Shrader-Frechette.qxp 17/8/09 11:29 Page 61
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Nuclear Energy
“to generate baseload electricity”.
8,41
However, the pro-nuclear UK scientists (such as J Robert Oppenheimer) admit that the US wanted a
government says that baseload power is not an issue; intermittency ‘peaceful’ excuse for continued nuclear weapons development.
13
increases wind-generated-electricity costs only by about 6% and
wind is already much cheaper than atomic energy.
8
Besides, nuclear
power has its own intermittency problems. The UK and US lifetime
Atomic energy appears to
average nuclear load factors (the percentage of time plants operate
be neither as cost-effective nor
compared with 100%) is only 71%.
42
However, the European
as low in greenhouse gas
Renewable Energy Council and Shell Oil say renewables can cost-
competitively supply 50% of global energy by 2040–2050.
43,44
The emissions as many renewable-
US DOE goes even further, claiming that renewable technology
energy technologies.
could provide 99% of US electricity by 2020.
45
How? Wind and solar
intermittencies can be solved by mixed power sources and wide
geographical distributions of energy facilities so that, somewhere, Conclusions
wind is blowing or sun is shining. Offshore winds virtually always Regardless of why nations began pursuing atomic energy, nuclear
blow. Wind is often also available at night, while solar is often proponents say more taxpayer subsidies are needed “to demonstrate the
available in daytime.
13,33
economic viability of nuclear” energy.
1
Are they right? The preceding
analysis suggests that (because of data trimming, fallacies of composition
A second objection is that if nuclear power is expensive, why have many and inconsistency in nuclear assessments) atomic energy appears to be
nations embraced it? History suggests that the US began nuclear- neither as cost-effective nor as low in GHGEs as many renewable-energy
generated electricity for the same reason as China, France, India, Iraq, technologies. A remaining question is whether other considerations
Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the UK and other outweigh the economic and emissions data presented here.
46
■
nations: “to open a nuclear weapons option”.
37
Physicists say that the
US had a “not-too-hidden agenda” of using commercial nuclear For more information please see Kristin Shrader-Frechette‘s website
technology to develop nuclear weapons.
13
US government officials (such (www.nd.edu/~kshrader). Several photos are available at
as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy) and nuclear www.nd.edu/~shrader/personal/
1. Deutsch JM, Forsberg CW, Kadak AC, et al., Update of the MIT US$25 Billion for US Department of Energy’s FY 2009 31. Ho MW, Bunyard P, Saunders P, et al., Which Energy?,
2003 Future of Nuclear Power, Cambridge: MIT Energy Budget, Washington, DC: US DOE Office of Public Affairs, London: Institute for Science and Society, 2006.
Initiative, 2009;19. 2008. 32. Van Leeuwen WS, Energy Security and Uranium Reserves,
2. Biello D, Reactivating nuclear reactors for the fight against 17. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Nuclear Statistics, Washington, London: Oxford Research Group, 2006.
climate change, Scientific American, 2009. Available at: DC: NEI, 2007. Available at: www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/ 33. Makhijani A, A reliable electricity grid in the US, Science for
www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=1013&category= nuclear_statistics/costs Democratic Action, 2008:15(2):9–11.
&year=2009&month=5&offset=16 18. Bunyard P, Ecologist: taking the wind out of nuclear power, 34. Barnham K, If Not Nuclear, Then What?. In: Barnaby F, Kemp
3. Pacala S, Socolow R, Stabilization wedges: solving the climate Pacific Ecologist, 2006;11:51–7. J (eds), Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security, and Global
problem for the next 50 years with current technologies, 19. Sovacool BK, Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from Warming, London: Oxford Research Group, 2007;45–50.
Science, 2004;305(5686):968–72. nuclear power: a critical survey, Energy Policy, 2008;36(2008): 35. US Government Accountability Office (GAO), Advanced
4. World Nuclear Association (WNA), The New Economics of 2940–53. Energy Technologies, GAO-08-556T, Washington, DC: US
Nuclear Power, London: WNA, 2005;8. 20. Diehl P, Uranium Mining and Milling, Amsterdam: World GAO, 2008.
