Nuclear power is simply NOT “low carbon”
Greenhouse gases are emitted in all stages of the lifecycle of a nuclear reactor: construction, operation, fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal. Leaving out any of these five stages will bias estimates towards lower values.
The last two contributions, dismantling and waste disposal are particularly difficult to estimate. Not many commercial reactors have been fully decommissioned. Also there is still no scientific or political consensus on the approach to be used for the long-term storage of waste.
The fuel preparation contribution is also problematic. Considerable amounts of carbon are released in the mining, milling and separation of the uranium from the ore. Also the carbon emitted is very dependent on the concentration of uranium in the ore.
It’s important to appreciate that these three problematic contributions, fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal are either non-existent or small contributions in the case of electricity generation by renewable technologies. Estimates of the carbon footprint of renewably generated electricity therefore should be much more reliable than those for nuclear.
But what is the carbon footprint of nuclear power? I have trawled the literature and found that there is no scientific consensus on the lifetime carbon emissions of nuclear electricity.
Remarkably, half of the most rigorous published analyses have a carbon footprint for nuclear power above the limit recommended by the UK government’s official climate change advisor, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
According to the CCC, if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change, by 2030 all electricity should be generated with less than 50 grams of carbon dioxide emitted for each kilowatt-hour (50 gCO2/kWh).
Since all new generators have lifetimes well over 20 years, I believe this limit should be imposed on all new electricity supply systems here and now – and all the more so for those with lifetimes spanning many decades.
Note that thanks to long construction times for the EPR design and a forthcoming legal challenge, it’s entirely possible that the planned Hinkley C reactor will not be completed until 2030 or beyond. It will then be subsidised for the first 35 years of its projected 60 year lifetime – taking us through until 2090.
What is the carbon footprint of renewable electricity? Continue reading
The true carbon footprint of nuclear power – the ‘Third Generation’ reactor at Hinkley Point C?
As we have seen, the EPR’s very high cost suggests considerably higher emissions in the construction stage. So too does the fact that, over its projected 60-year lifetime, it will be using uranium from very low quality ores.
The likely delay due to the Austrian appeal against the European Commission’s decision on the EPR subsidy offers an opportunity for a full, independent and peer reviewed assessment of the environmental impact of this complex and expensive new technology.
“………..Using 0.005% ore, nuclear has higher carbon emissions than gas
Nuclear fuel preparation begins with the mining of uranium containing ores, followed by the crushing of the ore then extraction of the uranium from the powdered ore chemically. All three stages take a lot of energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels. The inescapable fact is that the lower the concentration of uranium in the ore, the higher the fossil fuel energy required to extract uranium.
Table 12 in the Berteen paper confirms the van Leeuwen result that for ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% the carbon footprint of nuclear electricity could be as high as that of electricity generation from natural gas.
This remarkable observation has been further confirmed in a report from the Austrian Institute of Ecology by Andrea Wallner and co-workers. They also point out that using ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% could result in more energy being input to prepare the fuel, build the reactor and so on, than will be generated by the reactor in its lifetime.
According to figures van Leeuwen has compiled from the WISE Uranium Project around 37% of the identified uranium reserves have an ore grade below 0.05%.
A conservative estimate for the future LCA of nuclear power for power stations intended to continue operating into the 2090s and beyond would assume the lowest uranium concentration currently in proven sources, which is 0.005%.
On the basis that the high concentration ores are the easiest to find and exploit, this low concentration is likely to be more typical of yet to be discovered deposits.
Using 0.005% concentration uranium ores, the van Leeuwen, Berteen and Wallner analyses agree a nuclear reactor will have a carbon footprint larger than a natural gas electricity generator. Also, it is unlikely to produce any net electricity over its lifecycle.
What is the carbon footprint of the ‘Third Generation’ reactor at Hinkley Point C? Continue reading
Dismantling nuclear weapons industry could become a political possibility in Britain
It is not just the SNP who oppose the continuation and renewal of Trident. The Green Party of England and Wales also support the abolishment of weapons and are rising steadily in the polls and could play a part in the waking-up of arapidly-rising share of the population’s younger voters to green issues, including the abolishment of these weapons. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has for decades looked to end the madness and recently attracted tens of thousands of protestors to London for their“Wrap-up Trident” demo.
There is a will there amongst many same-minded people and organisations and if given a chance they could help force an unprecedented move; the willing disarmament by a world power of their nuclear arsenal.
