New Studies Comparing Renewables to Nuclear; Nuclear power is a false solution to climate change

[bananas]

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/energy/2008-July/000234.html

New Studies Comparing Renewables to Nuclear
ehrbar ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu
Mon Jul 7 21:44:18 MDT 2008

------- Start of forwarded message -------
To: <feed_in_tariffs at yahoogroups.co.uk>
From: "Benjamin Sovacool" <sovacool at vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:45:59 +0800
Subject: New Studies Comparing Renewables to Nuclear

Dear fellow FIT discussants,

It's not often I send out these emails, but after becoming frustrated by the
lack of clarity in the debate between nuclear and renewables, I embarked
upon two sets of studies while here at the National University of Singapore.

The first study, just published in the August 2008 issue of the journal
Energy Policy (Valuing
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4SN8VBS-4&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=763811967&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5713&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=11&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=932dc41e65e9cae4eaf598f9c60b9947> the
greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey,
Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 2940-2953) assessed
103 lifecycle studies of the nuclear fuel cycle to determine how "clean"
nuclear plants are from a greenhouse gas emissions standpoint. The industry
often claims the lifecycle emissions from nuclear plants is 1-3 grams of
CO2e/kWh, making them better than renewables and other alternatives;
opponents retort that emissions are much higher, often in the 100 to 150
gCO2e/kWh range. My study, which is attached, makes two conclusions: (1)
the quality of most lifecycle estimates is very poor, with a majority
obscuring their assumptions (sometimes intentionally) and relying on poor
and/or non-transparent data; (2) when one selects only the most
methodologically rigorous studies, typical lifecycle emissions from nuclear
plants appear to be about 66 gCO2e/kWh (more than 10 times greater than what
the industry tells us), much worse than every conceivable renewable
alternative, including solar PV.

The second study, also published in Energy Policy a few months ago (The
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4S26RXN-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2008&_alid=763811967&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5713&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=11&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ce06a74c90aa4e1d36559649e84d5ecd> costs of
failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907-2007
Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 1802-1820), attempts to
quantify the amount of "damage" inflicted on society by energy accidents
from conventional energy systems. That study looked at major energy
accidents from 1907 to 2007 and documented 279 incidents responsible for $41
billion in damages and more than 180,000 deaths. Again, the results here
are interesting: in terms of fatalities, large hydroelectric accidents have
probably killed the most people; in terms of frequency, natural gas
infrastructure is the most likely to fail, but with minimal damage to life
and property; in terms of cost, nuclear power plants are the most expensive,
accounting for more than 40 percent of all damages. Renewable power
generators such as wind and solar, in contrast, had no reportable major
accidents.

Since you all are deeply engaged in these issues, I thought it would be best
to share these studies with you. If you don't have institutional access to
Energy Policy, feel free to email me directly for copies. And please, feel
free to distribute them to any and all that might be interested.

Sincerely,

Benjamin


***************

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D

Research Fellow, Energy Governance Program

Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

02-03J Oei Tiong Ham Building

National University of Singapore

469C Bukit Timah Road Singapore 259772

Email: <mailto:bsovacool at nus.edu.sg> bsovacool at nus.edu.sg

Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University

Email: <mailto:sovacool at vt.edu> sovacool at vt.edu

For more about Energy and American Society--Thirteen Myths, visit
http://www.springer.com/west/home/economics/social+policy?SGWID=4-40550-22-173696958-0

------- End of forwarded message -------

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/07/15/nuclear-power-a-false-solution-climate-change.html

Nuclear power is a false solution to climate change

Benjamin Sovacool , Singapore | Tue, 07/15/2008 10:36 AM | Opinion

<snip>

One new study published in the August 2008 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy attempts to answer this question by screening 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants.

<snip>

This average-66 grams of carbon dioxide for every kWh-is staggeringly high compared to what the nuclear industry has reported. It also shows, conclusively, that nuclear energy is in no way "carbon free" or "emissions free," and that nuclear power is worse than the equivalent carbon emissions over the lifecycle of renewable and small scale distributed generators.

