Home

James Lovelock & Why Nuclear Power Is NOT The
Solution To Global Warming

( email received by Bill Smirnow )

Relpy

• Why Nuclear Power is Not the Solution to Global Warming
  http://www.mothersalert.o rg/globalwarming2.html
  
  
• The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) [ http://www.ieer.org ], Worldwatch Institute,
  and Sen. George Mitchell in his book, World on Fire have all spoken to the potential scale
  and cost of Carbon Dioxide offset through the use of nuclear.
  
  

"Slowing Global Warming: A Worldwide Strategy" by Christopher Flavin, World Watch Paper # 91 published by the Worldwatch Institute, October 1989
". .for nuclear power to offset even 5 percent of global carbon emissions would require that worldwide nuclear capacity be nearly doubled from today's level. That means that nuclear is simply not a medium term option for slowing global warming."

World on Fire by Senator George Mitchell 1991

".If nuclear plants replaced all coal-fired plants in the world, global warming could be cut by 20 to 30 percent by the middle of the next century (2050). But it would require bringing a nuclear power plant on line somewhere in the world
every one to three days for the next forty years. The cost would be $9 trillion; the pace of construction would be ten times larger (greater?) than any the world has ever seen. Both figures are unthinkable. A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us."

Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of Nuclear and Efficiency Abatement Strategies by Bill Keepin and Gregory Katz, Energy Policy, December 1988

The authors posit a conservative scenario in which one-half of non-fossil energy is supplied by nuclear power with a construction program beginning in 1988.

".This results in a total nuclear installed capacity of 8,180 GW by the year 2025, equivalent to some 8000 large nuclear power plants. This represents a 20-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear plants be built at an average rate of one new 1000 MW plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years. At an assumed cost of $1.0 million/1000MW installed, this results in a total capitol cost of 8.39 trillion (1987) dollars, an average of $227 billion each
year for 37 years to build the required nuclear plants. Total electricity generation cost is $31.48 trillion, or an average of $787 billion/year. The required capitol investment is economically infeasible for the developing world."

The authors point out that even with a massive nuclear construction program, the use of fossil fuels will continue to grow.

" Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent annual CO2 emissions from steadily increasing to a value 60% greater than they are today."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nuclear Power No Countermeasure to Global Warming

April 06, 2000

http://www.mothersalert.or g/globalwarming.html

TOKYO, April 6 (Kyodo) -- Nuclear power may bring lower carbondioxide emissions but will not be an effective countermeasure tocurb climate change, according to a report released Thursday by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

The report shows that developing countries must not be forced to adopt nuclear power, with its large energy consumption of uranium enrichment facilities, in the name of combating climate change because it is not a sustainable source of energy.

It says that emissions of carbon dioxide, a leading global warming gas, must be controlled by thorough energy conservation and improvement in the efficient use of energy.

The WWF, based in Switzerland, called its report ''Climate Change and Nuclear Power,'' and had experts compare the performance of different energy supply systems with various operating conditions.

Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour (kwh) were calculated as 35 grams for nuclear power, 33 grams for hydropower and 20 grams for wind power.

Cogeneration technologies based on biogas from wood, landfills or agricultural origin emerged with the best performance, reaching an efficiency of 75% to 90% compared with conventional plants' 35% to 58%.

Compared with nuclear power, combined heat and power (CHP) or cogeneration plants recover most of the waste heat in industrial processes or urban heating systems.

The report said this transformation of biomass into synthetic gas makes it possible to nearly double the electricity generation of most current biomass-fired power plants.

Citing Japan as an example of a country heavily reliant on nuclear power with ''one of the lowest cogeneration shares of any industrialized country,'' the WWF report said Japan's large-scale use of nuclear power blocks improvements in efficient energy use within the country.

''An efficient greenhouse gas abatement strategy will not be based on nuclear power but on energy efficiency,'' it said.

The report appealed to governments not to use nuclear power as a main means of fighting climate change, pointing to the Soviet Union's nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, now in present-day Ukraine, and the Tokaimura nuclear accident in Japan last September.

2000 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945