Union of Concerned Scientists Position Paper on Nuclear Energy

[kristopher]

UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming

Related Links
Position Paper: Nuclear Power and Global Warming (PDF)

To address global warming, we need a profound transformation of the ways in which we generate and consume energy. The urgency of this situation demands that we be willing to consider all possible options for coping with climate change. In examining each option we must take into account its impact on public health, safety, and security, the time required for large scale deployment, and its costs.

While there are currently some global warming emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world.

It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html

You might also be interested in this graph that charts the "100%" capacity factor often claimed by the proponents of nuclear power. What they fail to factor in is the duration of down time when problems occur - often it takes years to bring a reactor back online. You'll note that the graph conflicts with US figures published by a nuclear industry facing extreme criticism. It is from Japan, a country that tends to be extremely honest with their record keeping. They are also pretty god at managing large scale technical projects with a precision US industry has always had trouble matching.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/overview/pdf-4/72-e.pdf

Edited to repair last link

[NNadir]

1. Again? Written by David Lochbaum, no doubt.

The dumbass circle jerk of anti-nuke self referential illiterates is no more impressive than it was 25 years, or 50 ppm of dangerous carbon dioxide, ago.

I was, as it happens a member of this organization of doublespeakers, much to my shame. All I had to do was to send them money. No one, not one asshat in the entire organization, ever checked to see if I knew any science. I got to be a "concerned scientist" simply by paying for the privilege.

Um well...

Every twenty minutes the circle jerk of illiteracy refers to itself as justification for its own absymal ignorance.

Some time ago, I confronted the qualification of this clueless band of self-declared "experts" when I wrote:

Has he published a series of famous papers on mass balance of minor actinide burn-up in the cores of light water reactors? Is he a world expert on germanium based detection of neutron fluxes? Does he supervise a team of graduate students researching non destructive testing of fuel rods achieving high burn-ups in reactor cores? Is he a much sought lecturer on the subject of separations of europium from curium in electrolytic pyroprocessing of metallic spent nuclear fuels?

Well no.

I mean, what, exactly makes David Lochbaum a nuclear expert worthy of immediate reference by the New York Times whenever they discuss nuclear energy.

Well for one thing, David Lochbaum is a professional nuclear opponent hired by a reflexive antinuclear organization that collects lots of money for professionally opposing nuclear energy. (Nothing circular here, is there?) In other words, David Lochbaum is a professional anti-nuclear shill, who is paid to oppose nuclear energy.

And why did the Union of Concerned "Scientists" (which has, on its board people from sciences like "lawyer science" and "actress science") hire David Lochbaum to be a tireless antinuclear activist?

Because he had a degree in nuclear engineering. And...?...?...?

Oh yes, because he once worked at Brown's Ferry 1, a reactor that shut twenty two years ago.

And in those twenty years he has done what research, published what papers, had access to what reactors...?

Who cares?

He's an expert. He don't need no stinking "research."

Why?

Because the Union of Concerned "Scientists," (another member of the board is a "scientist" in Capitalist Investment Science) says he is an expert.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/10/212711/206">New York Times Makes Sure You Have David Lochbaum's Opinion On Nuclear Energy.

I have just declared myself the world expert in channeling Dennis Kucinich and founded an organization called the "Union of Concerned Kucinich Channelers." The name of my organization has nothing to do with whether or not I actually can communicate telepathically with Dennis Kucinich.

[Beregond2]

3. None of which has anything to do

with whether the points raised in the article are valid. I'm not a plumber, but I know that drinking Drano is probably not the best solution to constipation.

[NNadir]

9. On the other hand there is very little probability that you understand neutron diffusion.

There is no evidence whatsoever that you have a clue about the fast fission cross section or the neutron yield of Pu-241, or at capture to fission ratio in this isotope in epithermal fluxes.

However there is lots of evidence that you confuse knowlege of Drano, with a highly technical subject involving a very, very, very rigorous program involving the study of materials engineering, high level mathematics, thermal hydraulics, thermodynamics and nuclear physics.

There is zero evidence either that you know a damn thing about the biology of dangerous fossil fuel waste - the heavy metals component - in zebrafishes or in human flesh.

In fact, Drano-boy, the fact that you have selected arbitrary criteria for danger - neither you nor any other lazy anti-nuke can identify ONE death from nuclear power - although you're very, very, very adept at ignoring hundreds of thousands of deaths from dangerous fossil fuels, suggests that your pride in your abysmal lack of education is ill founded.

[kristopher]

15. The same could be said about you.

"On the other hand there is very little probability that you understand neutron diffusion.