<snip>

First, due to the greenhouse-gas intensity of its lifecycle, nuclear power plants would not benefit directly from a global carbon tax or a carbon cap-and-trade system. While the nuclear industry would certainly be penalized less than fossil-fueled generators, the carbon equivalent emissions from uranium mining operations, enrichment facilities, plant construction, decommissioning, and spent fuel storage are significant. Any type of cost for carbon emissions would absolutely increase the price of these elements of the nuclear fuel cycle, and would thus make nuclear power more expensive.

Second, while it may be unfair to compare baseload sources such as nuclear to intermittent or non-dispatchable sources such as wind and solar PV, if these numbers are correct, then offshore wind power has less than one-seventh the carbon equivalent emissions of nuclear plants; large-scale hydropower, onshore wind, and biogas, about one-sixth the emissions; small-scale hydroelectric and solar thermal one-fifth. This makes these renewable energy technologies seven-, six-, and five-times more effective on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change.

Put simply, investments in nuclear power are much worse at emitting greenhouse gases than pursuing wind, solar, and other small-scale power generators. Indonesians would be wise to embrace these more environmentally friendly technologies if they are serious about producing electricity and mitigating climate change.

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, part of the distinguished Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Yep. I watched that tv show about having no humans on earth..

and it said that nuclear plants unattended would melt down in ten days polluting the entire northern hemisphere. It's a stupid energy source even with all the fail safes and all of us humans to tend them.

[NNadir]

5. Wow. That's a real risk. I'm so glad you pointed it out. I hope we don't go extinct

and have to worry about meltdowns.

I think I'll write a stupid article in a stupid social science journal - sort of like Amory Lovins' stupid 1980 article in a stupid social science journal on how nuclear power was dying - pointing out that if humanity goes extinct wind powered plants will still power televisions so stupid people can point out stupid stuff from stupid science fiction fantasy articles.

It does seem to me that stupid people citing stupid articles from stupid social "sciences" journals are very unsure of themselves though. In spite of their endless stupid claims that "nuclear power is dead," it is still, by far, the world's largest source of climate change gas free energy.

I may be stupider than the stupid social "scientist" writing the stupid article, but it would seem, with the earth's atmosphere reaching 400 ppm of dangerous fossil fuel waste, that it would be pretty stupid to spend another stupid decade waiting for the stupid claims of stupid social scientists to become reality.

Hey wait a minute. In 1965, when they made On the Beach the stupid nuclear plants were still working after the stupid world population went extinct.

Duh?

Um.

Gee.

You mean stuff isn't always like it is in the movies? Who knew?

The physical science journals are replete with articles, by the way, saying that the external cost of nuclear power is the lowest of any scalable exajoule form of energy, but hey, physical scientists are stupid. That's why political "scientists" are the highest paid energy scientists known.

The article is, well how should we say, an "outlier."

By the way. Do you expect that after human extinction coal mines will stop leaking heavy metals?

Just wondering.

Nah, never mind. I couldn't care less.

I note, with contempt, that if Singapore develops nuclear power - and it may - racists will probably come here complaining that they're Islamic and thus can't have nuclear power.

We have a racist scientific ignoramus check in here daily to announce that Islamic people force us to kill them because they say "uranium."

[The Wielding Truth]

7. Just felt like expressing a surprising unweighed tidbit . I guess

this stuff happens and you get slammed when your defenses are down and you think you're just chatting with friends. Hope you enjoyed your rant.

[Javaman]

8. It appears that nnadir always enjoys his rants...

:rofl:

[jpak]

10. Enjoying one's rants is apparently what it is all about

Nuclear power is just the compulsion/obsession

[kristopher]

25. You do know that the Nuclear Energy Insitute pays people to go to message boards?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=161378&mesg_id=161715

Read posts 3,4 & 5

[DCKit]

27. Such an angry and abusive post. I'd get some help for that. n/t

[ladjf]

2. Nuclear power has too many dangerous and financial problems

to be able to safely solve the energy problem.

[DogPoundPup]

3. "The risk of catastrophic tank failure sharply increases as each year goes by,"

Contaminated US site faces 'catastrophic' nuclear leak

ONE of "the most contaminated places on Earth" will only get dirtier if the US government doesn't get its act together - clean-up plans are already 19 years behind schedule and not due for completion until 2050.

More than 210 million litres of radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks at Hanford in Washington State. Most are over 50 years old. Already 67 of the tanks have failed, leaking almost 4 million litres of waste into the ground.

There are now "serious questions about the tanks' long-term viability," says a Government Accountability Office report, which strongly criticises the US Department of Energy for delaying an $8 billion programme to empty the tanks and treat the waste. The DoE says the clean-up is "technically challenging" and argues that it is making progress in such a way as to protect human health and the environment.

The DoE's plan, however, is "faith-based", says Robert Alvarez, an authority on Hanford at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. "The risk of catastrophic tank failure will sharply increase as each year goes by," he says, "and one of the nation's largest rivers, the Columbia, will be in jeopardy."
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19926642.900-contaminated-us-site-faces-catastrophic-nuclear-leak.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_mg19926642.900

[ladjf]

4. Good information. Currently, the Japanese hold the record for

taking the greatest risks with nuclear. They have numerous plants on a land mass that is one of the least stable on Earth. One disaster and it would completely wipe out the entire Country.

[NickB79]

15. They did have a disaster last year, in the form of a powerful earthquake

http://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+earthquake+nuclear+power&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The country was not wiped out. No meltdowns occurred. As we discussed thoroughly here on the E/E after the quake happened, the amount of radioactivity released by the damaged reactor was the equivalent of approximately 20 smoke alarms worth of americium, dumped into the ocean.

[ladjf]

21. They were fortunate.

[kristopher]

6. Thank you, I'll pass it around. nt

[cosmik debris]

9. Questions

The articles in the OP refer to "the carbon equivalent emissions" and "greenhouse gas equivalent emissions".

What are these? How are they calculated? Who is doing the calculations? Who decides what is equivalent? And why not just use the actual numbers instead of some perceived equivalence?

It would seem more rational to me to compare carbon emissions to carbon emissions rather than substituting some equivalence.

When you go to the grocery store do you buy apples or apple equivalents?

[bananas]

14. Metrics for Expressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Equivalents and Carbon Dioxide Equivalents

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05002.htm

[cosmik debris]

16. I see. Some of the CO2 equivalents are NOT CO2 at all.

They are something else. Substituting non-CO2 for real CO2 sorta blows the bottom out of your argument.

It is a lot easier to make the comparison work when you compare CO2 from one source and CO2 from the other source.

A slick sleight of hand is not a valid argument.

[bananas]

18. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You're making a fool of yourself!
You have no clue what you're talking about.

[cosmik debris]

20. Adding CO2 to CH4 and N2O is not valid.

It is like saying that the nuclear industry releases less Mercury than the coal industry.

Apples and oranges.

If you are just looking for a comparison that makes nuclear energy look bad, you should be able to do better than this.

[bananas]

22. Nobody is just adding CO2 to CH4 and N2O

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

<snip>

Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP), when measured over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Carbon dioxide equivalency thus reflects the time-integrated radiative forcing, rather than the instantaneous value described by CO2e.

The carbon dioxide equivalency for a gas is obtained by multiplying the mass and the GWP of the gas. The following units are commonly used:
- By the UN climate change panel IPCC: billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2eq).
- In industry: million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCDE).
- For vehicles: g of carbon dioxide equivalents / km (gCDE/km).

For example, the GWP for methane is 21 and for nitrous oxide 310. This means that emissions of 1 million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 21 and 310 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide.

<snip>

[cosmik debris]

23. OK, multiplying not adding

The only reason NOT to do a head to head comparison of real CO2 is that you are trying to be deceptive.

That's nothing new.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

17. Here's an example of how carbon equivalent emissions are used

The IPCC uses CO2 equivalents in this report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-spm.pdf

Renewable energy generally has a positive effect
on energy security, employment and on air quality.
Given costs relative to other supply options, renewable
electricity, which accounted for 18% of the electricity
supply in 2005, can have a 30-35% share of the total
electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50
US$/tCO2-eq

<snip>

Given costs relative to other supply options, nuclear
power, which accounted for 16% of the electricity supply
in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total electricity
supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq,
but safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as
constraints

[NNadir]

11. I have just accessed both full papers, and unsurprisingly, the "data" comes from the

vast circle jerk of self-referential anti-nuke groups, who continually cite themselves and publish stuff in journals that allow this sort of thing.

(The most classic case of this approach was the crazy as a loon Sternglass who predicted or strongly implied, that I, and everyone of my generation in my area, was likely to die of bone cancer - I lived on Long Island - because of Sr-90 from the Millstone reactors.)

I have downloaded the articles and when I feel like being amused by ignorance, I will discuss them in more detail.

Betterer and betterer and betterer all the time, this fundie anti-nuke stuff.

[cosmik debris]

12. But are they the REAL articles

Or are they "article equivalents"?

[NNadir]

24. I'm going to have fun, let me tell you.

That's all I have time to say right now.

[kristopher]

26. For your reference

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/

CO2 equivalents
Filed under:

* IPCC
* Greenhouse gases
* Climate Science

— gavin @ 5:40 PM

There was a minor kerfuffle in recent days over claims by Tim Flannery (author of "The Weather Makers") that new information from the upcoming IPCC synthesis report will show that we have reached 455 ppmv CO2_equivalent 10 years ahead of schedule, with predictable implications. This is confused and incorrect, but the definitions of CO2_e, why one would use it and what the relevant level is, are all highly uncertain in many peoples' minds. So here is a quick rundown.

Definition: The CO2_equivalent level is the amount of CO2 that would be required to give the same global mean radiative forcing as the sum of a basket of other forcings. This is a way to include the effects of CH4 and N2O etc. in a simple way, particularly for people doing future impacts or cost-benefit analysis. The equivalent amount is calculated using the IPCC formula for CO2 forcing:

Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)

where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).

Usage: There are two main ways it is used. Firstly, it is often used to group together all the forcings from the Kyoto greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs), and secondly to group together all forcings (including ozone, sulphate aerosols, black carbon etc.). The first is simply a convenience, but the second is what matters to the planet. Many stabilisation scenarios, such as are being discussed in UNFCCC negotiations are based on stabilising total CO2_e at 450, 550 or 750 ppmv.

Magnitude The values of CO2_e (Kyoto) and CO2_e (Total) can be calculated from Figure 2.21 and Table 2.12 in the IPCC WG1 Chapter 2. The forcing for CO2, CH4 (including indirect effects), N2O and CFCs is 1.66+0.48+0.07+0.16+0.34=2.71 W/m2 (with around 0.3 W/m2 uncertainty). Using the formula above, that gives CO2_e (Kyoto) = 460 ppmv. However, including all the forcings (some of which are negative), you get a net forcing of around 1.6 W/m2, and a CO2_e (Total) of 375 ppmv with quite a wide error bar. This is, coincidently, close to the actual CO2 level.

Implications The important number is CO2_e (Total) which is around 375 ppmv. Stabilisation scenarios of 450 ppmv or 550 ppmv are therefore still within reach. Claims that we have passed the first target are simply incorrect, however, that is not to say they are easily achievable. It is even more of a stretch to state that we have all of a sudden gone past the 'dangerous' level. It is still not clear what that level is, but if you take a conventional 450 ppmv CO2_e value (which will lead to a net equilibrium warming of ~ 2 deg C above pre-industrial levels), we are still a number of years from that, and we have (probably) not yet committed ourselves to reaching it.

Finally, the IPCC synthesis report is simply a concise summary of the three separate reports that have already come out. It therefore can't be significantly different from what is already available. But this is another example where people are quoting from draft reports that they have neither properly read nor understood and for which better informed opinion is not immediately available. I wish journalists and editors would resist the temptation to jump on leaks like this (though I know it's hard). The situation is confusing enough without adding to it unintentionally.

[windoe]

13. Nuclear power is just another form of corporate power=metered.

One best way to starve the corporate monster is for as many people as possible to GO OFF THE ENERGY GRID. If you can afford it do it, and encourage companies and municipalities to allow people to use independent sources of energy!!!

[OneBlueSky]

28. using nuclear fission to boil water is like cutting butter with a chainsaw . . . n/t

.

[Dogmudgeon]

29. You could always use an aircraft propeller instead

Or maybe a magnifying glass (and a steady hand) ...

:evilgrin:
(obligatory)

--p!