NEI Nuclear Notes

Over at Gristmill, anti-nuclear zealot David Roberts is at it again . This time with the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced yesterday . Roberts: The question is not whether nuclear power is "acceptable" or "good" by some subjective standard -- economic, moral, or otherwise. It's not even whether investments in nuclear power could lead to emission reductions. The question is: what is the maximum amount of climate change mitigation we can get for a given dollar of investment? Nuclear fails that test. Hmmm, where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Amory Lovins. Roberts quotes him in the post but that last sentence from Roberts above looks like he’s pawning Lovins’ words as his own. We have dealt with Mr. Lovins’ arguments plenty of times, but we’ll go another round. "It's easy to show that building more reactors makes climate change worse than it should have been," says Amory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy t...

That's what the Christian Science Monitor is asking : "Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch." Well it's good to see they are not spouting the anti's claims on CO2 emissions . They appear to do some homework on the issue. NEI's Paul Genoa is there to represent: "Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle emissions of nuclear to be comparable with renewable. Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not find those credible." Stewart Peterson has a different vi...