Putting Nuclear Abolition on the Table The Nuclear Option for the British Elections, CounterPunch There is a chance that at the end of voting come the 2015 General Election in the United Kingdom, the nation’s nuclear “deterrent” and its renewal may become central to the formation of a coalition government. Imagine it, one of the biggest nuclear powers in the world committing to the dismantling of its nuclear weapons industry. How could this happen? Continue reading
Solar energy leads the pack as Britain’s renewable energy surges ahead
Britain’s Renewable Energy Sector Is Surging — Mostly Thanks To Solar, Business Insider TOMAS HIRST JAN 9 2015 The UK’s renewable energy sector is quietly booming and much of the gains are being driven by a single technology — solar panels…… a report released by the UK government shows that the prospects for the sector are quickly improving.
Firstly, the UK’s embarrassingly low share of renewable energy is showing signs of significant improvement. Renewables’ share of electricity generation increased from 13.6% in 2013 Q3 to 17.8% in 2014 Q3. To put that into context, the figure was below 8% in the first quarter of 2011……..
A big part of the gains in recent years have come from two sources in particular — bio-energy and solar………
the stand-out story of the past few years has been the rise and rise of solar. As the report states:
“Solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity was the largest contributor to the increase on a year earlier, increasing by 1.9 gigawatts [equal to one billion watts], with the majority of this coming from large-scale schemes.”
While those figures are encouraging, there is still a great deal of potential yet to be exploited. An analysis undertaken by the government in 2012 suggested that by 2020 solar panels could potentially produce as much as 20 gigawatts of electricity — an amount that would almost double the total current output from the sector.
Although that represents the maximum potential it nevertheless is indicative of the possibilities that are opening up from developments in solar. In particular, technological advances have made solar panels much more efficient than ever before. This has meant that over the past decade the cost of solar energy has plummeted by over 50%………..http://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-energy-is-driving-a-renewable-energy-sector-boom-in-britain-2015-1
UK claims that Russian bomber carrying nuclear missiles flew across the channel
World War 3: Russian Bomber Intercepted, Tu-95 Carried Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Claims England Inquistr 1 Feb 15 Fears of World War 3 continue to rise, and when the RAF fighters scrambled to have a Russian bomber intercepted over the channel it was uncertain whether or not they actually carried Russia’s nuclear weapons. Now the British Ministry of Defense is claiming that Russian nuclear missiles were indeed on board the Tu-95 “Bear” bomber.
The sight of the two Russian bombers so close to British air space was yet another sign that Cold War 2 was upon us. During the confrontation, Tu-95 bombers and the RAF Typhoons came as close as 1,000 feet away from each other. They were so close that the British pilots could communicate with the Russian bomber with hand signals.
Sources within the British Ministry of Defense claims that one of the two Russian bombers intercepted carried at least one of Russia’s nuclear weapons designed to “seek and find” Trident submarines. Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Defense Secretary Michael Fallon were alerted after cockpit conversations confirmed the Russian bomber’s nuclear payload were intercepted by a Norwegian military listening post.
“We downloaded conversations from the crew of one plane who used a special word which meant the would-be attack was a training exercise,” said a senior RAF source according to Express. “They know that we can pick up their transmissions and it would only be of concern if the often used release weapon order was changed. We also knew from another source that one of the aircraft was carrying a nuclear weapon long before it came anywhere near UK airspace.”
Experts say the belief that the Russian bomber was carrying nuclear weapons is an example that Vladimir Putin is upping his game.
“This continual and increasing probing of NATO airspace by these nuclear bombers and fighter aircraft, tankers and electronic aircraft by Russian is a pattern of increased pressure by Russia designed to remind the West and NATO that they remain a large nuclear power, and a serious military power with reach,” said Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute………
Fortunately, the Russian bomber was not on a mission to start World War 3, and Vladimir Putin would have been required to give a direct order in order to make the warhead live. The other Russian bomber was apparently acting as a “mothership” during the military exercise. http://www.inquisitr.com/1804787/world-war-3-russian-bomber-intercepted-tu-95-carried-russias-nuclear-weapons-claims-england/#PzH5oQQ11saMITcH.99
UK Tax-payers fleeced by the nuclear industry – Sellafield the perfect example
This is an extraordinary and detailed article. I regret that I have here just picked out significant parts and headings (in order to get across the main points) . This is a perfect example of how a government can be captured by vested corporate interests. This process is certainly not new – for Sellafield, for Britain, for the world. The author has carefully researched and detailed the way the government, Parliament, UK
“The use of cost reimbursement contracts for Sellafield Limited and its subcontractors means the financial risks are borne by the taxpayer.”
