False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda

[kristopher]

False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda

I wrote my first article on the potential resurgence of nuclear power in 1989, for the Multinational Monitor. Back then, I predicted that the nuclear power industry would seize upon the issue of climate change as its golden ticket to revival. Not that nuclear power has any useful role to play in addressing climate change, or, as we prefer to call it in 2007, the climate crisis (the climate hasn’t exactly improved in the past 18 years), but it was obvious even then that nuclear reactors’ relatively low carbon emissions would and could be the industry’s only possible selling point.

Let’s face it, by any objective measure, nuclear power has failed every possible market test: first and foremost, in market terms, it is and remains uneconomic. That’s not only because nuclear power reactors are incredibly expensive to build because of their basic requirements of huge amounts of steel, concrete, engineering exper- tise, and so forth, but because of the basic nexus of factors that has made nuclear power the least desirable energy source on the planet: safety, waste, and nuclear proliferation. Add those three factors together, and add in measures to try to mitigate them, and you get the most expensive source of producing electricity ever.

And, for the nuclear industry, the problem is that all of these factors are inseparable.

But, oh, there is that climate crisis — we need nuclear power!

Actually, if we did need nuclear power, we’d be in big trouble....

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/falsepromises.pdf

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
www.nirs.org • [e-mail]

[bananas]

1. "Our choice is stark: we can address the climate crisis, or we can build new nuclear reactors."

This looks like a good read.

"Our choice is stark: we can address the climate crisis,
or we can build new nuclear reactors. We can’t do both."

That's becoming increasingly clear.
It's also becoming increasingly clear that we have to start shutting down the old reactors.

The danger is not so much that we are about to enter
a new nuclear era. The combination of economics,
safety, proliferation, waste and simple physical realities
preclude that. Rather, the danger is that some of
these proposed reactors will get construction licenses,
and some utilities will foolishly attempt to build them.
And in doing so, they—and the federal government
which has indicated its intent to subsidize the first few
of them with taxpayer dollars—will squander billions
of dollars that could be used to effectively address the
climate crisis. Those billions of dollars, could, in fact,
be the difference between an effective carbon reduction
program, or one that dooms coastlines, Pacific
nations, our agricultural heartland, and indeed, life as
we know it.

Our choice is stark: we can address the climate crisis,
or we can build new nuclear reactors. We can’t do both.
Fortunately, the choice is an easy one.

In this report you will find many more details to back
up the assertions made in this foreword, and a lot more
information on the sustainable energy technologies
that can make a real difference. We can provide the
electricity and energy we need to power a 21st century
nation, and we can do it without destroying our planet.
The technology exists and is there to be tapped; all that
is lacking is the political will to take on the powerful
utility, nuclear and fossil fuel industries that serve only
their short-term self-interest. It is our hope that this
report will provide a greater rationale for policymakers,
the media, and organizations and individuals at
all levels of society to take a good hard look at our
current energy policy, and to do everything possible
to create an energy framework that will work for our
common future.

[kristopher]

2. What amazes me is how the fission industry has hid the CO2 emissions that are part of expanding

Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23 DOI 10.1007/s11948-008-9097-y
Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
October 2008
Abstract
Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.


"claims are scientifically questionable"...

...rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions..."

"...flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content..."

"...underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used..."

"...inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies..."

"...although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic..."

"...Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them..."

[kristopher]

3. "we can address the climate crisis or we can build new nuclear reactors."

I still prefer the phrasing "we can address the climate crisis or we can" employ fissioning radioactive materials to boil water.

[Terry in Austin]

4. But Kris -- don't you know that nukes are our best bet?

Really, they're our best best bet to fight AGW. I read it right here on another thread, not five minutes ago!

:evilgrin:

[kristopher]

5. Some reading on that claim...

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-mod-energy-review-2009-SF_revised2.pdf

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/final-see-2009-data-trimming-climate-nuclear-fulltext.pdf

http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf