nuclear debate
7 Dec 2009
Get Ready For These Nuclear Fallacies
Tony Abbott wants us to look again at nuclear power, but if we do start talking about that old chestnut we'd better get our facts straight, writes Mark Diesendorf
With the election of Tony Abbott as Opposition leader, a renewed burst of pro-nuclear propaganda is being spread by some of his colleagues, building on the existing campaign by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and other vested interests. Many fallacies and lies are being disseminated to the media and the public. Here are refutations of the most common ones.
Fallacy number 1: "19 per cent of global electricity comes from nuclear power."
Refutation: Actually, the percentage contribution has been declining steadily through the 2000s to the extent that it reached 14 per cent in 2008. The decline is mainly the result of global electricity demand growing faster than global nuclear power capacity. At the time of writing (December 2009) there are only two new nuclear power stations under construction in Western countries, despite enormous subsidies.
Fallacy number 2: "Peak oil means that we need nuclear power as a substitute."
Refutation: Oil is mostly burnt for transport, not electricity. Globally the main fuels for electricity generation are coal and gas in that order. Until there are lots of electric cars, nuclear power is irrelevant as a solution for peak oil.
Fallacy number 3: "Nuclear power can help eradicate poverty in the Third World."
Refutation: In most less developed countries, there are two populations: the middle- and upper-class elite who live in cities, and the majority of low-income earners who live in villages. Many of the latter are not connected to the grid, so nuclear power is irrelevant to them. Even where villages are grid-connected, most villagers cannot afford electrical appliances. The principal energy needs of most villagers are lighting and fuel for cooking. Tiny solar electric systems are often the best means of lighting and biogas from dung can be used for cooking.
Fallacy number 4: "Many environmentalists have become pro-nuclear."
Refutation: Apart from Patrick Moore (ex-Greenpeace) and James Lovelock (who is an environmental scientist but not really an environmentalist), it’s hard, if not impossible, to name three prominent environmentalists who are pro-nuclear.
Fallacy number 5: "Nuclear power produces a tiny fraction of the waste of coal power."
Refutation: Without wishing to defend coal, we can point out that that’s a misleading comparison. The fallacy is comparing the amount of high-level nuclear waste with all the amount of all the waste from coal mining. A fairer comparison would be to compare all the waste from both technologies. We must count the huge mountains of low-level waste from uranium mining (100 million tonnes uncovered at Roxby Downs alone). Then, if we compare nuclear power based on the mining of low-grade uranium ore with brown coal, we find that the amounts of waste are comparable in magnitude.
Fallacy number 6: "We have solved the problem of managing high-level nuclear wastes for the long-term."
Refutation: Possibly in engineering theory, but not in practice. There is no long-term high-level nuclear waste dump operating in the world. President Obama has terminated work on the Yucca Mountain dump in Nevada. Only Finland and Sweden are building underground dumps. No-one knows how to create social institutions to keep the waste safe for 100,000 years or more.
Fallacy number 7: "You must choose between coal or nuclear."
Refutation: No, the real choice is between dirty and dangerous technologies (coal and nuclear) on one hand and clean technologies (energy efficiency and renewable energy) on the other. It’s interesting that the biggest corporations pushing this fallacy — BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto — are mining both coal and uranium. With their false choice, they would win either way.
Fallacy number 8: "It’s impossible to use reactor-grade plutonium (extracted by reprocessing the spent fuel from a nuclear power station) to make nuclear weapons. Only weapons-grade plutonium (extracted from military plutonium production reactors) is suitable."
Refutation: Although nuclear weapons based on reactor-grade plutonium are less "efficient" and the amount of damage caused by them is less predictable, bombs can certainly be made (and indeed have been made) from reactor-grade plutonium. This has been confirmed by many experts, including leading US nuclear bomb designer Dr Theodore Taylor, Dr Victor Gilinsky from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the US Department of Energy.
Number 8(a): A variant of the fallacy above runs: "Countries which have developed nuclear weapons have used military facilities, not civil."
Refutation: Actually, India, Pakistan, North Korea and (soon) Iran have used the civil nuclear fuel cycle and/or research reactors to develop their nuclear bombs. There is also evidence that the UK and France used nuclear power generation to add to their stocks of plutonium. In addition, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Libya, South Africa and Taiwan used nuclear power and/or research reactors to go part of the way to nuclear weapons (South Africa tested a bomb), but fortunately dismantled their facilities subsequently.
Fallacy number 9: "If Australia had nuclear power, we would be responsible and would never develop nuclear weapons."
Refutation: Actually a previous Australian government commenced building a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay, NSW, with the joint purposes of generating electricity and producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. Fortunately, a change of prime minister resulted in the project being cancelled after the foundations had been dug. The sad truth is that no government can be trusted to resist the temptation to enhance its political and military power on the global scene by using nuclear power to become nuclear weapons ready.