Sellafield – how the nuclear industry fleeced taxpayers, Ecologist, David
Lowry 19th January 2015 Last week the consortium holding a £22bn contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear site was sacked, writes David Lowry. But this is just the end of a long and scandalous tale of corporate
profit at taxpayers’ expense, and the active collusion of ministers and senior officials in fighting off Parliamentary scrutiny. Continue reading
A most dangerous autopsy – the prost-mortem on radioactively poisoned Alexander Litvinenko
Alexander Litvinenko inquiry: Post-mortem on poisoned former KGB spy ‘one of most dangerous ever’ Radio Australia 29 January 2015, Europe correspondent Barbara Miller, wires
The autopsy on the body of poisoned former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has been described as one of the most dangerous ever undertaken, on day two of an inquiry into his death. Mr Litvinenko died in a London hospital on November 23, 2006, three weeks after drinking tea infused with deadly polonium-210 at a luxury hotel in the city’s Mayfair district.
The London inquiry was told “an inspired hunch” by police led them to bring in atomic scientists, who found Mr Litvinenko tested positive for alpha radiation poisoning two days before he died.
Lead pathologist Nathaniel Cary said without that finding, the cause of death would not have been discovered in a post-mortem.
He added he was unaware of any other case of someone being poisoned with alpha radiation in Britain, and probably the world.
“It has been described as the most dangerous post-mortem examination ever undertaken in the Western world and I think that is probably right,” he told the inquiry.
Those involved had needed to wear two white protective suits with specialised hoods fed with filtered air……….The British government long opposed the public inquiry but agreed last year amid worsening relations with Moscow.
The inquiry is expected to last two months. http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2015-01-29/alexander-litvinenko-inquiry-postmortem-on-poisoned-former-kgb-spy-one-of-most-dangerous-ever/1410551
Yet another delay for UK’s Hinkley nuclear project – no deal till after May election
Hinkley Point nuclear deal faces fresh delay, Ft.com Jim Pickard, Chief Political Correspondent January 28, 2015 The UK’s parliamentary watchdog has abandoned plans to scrutinise the Hinkley Point C nuclear project after predicting that a deal over state support would not be struck before May’s general election ……
The Commons public accounts committee has given up any hope of examining the contract before the election, according to Margaret Hodge, who chairs the group of MPs that scrutinises public spending……..
Tim Yeo, who chairs the energy committee, said any more delays to the scheme would be “extremely worrying” for long term supporters of nuclear power in the UK. “It will be disappointing if it slips to after the election. We do not need yet another element of doubt,” he said……….
In the deal struck with the government, EDF is due to get £92.50 per megawatt hour for 35 years.
But concern is growing over whether this offers good value for money for taxpayers, given the recent slump in oil prices………
Paul Flynn, a Labour MP, recently pressed Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury permanent secretary, during a hearing of the public affairs committee. “You have agreed to a contract, in this time of falling fuel prices . . . to guarantee a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, which is twice the present going rate for electricity,” he said. “Is this sensible planning?”
Sir Nicholas accepted these were “good questions” and said he would report back to the committee.
Radioactive polonium used to kill Litvinenko also endangered many others
Litvinenko: Images Of Radiation Trail Revealed, Sky News, 27 Jan 15 Newly released evidence shows the radiation trail left across London by the men suspected of poisoning the ex-Russian spy. (PHOTOS) Images released as part of the public inquiry into the death of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in London have laid bare the high levels of radiation found in the hotel rooms of his suspected killers.
They also reveal “very high” radiation in the locations where they met Mr Litvinenko, including on the teapot which was allegedly used to poison him in London’s Millennium Hotel……….
The images, compiled by the Metropolitan Police, were made public on the opening day of the hearing by counsel to the inquiry Robin Tam QC.
He told the inquiry Mr Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium “not once but twice”.……… “Scientific evidence will show very high levels of alpha radiation in all three parts of his accommodation, and especially in the bathroom,” Mr Tam said. He told the hearing the traces of radiation found in “large numbers of places across London” had put “many thousands” at risk.