5. Stoett P, Toward renewed legitimacy: nuclear power, global Information Service on Energy, 2004. 36. Thomas S, Bradford P, Frogatt A, Milborrow D, The Economics
warming and security, Global Environmental Politics, 2003;3(1): 21. Argonne National Laboratories, Depleted UF6 Management of Nuclear Power, Amsterdam: Greenpeace International,
99–116. Information Network, Argonne, IL: US Department of Energy, 2007;6.
6. Moody’s Corporate Finance, New Nuclear Generating Capacity, 2007. Available at: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium 37. Sweet W, Kicking the Carbon Habit, New York: Columbia
New York: Moody’s, 2008. 22. Global Security, Uranium Feedstock, Alexandria, VA: Global University Press, 2006;154.
7. US Department of Energy, DOE Selects 13 Solar Energy Security, 2009. Available at: www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ 38. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power
Projects, 2007. Available at: www.energy.gov.news.4855.htm intro/u-feedstock.htm Annual, Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 2009.
8. Smith B, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear 23. Biello D, Finding fissile fuel, Scientific American, 2009. Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_
Power to Combat Global Climate Change, Takoma Park, MD: Available at: www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm? sum.html
IEER Press, 2006;70. id=finding-fissile-fuel 39. World Information Service on Energy (WISE) and Nuclear
9. World Bank, Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, volume 24. World Energy Service on Energy (WISE), Uranium Enrichment Information Research Service (NIRS), Nuclear Power: No
III, Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Energy and Calculator, Amsterdam: WISE, 2006. Available at: www.wise- Solution to Climate Change, Takoma Park, MD: WISE/NIRS,
Industry Projects, Technical Report 154, Washington DC: uranium.org/nfcue.html 2005.
World Bank Environmental Department, 1991. 25. Energy Information Agency, Carbon Dioxide Emissions from 40. Reichhardt T, No net cost in cutting carbon emissions, Nature,
10. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Energy the Generation of Electric Power in the US, Washington, DC: 1997;389(6650):429.
Policy, July 2006. Available at: www.ebrd.com/about/policies/ US Department of Energy, 2000. 41. Cravens G, Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear
pip/report06.pdf 26. Fthenakis VM, Kim HC, Greenhouse-gas emissions from Energy, New York: Knopf, 2008;365.
11. Asian Development Bank, Bank Policy Initiatives for the solar–electric and nuclear power: a life-cycle study, Energy 42. Herbst AM, Hopley GW, Nuclear Energy Now, Hoboken, NJ:
Energy Sector, 2000, 1994. Available at: www.adb.org/ Policy, 2007;35(4):2549–57. John Wiley, 2007;176.
work/policies/energy/energy.doc 27. Executive Summary. In: Barnaby F, Kemp J (eds), Too Hot to 43. European Council on Renewable Energy (ECRE), Renewable
12. International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook, Paris: Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power, London: Oxford Energy Scenario, 2040, Gussing, Austria: ECRE, 2004.
IEA, November 2006. Research Group, 2007;7–14. 44. Shell International, Energy Needs, Choices, Possibilities:
13. Makhijani A, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, Takoma Park, MD: 28. Shrader-Frechette KS, Data trimming, nuclear emissions, and Scenarios to 2050, The Hague, Netherlands: Shell Global
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, climate change, Sci Eng Ethics, 2009;15 (1):19–23. Business Environment, 2008.
2007;144:190. 29. Deller N, Makhijani A, Burroughs J, Rule of Power or Rule of 45. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Near-term
14. Kennedy J, Zsiga A, Conheady L, Lund P, Credit Aspects of Law? An Assessment of the US Policies and Actions Regarding Practical and Ultimate Technical Potential for Renewable
North American and European Nuclear Power, New York: Security-Related Treaties, New York: Apex Press, 2003;106–10. Resources, Energy Analysis Office, Golden, Colorado: NREL,
Standard & Poor’s, 2006. 30. Hagen RE, Moens JR, Nikodem ZD, Impact of US Nuclear US DOE, 2006.
15. Johnson RS, Nuclear Energy: Securing Our Energy Future, Generation on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Washington, DC: 46. Shrader-Frechette KS, Nuclear Power and Climate Change, New
Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 2008. Energy Information Administration of the US Department of York: Oxford University Press, 2010; in press.
16. US Department of Energy (DOE), President Bush Requests Energy, 2001.
MODERN ENERGY REVIEW VOLUME 1
61
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84