Fallacy number 10: "The capital costs of nuclear power stations are only 20–50 per cent higher than those of equivalent coal power stations. The operating costs, including fuel, are less than coal’s."
Refutation: The only cases where we can obtain reliable data on the actual costs of nuclear power are in the UK, post restructuring of the electricity industry, in the USA, and from the two French reactors under construction in Finland and France. Within this limited data set, almost no nuclear power station has been built within budget.
The last station to be built in the UK, Sizewell B, ended up with a capital cost of £2500 per kW (or AUD$6250 per kW — both figures in 2005 currencies). The 1600-megawatt station that began construction at Olkiluoto, Finland, in 2005 is three years behind schedule and at least 1.7 billion euros (AUD$2.8 billion) over budget. So far the total capital cost, including the export incentive from France, has risen to 5.5 billion euros, meaning a cost of about $5500 per kW in 2009 Australian dollars. If all its finance had been raised in a competitive market, its capital cost, including interest during construction, would be much greater. The equivalent capital cost for a new dirty coal-fired power station in Australia would be about $2000 per kW, which means the capital cost of nuclear is at least 150 per cent higher than coal, even with substantial government support.
Meanwhile, the operating costs, including fuel, for a nuclear power station in Australia would be similar in magnitude to those of a coal-fired plant.
Fallacy number 11: "Nuclear power has no CO2 emissions."
Refutation: Every step in the long and complex nuclear fuel life-cycle, except reactor operation, burns fossil fuels and hence emits CO2. However, total CO2 emissions are at present quite small, indeed comparable with those of building some renewable energy systems. At present, nuclear power uses high-grade uranium ore and the emissions from mining and milling are quite small.
But reserves of high-grade ore are limited and could be used up within several decades at current usage rates. Once low-grade uranium ore has to be mined and milled, CO2 emissions will skyrocket. Then total CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle could get up to around 25–50 per cent of the emissions of an equivalent combined-cycle gas-fired power station, depending upon which study you believe. Therefore, based on existing technology (that is, no breeder reactors), nuclear power is not a long-term solution to global warming.
Fallacy number 12: "Nuclear power stations can be built in 3–4 years."
Refutation: Name some! The fallacy is only a statement of theory. In practice, most nuclear power stations take eight to 10 years from planning to first operation. In Australia, which doesn’t have suitable infrastructure, the first nuclear power station would take about 15 years. Once again, nuclear power is not a short-term solution to global warming.
Fallacy number 13: "The integral fast reactor has several advantages over existing nuclear reactors, specifically a smaller waste problem and less risk of proliferation."
Refutation: Possibly in theory, but this kind of reactor doesn’t exist in practice — it is not even at the demonstration stage. The task of bringing it to commercial reality would be an enormous, expensive challenge, since the concept comprises two principal features that have so far failed commercially: fast breeder reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel. An Australian government would be crazy to become involved until the technology is commercially available and several reactors have been built to budget overseas.
More detailed documented refutations of some of the above nuclear fallacies can be found in chapter 12 of my book Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy.
However, these are just some of the fallacies uttered by proponents of nuclear power. There is also a whole branch devoted to putting down renewable energy. They include such fallacies as: "Renewable energy is intermittent and cannot supply base-load power", "Renewable energy has huge land requirements," and the classic: "Switching to renewable energy would cost jobs."
For detailed rebuttals of those misconceptions, see my recent book Climate Action: A campaign manual for greenhouse solutions.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Don’t forget that many of the proponents of nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions are those who vehemently deny that such emissions are a problem anyway.
A mining solution for a problem caused by mining - anyone detect a whiff of self-interest?
Interesting that many of the most vocal climate change deniers are geologists given the obvious synergy between the mining industry and the geological profession.
The nuclear power enthusiasts who are cynically using climate change (which they think is “crap”) to overcome rational public resistance to nuclear power always pretend that the technical problems inside the power stations have been overcome. But the other problems have not - “Forget about the whizz-bang you-beaut technology with atomic reactions sizzling away quietly and contentedly in stainless steel pots, watched over by technicians so that they never boil. May all be true, may not be, but beside the point either way. The reactors are not out in space somewhere, like the sun, safely away from the world; or isolated like an alchemist in a sealed up basement. They have to interact with the world around them. And that interaction is where the danger comes.”(http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/134821/Immutable_natural_laws.html).
Bottom line is, these guys believe that they can make even more money out of nuclear than out of coal, whereas they know that solar, wind, geothermal sources are going to produce energy to cheap to monitor.
Not to mention the massive subsidies and protection from litigation they need.
Intertestingly, New Scientist of 28th November reports concerns that global uranium supplies may not meet demand. Why not spend the money on more sustainable technologies that are much less toxic?