There is no evidence whatsoever that you have a clue about the fast fission cross section or the neutron yield of Pu-241, or at capture to fission ratio in this isotope in epithermal fluxes."

there is very little evidence that you understand any of the techobabble you like to pepper your posts with. The only purpose you ever have for including it in your posts is as an attempt to create the impression that you are an authoritative source of information - an impression immediately refuted by the rambling, disjointed illogic that permeates your interminable screeds.

[madokie]

16. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance then baffle 'em with bullshit comes readily to mind

Shutting down the discussion is whats thats all about. Sometimes when pissed one won't be thinking their clearest so it often times gives the other party an upper hand in the discussion/argument. It all reminds me of a child who isn't getting their way and is throwing a hissy fit. :rofl: I now just laugh
Peace

sad but so true

[tom_paine]

17. NNadir, you lost me when you refused to answer my points about Oklo and Yucca

as suitable comparators and how it relates to the confidence levels necessary to store highly-radioactive waste for geologic periods of time.

Your silence was DEAFENING.

Up until then, I tried to understand and even sympathize with your passion for your view. I am a pretty passionate guy myself, and have been known to fly off the handle.

But NNadir, when it comes to fission nukes, that is ALL YOU DO.

Quite frankly, it makes me nauseous. It's one thing to be passionate, it's another to be consistently, aggressively irrational.

Feel free to blister me with your usual insults and diatribes. I'll just put you on Ignore and then never have to look at your bullshit again.

You turned out to be very disappointing. I oriiginally thought there might be something worth hearing, something beyond your insults and diatribes.

But there is nothing...NOTHING. The patina of science you coat your insults with is transparent and exactly one molecular monolayer thick. I see right though it.

Disappointing. When I first read your posts I thought much better of you. How wrong I was.

[bananas]

4. David Lochbaum is a real-life nuclear engineer and a fully qualified expert in the field

"My name is David Lochbaum. After obtaining a degree in nuclear engineering from The University of Tennessee in 1979, I worked more than 17 years in private industry, most of that time at operating nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. I have been the Nuclear Safety Engineer for UCS since October 1996. UCS, established in 1969 as a non-profit, public interest group, seeks to ensure that all people have clean air, energy and transportation, as well as food that is produced in a safe and sustainable manner. UCS has worked on nuclear plant safety issues for nearly 30 years."
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Lochbaum_060502.htm

[NNadir]

10. Kurt Wise is a Harvard Trained Geologist..

Like you, he's also a fundie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

This may come as a surprise to you - I'm sure it does since you know zero about the subject of nuclear science beyond your irrational paranoia - but there are tens of thousands of highly trained nuclear engineers on the planet.

I think if we took a poll of them, it is very unlikely that they have much respect for David Lochbaum. I'm sure that the vast majority of them would have zero respect for you.

The fact that you quote, um, David Lochbaum, declaring that David Lochbaum is an expert, suggests the self-refeential quality of the anti-nuke cults.

I note that the author of the OP here recently announced that the EIA data, IEA data and the IPCC Working Group data were all wrong because they differed with him.

Similarly, we have lots of dumb fundies here who can't compare two numbers, announcing things like 616 > 860 and 586,156 < 357,580. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05me.xls

David Lochbaum is a flake. I don't need to look at his education to know that. All I need to do is to look at what he says.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

There is no hope that anti-nukes will ever manage to produce one scientific argument to support their case, which is why so many of their "nuclear power is dead" arguments consist wholly and totally of primitive "Appeal to Authority," "Poisoning the Well" and "Guilt by Association" arguments.

In fact, as I never tire of saying, the laundry list of anti-nuke rhetoric is completely contained on this website: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

The fact that you and your fellow fundies have selected ONE poorly trained nuclear engineer, one who worked at a plant sustaining major damage through - and how surprising is this - laziness and incompetence says all we need to know about you.

The fact is that while the cults have been whining about nuclear energy - beginning with the paid (off) cretin Amory Lovins in 1976 - the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere has risen by 53 ppm.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/172323/645">Direct Calculation of Nuclear Power's Historical Impact on Carbon Dioxide Levels

In your tenure here - all of which consists of lazy cut and paste jobs, particularly in those very rare moments when you pretend to give lip service to a concern over dangerous fossil fuel waste even though you couldn't care less - you have worked with vast moral indifference to vandalize the source of energy that prevented that number from being closer to 60.

You must be very proud of your long record of opposing the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy.

Heckuva job.

I note, with contempt, that your ideas on nuclear power conflict completely with those of the Democratic nominee, although you never tire of insisting that anyone who doesn't buy your self declared authority Democratic Party policy on nuclear energy must be a Republican.

