Letter sent to the Financial Times:
Jonathan Ford’s latest column
on nuclear power (“Nuclear liabilities need to be put in clearer perspective,” Financial Times, 18 November 2019; https://www.ft.com/content/1b632592-0925-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67) compounds several errors he made in an earlier column
on radiation risks and decarbonization of power supplies (“Net-zero world must conquer
its irrational fear of nuclear power, 4 November 2019; www.ft.com/content/32e052e2-fcca-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6)
Mr Ford is entitled to his personal views on nuclear
energy, but not to misrepresent facts.
Ford describes nuclear power as a “reliable zero-carbon source” in the earlier
article, and in his new column as “reliably
generating zero-carbon electricity.” But repetition does not make inaccurate statements
true, and this assertion is not correct
A comprehensive Life Cycle
Assessments (LCAs) of greenhouse gas emissions from differing power generation
technologies by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering
at Stanford University, California - and director of its Atmosphere/Energy
Program - indicated that nuclear
CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater
than those from renewables. (Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution,
and energy security† Energy & Environmental Science, 1 December
2008;
Prof Jacobson is very qualified for
such analysis, being also Senior Fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy,
and at the Woods Institute for the Environment, where he has
developed computer models to study the effects of fossil fuel and biomass
burning on air pollution, weather, and climate.
In a newly completed
chapter for a forthcoming energy book, ‘Evaluation
of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and
Energy Security,’ in 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything [Textbook in Preparation, https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html”) he argues cogently:
“There
is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even
existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium
needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the
water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind
turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2
g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.
Overall, emissions from new nuclear
are 78 to178 g-CO2/kWH, not close to 0, he concludes
Similar conclusions were reached
in a meta-study by Benjamin Sovacool, Professor of Energy Policy at the Science
Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the School of Business, Management, and
Economics, part of the University of Sussex, who serves as Director of the
Sussex Energy Group and Director of the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand [which
also involves the University of Oxford and University of Manchester]
He concludes the following: “This
article screens 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions
for nuclear power plants to identify a subset of the most current, original,
and transparent studies.
It begins by briefly detailing
the separate components of the nuclear fuel cycle before explaining the
methodology of the survey and exploring the variance of lifecycle estimates. It
calculates that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the
lifetime of a plant, reported from qualified studies examined, is from 1.4 g of
carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh (g CO2e/kWh) to 288 g CO2e/kWh, the mean
value is 66 g CO2e/kWh.
The article then explains some of
the factors responsible for the disparity in lifecycle estimates, in particular
identifying errors in both the lowest estimates (not comprehensive) and the
highest estimates (failure to consider co-products). It should be noted that
nuclear power is not directly emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but rather
that lifecycle emissions occur through plant construction, operation, uranium
mining and milling, and plant decommissioning.
( “Valuing the greenhouse gas
emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey, Energy Policy, 36,
2940-2953, 2008. https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf”
Mr Ford - The FT's City Editor no less- needs to expand his reading
list.
No comments:
Post a Comment