The inquiry heard that Mr Litvinenko explicitly implicated Russian President Vladimir Putin in his killing in the days leading up to his death.
In an impassioned opening statement, Ben Emmerson QC, representing the Litvinenko family, said Mr Putin’s connection to the killing would be unveiled.
“When all of the open and closed evidence is considered together, Mr Litvinenko’s dying declaration will be borne as true, that the trail of polonium traces lead not just from London to Moscow but directly to the door of Vladimir Putin and Mr Putin should be unmasked by this inquiry as a common criminal dressed up as a head of state,” he said.
“Mr Litvinenko had to be eliminated not because he was an enemy of the Russian state itself and certainly not because he was an enemy of the Russian people but because he had made an enemy of the close knit group of criminals who surrounded and still surround Vladimir Putin and keep his corrupt regime in power.”http://news.sky.com/story/1416159/litvinenko-images-of-radiation-trail-revealed
Legal case on the radioactive murder of Alexander Litvinenko – claim of nuclear terrorism
Poisoning of ex-KGB spy ‘nuclear terrorism,’ U.K. inquiry told The Star.com 27 Jan 15 Evidence suggested Litvinenko had ingested the highly radioactive isotope polonium-210 in mid-October 2006 and again two weeks later. By: Jill Lawless Associated Press, Published on Tue Jan 27 2015
LONDON — Former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium not once but twice, a British judge was told Tuesday, as an inquiry opened into the slaying one lawyer called an act of nuclear terrorism ordered by Moscow.
Ben Emmerson, attorney for Litvinenko’s widow, said the KGB spy turned Kremlin critic was the victim of an “assassination by agents of the Russian state.”
He said the 2006 killing “was an act of nuclear terrorism on the streets of a major city which put the lives of numerous other members of the public at risk.” Litvinenko, who had become a Britain-based critic of the Kremlin, fell violently ill on Nov. 1, 2006 after drinking tea with two Russian men at a London hotel. He died three weeks later, aged 43, of “acute radiation syndrome.”
Litvinenko’s extraordinary killing — and his deathbed statement that he was poisoned on orders from President Vladimir Putin — soured Russian-British relations for years. Judge Robert Owen, who is overseeing the inquiry, said the issues raised by the death “are of the utmost gravity.”
No one has ever stood trial for Litvinenko’s killing. Britain and the dead man’s family have accused Russia of involvement. Moscow denies the claim, and has refused to extradite the two men identified by Britain as the prime suspects………http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/01/27/former-russian-spy-alexander-litvinenko-poisoned-twice-inquiry-told.html
Britain’s government broke promise not to build nuclear reactors until a waste solution found
Ill-founded hope The belief was always that science would find some way of neutralising the dangerous radioactivity, and then it could be buried as simply as any other rubbish. This hope has proved to be ill-founded.
The British government promised four years ago it would not build any more nuclear power stations until it had found a solution to this 50-year-old problem. But it has abandoned the promise
Still No Solution to Storage of High-Level Radioactive Nuclear Waste http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/25/no-solution-radioactive-nuclear-waste/ Paul Brown, Climate News Network | January 25, 2015 A private consortium formed to deal with Europe’s most difficult nuclear waste at a site in Britain’s beautiful Lake District has been sacked by the British government because not sufficient progress has been made in making it safe.
It is the latest setback for an industry that claims nuclear power is the low-carbon answer toclimate change, but has not yet found a safe resting place for radioactive rubbish it creates when nuclear fuel and machinery reaches the end of its life.
Dealing with the waste stored at this one site at Sellafield—the largest of a dozen nuclear sites in Britain—already costs the UK taxpayer £2 billion a year, and it is expected to be at least as much as this every year for half a century.
Hundreds of people are employed to prevent the radioactivity leaking or overheating to cause a nuclear disaster, and the cost of dealing with the waste at this site alone has already risen to £70 billion.
Dangerous to humans
This extraordinary legacy of dangerous radioactive waste is present in every country that has adopted nuclear power as a form of electricity production, as well as those with nuclear weapons. No country has yet solved the problem of how to deal with waste that remains dangerous to humans for thousands of years. Continue reading
UK’s toxic waste of money in attempting to clean up Sellafield’s toxic nuclear waste
Nuclear clean-up has been a toxic waste of public money MARK LEFTLY 
The Independent 23 JANUARY 2015 WESTMINSTER OUTLOOK A HAPLESS CONSORTIUM LED BY URS (NOW PART OF US RIVAL AECOM) WAS FINALLY AXED FROM LEADING THE CLEAN-UP OF CUMBRIA’S SELLAFIELD LAST WEEK.