This may come as a surprise, even though you claim to speak for Al Gore, but you were not declared the Democratic Nominee. There was, of course, two anti-nukes in the race, and neither of them lasted very long.

Bullshit. I've been a Democrat my entire adult life and this party has never been about dogma, particularly illiterate dogma. Far from it.

[kristopher]

12. 3 modes: False Logic, Insults, False Statements

We note, "with contempt", that there is never a substantive rebuttal of the posts you disagree with.

It is always the same:
shoot the messenger, insult people, create a strawman
shoot the messenger, insult people, create a strawman
shoot the messenger, insult people, create a strawman
shoot the messenger, insult people, create a strawman
shoot the messenger, insult people, create a strawman

ad nauseum


Do us a favor and at least learn a few new forms of fallacious logic; your act is stale...

[tom_paine]

18. Don't waste your time and effort with that one, kristopher...not worth it

You know, when you and I first "met" here on DU, we got in a blistering shouting match, I recall.

I can't even remember what it was about, I just know that I was pissed, you were pissed, and we were each trying to rip each other as hard as we could, either by direct verbal assault or smirky "holier than thou" shit that pretends to be above the fray but tries to stick the needle in as surely as someone calling another person an asshole.

We were both guilty, and I think we both knew that.

But as time went on, I came to realize that, far from being your only mode of commincation, it was the exception and that usually you speak intelligently and sensibly, even when I completely disagree with what you have to say. I respect that, and it is a quality that is in short supply these days, even here on DU.

I can admit when I was wrong about you and I was. I'd like to think that you had a similar line of thinking about me.

But guys like NNadir, that's all they have and all they will ever have. It is like talking to someone who is in thrall to Sean Hannity or something. There no point to it. It's like pounding your head into a brick wall and expecting to make a dent. Your head would turn into bony bloody mush before that wall was even blemished.

I haven't put ol' NNadir on ignore because sometimes he links to interesting stuff. I probably should, though. And you might want to consider putting him on Ignore, if you can't find a way to just actually ignore him without using the function.

You'll save yourself a lot of agita, and that way you won't feel compelled to reply to someone who is the mental equivalent of Sean Hannity when it comes to the nuclear fission issue.

I will say this, though. On the rare occasions I have seen NNadir post on topics other than fission, he seems perfectly reasonable. Wild, eh?

See you 'round the boards! :hi:

[kristopher]

19. Now I'm hurt...

I've liked your posts from the moment I saw your screen name.

[tom_paine]

20. And now I feel like a giant heel.

Thanks. :evilgrin:



(I wanted to find one of those old Looney Tunes shots where the character's head turns into a heel, but I couldn't find it, so this will have to do)

[kristopher]

21. :) nt

[kristopher]

5. I think you need to stay out of the cooking sherry

But if he did then who would provide such enduring and unique humorous folly. He is totally unaware of the way his mental processes are so similar to his beloved Chernobyl.

Speaking of an actual nuclear engineer (as opposed to someone playing one on the DUEE forum) he writes:

Every twenty minutes the circle jerk of illiteracy refers to itself as justification for its own absymal ignorance.

Dear Nnadir then proceeds to, yes, you got it, quote himself as an authoritative source (in a designated quote block, no less):

Some time ago, I confronted the qualification of this clueless band of self-declared "experts" when I wrote:
"Has he published a series of famous papers on mass balance of minor actinide burn-up in the cores of...blah, blah, blah, blah."

[losthills]

2. Good common sense analysis.

I await the moronic, knee jerk accusations that "UCS works for the coal industry!!!"

Life in DUland goes on....

[bananas]

6. The tepco chart doesn't include 2007 and 2008

"April Capacity Factor Dips Below 50% for First Time in Five Years"
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/index.html

[kristopher]

7. So why are the US stats at such variance?

1) We are better at this type project than the Japanese.

2) Our stats are doctored.

3) Our reactors are being operated in an manner less committed to safety than the Japanese.

???

[Dogmudgeon]

8. 4) Tepco is rebuilding Kashiwazaki-Kariwa after last year's earthquake

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, I guess.

There's also this report:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/kashiwazaki-kariwa_report.html">Earthquake Damage at Japanese Nuclear Station Less Than Expected, (IAEA) Report Says

As I recall, the damage at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power station was being called the Worst Nuclear Accident Ever. SIX Chernobyls in the making. Massive deaths. All within ten minutes of the news story.

Instead, all the safety systems worked the way they were designed. The reactors were damaged, but the core was undamaged and SCRAMed safely.

--p!

