:47 AM
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

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

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more