Over-budget and behind schedule on numerous projects on what is, admittedly, one of the most hazardous nuclear detoxifications in history, this consortium had been remarkably fortunate to see its contract renewed in 2013. After it had regained its contract, Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) even apologised to MPs for its dismal performance…..
At a price tag of nearly £80bn, the Sellafield deal is one of the most significant commercialisations of what, historically, would have been public sector work. Davey, who I think has otherwise emerged from Coalition as a quietly formidable secretary of state, must ask himself why he did not block the contract extension in 2013.
It was a poor call from a minister who has otherwise earned the compliment of being a safe pair of hands. While he should be congratulated for finally getting this right, the GMB is equally correct that NMP should not stay in place any longer.
Time, on this project in particular, is money – and we cannot allow taxpayer funds to be mishandled for another 15 months. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/mark-leftly-nuclear-cleanup-has-been-a-toxic-waste-of-public-money-9997054.html
British tax-payers to buy into the French-led new Hinkley Pointnuclear power plant consortium
Britain to take nuclear plant share for national security, Economic Times, By AFP | 23 Jan, 2015,LONDON: Britain will have a “special share” in the French-led new Hinkley Pointnuclear power plant consortium to safeguard national security, British energy officials told a parliamentary hearing this week.
The Chinese firms, CGN and CNNC, are expected to get a stake of between 30 and 40 percent. ……..
The Hinkley Point contract is worth £16 billion. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/britain-to-take-nuclear-plant-share-for-national-security/articleshow/45996556.cms
In Scotland, renewable energy beats nuclear power
Renewable energy in Scotland exceeds nuclear, PennEnergy January 19, 2015 Source: Vattenfall In the first months of 2014 renewable energy in Scotland exceeded nuclear and became the top source of electricity.
The same period saw wind output rise by 20 percent, while hydro generation climbed by 50 percent………..
Although onshore wind and hydro power are indisputable leaders in Scotland’s renewable energy mix, there is significant growth potential in offshore wind, tidal and solar power.In October 2014, the Scottish Government gave the green light for 500 wind turbines spread across four offshore wind farms in the Forth and Tay region. http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2015/01/renewable-energy-in-scotland-exceeds-nuclear.html
£3bn to be spent on massive Trident nuclear weapons project, without UK Parliament being consulted
Trident future back on election agenda as costs spiral MPs condemn expenditure on Trident nuclear submarine successor before parliament has approved a replacement. Guardian Jamie Doward and Chris Sloggett, 18 Jan 15 The future of Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet is set to become a major election issue this week amid concern that billions of pounds is being spent on a successor before parliament has approved an upgrade.MPs will not vote on Trident’s replacement, the largest UK submarine project in a generation, until 2016. But a Ministry of Defence report, slipped out over Christmas, reveals that spending on the project’s “assessment phase” is to increase by a further £261m this year. Of this money, which will be drawn down from the project’s future budget, £206m will be spent on new facilities at the BAE Systems shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness.
On Tuesday the SNP and Plaid Cymru will force a debate on the Trident upgrade, which is expected to cost £20bn in total.
Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, said: “When Labour MPs have voted with the Tories for another £30bn of austerity cuts, it is frankly scandalous that a further quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money is to be spent on Trident before parliamentarians even get a vote on whether or not to replace the system.
“In no other democracy, at a time of deep austerity and cuts, would over £3bn be spent on committing to such a massive project without consulting parliamentarians. Robbing the future budget of Trident only suggests they have already underestimated the eye-watering final cost.”
The MoD report, The UK’s future nuclear deterrent: 2014 update to Parliament, reveals that more than half a billion pounds – some £1.4m a day – was spent on the project in the last financial year alone……. report reveals that the total cost of the project’s assessment phase, at the end of which a decision on whether to proceed with Trident’s successor will be taken, will rise to £3.3bn, nearly £300m more than the MoD originally indicated.
The revelation has prompted fury from pro-disarmament parties, which could play a crucial role in any future coalition government……http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/17/trident-future-election-agenda-costs-spiral-nuclear-submarines
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (58)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