[kristopher]

11. The data runs from 1971 and shows a long struggle to break above 75% Capacity Factor

[Dogmudgeon]

13. Indeed it does

But it did break the 75% capacity factor.

A couple of reactors performed beyond their ratings, too. Their capacity factors were over 100%.

Despite the general poor performance, there were some bright spots. Sendai-1 of the Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc. saw a capacity ratio of 105.2%, down slightly from the previous month’s figure of 105.4%, thus continuing to lead the rest of the nation’s NPPs. Another strong performer was Mihama-3 of the Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. (KEPCO), with a capacity ratio of 105.0%.

(Format is mine.)
(http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/aij/member/2008/2008-05-21b.pdf">Reference.)

PV technology required a similar amount of time to even approach economic viability. While nuclear energy was improving its efficiency, it was generating low-carbon energy, and reduced the atmospheric load of greenhouse gases, acid-forming chemicals, toxic metals, and airborne radionuclides by as much as 20%.

All technologies improve over time -- if engineers and scientists work on them. It should not be surprising to see improvements in any technology. The nuclear industry is experiencing capacity factors for some reactors in the 90 %s, and photovoltaic output has greatly increased over the past decade.

--p!

[kristopher]

14. You are ignoring again the massive difference in subsidies and claims of performance

Solar doesn't NEED to perform at a higher capacity factor, that is the same meme the Republicans have been using to try and shut out the technology since 1980. All it needs to do is have the kind of support nuclear has had in order to increase the manufacturing base and lower the overall price of the product.

Even with the huge disparity in subsidies, nuclear STILL can't make it on it's own and there is no expectation that it ever will.

I'm serious, do you realize that everything you say here is a regurgitation of the talking points put out by the conservatives since Reagan? The elites of the conservative movement LOVE 2 things in the energy sector: fossil fuels first and foremost; and if forced to take action by "tree hugging environmentalists" they also love nuclear.

Don't believe me? Go the their flagship website and do a search on climate change, renewable energy, or nuclear energy. You can also search for "jack Spencer" at their website. He seems to be their authority on climate change.
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

Do you really think the rabid, Ronny Raygun right wingnuts suddenly and uniquely got energy policy and climate change policy right?

[Dogmudgeon]

22. Subsidy for Solar: $24.34/MW-h; Subsidy for Nuclear: $1.59/MW-h.

Subsidy for Solar: $24.34/MW-h; Subsidy for Nuclear: $1.59/MW-h. Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/srcneaf(2008)01.pdf">Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007. (Table ES5. Subsidies and Support to Electricity Production: Alternative Measures) The Solar and Wind subsidies have been supported at the same level since 1983. Historical data are presented throughout the report.

Solar doesn't NEED to perform at a higher capacity factor, that is the same meme the Republicans have been using to try and shut out the technology since 1980. All it needs to do is have the kind of support nuclear has had in order to increase the manufacturing base and lower the overall price of the product.

Even with the huge disparity in subsidies, nuclear STILL can't make it on it's own and there is no expectation that it ever will.

Solar, wind, and "clean coal" technology have ALL received more than FOURTEEN times the per-watt subsidy than nuclear energy has -- from laws passed under Ronald Reagan. Support for civil nuclear power development decreased under Reagan. He approved ZERO new nuclear power reactors. A Democratic Congress may have done some of this, but RWR's executive discretion to promote nuclear power was NOT exercised.

Reagan-era subsidies kept three technological zombies -- wind, solar, and "clean coal" -- alive for the better part of 25 years. I've posted about it a number of times. With peer-reviewed citations.

For a couple of decades now, nuclear energy produced as much as a fifth of the electricity used in this country, even though the Department of Energy has also been obliged to clean up the military's nuclear messes (like Hanford), which left less money to subsidize R&D and power production. In spite of these obstacles, nuclear energy reduced coal usage by as much as 20% in some (several) years. Wind only recently hit the 1% mark; Solar is still well under 1%. I support them, too, but they have been proof-of-concept for widespread use at best. Solar has STILL not earned back its value in subsidies. (For Wind -- maybe.)

If nuclear energy "can't make it on its own", then soft energy is doomed.

I'm serious, do you realize that everything you say here is a regurgitation of the talking points put out by the conservatives since Reagan? The elites of the conservative movement LOVE 2 things in the energy sector: fossil fuels first and foremost; and if forced to take action by "tree hugging environmentalists" they also love nuclear.

(etc)

Nuclear energy is Republican? I thought it was God who was Republican.

Perhaps atoms are stem cells that registered Republican. I don't think so, but I've been known to be wrong every now and then.

Do you really want to promote (and enforce) official scientific ideology like those other guys?

--p!