In its newest Communique, the World Information Service on
Energy (WISE) published the following article.
The U.S. Press: Top Ten Nuclear Lies
The U.S. press has carried lots of comments over the last few
months, talking of a "nuclear renaissance". Amongst the comments,
WISE has noted a considerable number of untruths, many of which have been
repeated time and time again and so are in danger of becoming accepted. Here
WISE presents its "Top Ten Nuclear Lies" together with arguments which
can be used to counter them.
WISE Amsterdam - What is most worrying is that
people who know better, or have advisors who know better are responsible for
many of the incorrect statements. It is understandable that journalists
sometimes make mistakes in describing a subject as technical as nuclear power,
but when a figure such as US Vice President Dick Cheney comes out with
incorrect statements (e.g. that France has a permanent repository for its
nuclear waste) this is something else.
There is a danger that nuclear lies will be repeated, quoted
and re-quoted so many times that they become the truth. To try and prevent
this happening, here is a list of ten common lies and misleading statements
about nuclear power that WISE has noticed, and the truth behind them.
1. "Nuclear
power plants emit no CO2".
Cheney was quite unambiguous about this one: he told CNN on 8 May that nuclear
power "doesnít emit any carbon dioxide at all". This is clearly
nonsense. CO2 is emitted in all phases of the nuclear cycle, particularly in
uranium mining, milling and power plant construction. If the whole fuel cycle
is taken into account, nuclear power emits 4-5 times as much CO2 as renewable
energy sources. Sources: CNN, 8 May 2001; Scotland climate change briefing www.nirs.org/factsheets/KYOTONUC.html
2. "Nuclear
power is cheap." The NEI claim that the "production
costs" for nuclear power are cheaper than for all other major power
sources. However, production costs include only the costs for fuel, operations
and maintenance. The large capital costs involved in nuclear power are not
included. These costs were so high that the nuclear utilities were considered
unable to compete after deregulation, and so were bailed out by consumers for
their "stranded costs". That these same utilities now claim nuclear
power is cheap seems beyond belief. Sources: web site www.nei.org,
WISE News Communique 483/4.4795, "Stranded costs: California is not a
sunny example", web site www.rmi.org
3. "Nuclear
waste is only produced in small quantities." Richard Rhodes,
author of "Nuclear Renewal" and "The Making of the Atomic
Bomb", claimed recently that "nuclear systems produce less than
1,000 metric tons of high- and low-level waste per plant per year". He
clearly forgot to mention the uranium mill tailings, which are also
radioactive and can amount to 100,000 metric tons per nuclear power plant per
year, as can be seen from WISE Uraniumís Nuclear Fuel Balance Calculator.
Sources: International Herald Tribune, 8 May 2001; www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/nfp.html
4. "The
solution for nuclear waste is a single permanent repository".
Cheney said, "The French do this very successfully and safely in an
environmentally sound, sane manner." No country in the world has yet made
a definite decision on a permanent high level waste repository - certainly not
France, where they must first construct at least two laboratories to research
into the possibilities. So far, they have only chosen one of the laboratory
sites, at Bure, where they have dug about 40 meters of the 490-metre main
access shaft as of 30 April 2001. The nuclear waste question remains the
hardest question of all for the nuclear industry. Transporting it to a central
repository creates extra dangers (the transports have been called "Mobile
Chernobyl") while the safety of the repository has yet to be proven.
Sources: CNN, 8 May 2001; web sites www.andra.fr
and
www.nirs.org
5. "Nuclear
energy provides reliable electricity". It seems amazing that
the NEI claims this, given that problems at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre
played an important part in the California energy crisis (see WISE News
Communique 542.5240, "Deregulatory disaster in California" and
543.5244, "California: Another NPP shutdown aggravates energy
crisis"). Nuclear power plants are very complex and contain a lot of
components that can go wrong. When they do go wrong, they are often much
harder to fix than other types of power plant. Sources: web site www.nei.org
6. The
"Pebble Bed" hype. The claims made for a new design of
high-temperature reactor, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), have been so
exaggerated that even the IAEAís International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group
has "expressed some misgivings" about the current direction of
safety review. These claims include the idea that the ceramic coating of the
fuel "pebbles" can take the place of a normal reactor containment
building. This coating consists mostly of graphite, and must be of very high
quality to contain the fuel effectively. Though graphite has a very high
melting point, it can burn in air (graphite burned in the Chernobyl disaster
and the 1957 Windscale fire), so it is important to exclude air from the
reactor. Sources: web site www.pbmr.com; Nucleonics
Week, 10 May 2001
7. "Reactors
don't make bombs". Richard Rhodes, author of "The
Making of the Atomic Bomb", wrote recently "no nation has developed
nuclear weapons using plutonium from spent power reactor fuel". However
it is a fact that the UK and France have made plutonium for weapons use in
nuclear power stations. Sources: International Herald Tribune, 8 May 2001;
Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996: World Inventories, Capabilities
and Policies, D. Albright et al. 1997
8. "Nuclear
power is needed to fill the energy gap". The California energy
crisis is often quoted as proof that nuclear power is needed. However, the
crisis was caused not so much by lack of electricity but by manipulations of
the electricity market. The main contribution of nuclear power stations seems
to be that they failed at just the wrong moment during the crisis (see WISE
News Communique 542.5240, "Deregulatory disaster in California" and
543.5244, "California: Another NPP shutdown aggravates energy
crisis"). What is more, since it takes around ten years to build a
nuclear power station, their role in solving short-term energy problems is
limited. Source: web site www.nei.org
9. "Energy
conservation isnít enough." This claim made by Cheney
concerning the California energy crisis was criticized not just by
environmentalists, but also by Californiaís governor Gray Davis. The Rocky
Mountain Institute, which back in 1988 calculated that every US$100 invested
in energy conservation saves one tonne more CO2 than if it were invested in
nuclear power, has shown that there is still plenty of scope for energy
conservation measures, both in California and elsewhere. Sources: CNN, 8 May
2001; web site www.rmi.org
10. "Use
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers". One of the more crazy
ideas that surfaced recently was to connect three nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers to the grid in order to solve Californiaís energy problems. The
Office of Naval Reactors dismissed this suggestion, pointing out that major
modifications in the shipsí hulls would be needed to redirect their output
to the grid. Besides the safety implications, the 20MW of electricity
generated per ship would make very little difference to Californiaís
projected summer shortfall of hundreds or even thousands of megawatts.
Sources: Nucleonics Week, 3 May 2001
Contact: Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 1424 16th
Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036, USTel: +1 202 328 0002; Fax: +1 202 462
2183; web: www.nirs.org
About WISE and for older contents see: http://www.antenna.nl/wise/ncidx.html
No comments:
Post a Comment