nuclear-news

Nuclear energy’s large carbon footprint, despite the pro nuke spin in India and USA

As the Paris conference comes closer, the US too has rallied behind the nuclear lobby. The move is driven by the interests of the country’s nuclear vendors as well as the larger agenda to scuttle any meaningful dialogue on climate change

Modi’s nuclear deal with Britain is hollow, but quite toxic, catch news,   KUMAR SUNDARAM, 15 Nov 15 “……….. The nuclear lobby has been campaigning in recent years to re-fashion the industry as green and renewable – to ensure subsidies and state support as well as positive popular perception.

In the run-up to the Conference of Parties of the UN Framework on Climate Change in Paris next month, the nuclear lobby,such as EDF of France, is trying to sell nuclear power as climate-friendly energy. Under the expiring Kyoto Protocol, nuclear power is excluded from the list of green energy sources and rightly so.

Nuclear power leaves a huge carbon footprint – from carbon-intensive mining and refining of uranium ore to transport and fuel fabrication to manufacturing of high-density concrete and steel for nuclear reactors. And this is without even accounting for the continuous supply of cooling water and long-term handling of nuclear waste.

An assessment of greenhouse gases released from generating nuclear power, done by eminent energy and climate expert Benjamin K Sovacool, pegs the average carbon footprint at 66g CO2/kWh. This is above the limit set by the Committee on Climate Change.

Cheerleaders of nuclear energy, of course, conveniently ignore all this.

Nuclear energy being a solution to climate change is another myth. Those serious about tackling climate change know it’s a grave threat and requires immediate action. The time horizon for a real and meaningful response to change – stabilising global surface temperature at under 2 degrees above the pre-industrial average – can’t be stretched father than 2050.

Most assessments testify to this. A study by the MIT has shown that for nuclear energy to be a solution in this scenario, it would take no less than 1,000 nuclear power plants, each with a capacity of 1,000-1,500MW.

This is an impossible goal for two reasons. The nuclear industry is in terminal decline globally. And the much-touted “nuclear renaissance” is restricted to developing countries, where expansion would be much slower due to economic, social and technological reasons.

Also, nuclear reactors typically take 12-15 years to build, making investing in renewable energy much more attractive.

Dirty politics

As the Paris conference comes closer, the US too has rallied behind the nuclear lobby. The move is driven by the interests of the country’s nuclear vendors as well as the larger agenda to scuttle any meaningful dialogue on climate change.http://www.catchnews.com/environment-news/modi-s-nuclear-deal-with-britain-is-hollow-but-quite-toxic-1447527999.html

November 16, 2015 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general