All the usual fallacies adopted by the anti-nuclear lobby are in this article and the comments.It is sad that well meaning people can be so blind to one of the solutions to fossil fuel polution.It is partly out of ignorance and partly out of an ideological mindset.
We already have enough problems with the Growth At Any Cost Crowd and the deniers without you people running interference.
And,Dr David Horton,there will never,ever be energy produced which is too cheap to monitor.What planet are you on?
Ah Thirra, it was what was always claimed by the nuclear lobby - once upon a time.
I agree with most of what was said here but I would like more information on the potential of the Integral Fast Reactor. All I can find out is that research funds were stopped by Bill Clinton and the only people who are singing its praises are the ones who got their funds cut.
If it were possible, as claimed by its proponents, to use all levels of radioactive material until what is left has a very short half life, then it may be worth the extra cost to get rid of current radioactive waste. If it is not viable due to current levels of engineering then it may be worth continuing research to improve the model. All that liquid sodium sounds like they would have to have a zero accident rate.
I heard on a radio programme some time ago (Radio 4, BBC where Johnathon Porrit was one of the guest speakers) that various renewable sources of energy could feasibly fulfill ALL human energy needs - and in about 30-40 years time.
Does anyone have any good, reputable information sources on this issue? If so, please post!! Much obliged…
Fission’s a plague-ridden dead body you have to find somewhere to bury - like coal waste - but it’s clean cousin fusion is still 50 years away without intense R&D.
Until then we must invest in Australia’s wealth of gas, sun and hot spots.
Excellent article.
To me, a major and so far insoluble problem with Nuclear Energy is, as with coal, a safe (for many hundreds of thousands of years), inexpensive and available CLOSE to ALL Reactors, storage facility. Where any dangerous item is conveyed over any distance by any means it becomes extremely dangerous to all life on Earth. Accidents (and interferences) do happen. Carbon Capture and Storage (for Coal burning generators) is a very expensive, and quite possibly very dangerous SCAM perpetrated on the Public by Self-Interested parties, including our PM and the US Pres. Safe and VERY long term storage of radioactive waste, in increasing quantities, is just NOT available, and probably never will be. Which means, what the Hell do our presumed inheritors do with all this SHIT! AND HAS ANYONE ASKED THEM IF THEY WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY??! NO, OF COURSE, NOT!
Always, immediate profits for Corporations and their Friends is absolutely PARAMOUNT!
One point. “…..and (soon) Iran have used the civil nuclear fuel cycle and/or research reactors to develop their nuclear bombs”.
Really? Is this not just falling for the israeli/US puppet Admin. propaganda? To my reading, Iran’s Nuclear Bomb is still many years away, IF AT ALL. Even US Intelligence says this. Iran seems to be playing a dangerous ‘game’ with the israelis and Yanks, for their own purposes, possibly hopefully protective in some way, with their new proposals to build many Nuclear Fuel processing facilities (for peaceful purposes, of course!). All informed people must know that this is all bulls**t.
Please do not fall for israeli/US propaganda, disinformation, dehumanization, creation of Bogey Men (countries), all at the behest of the israeli Occupying Colonial Power in Palestine. It is not at all helpful.
And it may lead sooner or later, to Nuclear Destruction in the Middle East, when ISRAEL launches Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction onto a fairly defenceless Iran, with the full blessings of the USA and Australia and Britain.
The people involved all seem to me to be bloody insane!
As are the proponents of Nuclear in Australia!
As are the boosters (incl. Martin Ferguson, and Krudd’s Labor) in Australia of exports to almost anywhere and anyone of our Yellow Cake, just for very dirty profits for mainly US/British owned Corporations and their Friends.
Worse than Hard Drug Peddling to Minors in my book!
Thank you for this article Mark.
The vast majority of nuclear-support out there in cyberspace uses these fallacies to support their position, and easily-understood reasoning against this is a valuable tool for those taking part in the debate against the nuclear option.
@ Thirra (7/12 5:12pm):
If it is your opinion that these rebuttals are themselves fallacies - I would humbly ask that you address them for the benefit of others.
We do NOT need any more people saying “you are wrong” if they are not prepared to say “why you are wrong”.
The author of this article HAS stated why he thinks these positions are wrong, and I am prepared to read your counter-counter-arguments. My opinion may even be changed if the case is, to my mind, strong enough.
Give it a go, “Us” and “Them” are not always useful constructs for those actually seeking the best way forwards.
Whilst I basically agree with Mark’s analysis, numbers of environmentally minded scientists and commentators are turning to nuclear power - albeit as a regrettable option. These include George Monbiot and Tim Flannery. And you could include South Australia’s Barry Brook.
If we believe the scientists who tell us we have a serious problem with climate, then we may also have to believe the same scientists who tell us we have to put up nuclear power as a possible ‘solution’.
The problem with media is that they will lump gung-ho nuclear devotees in the very same camp as those who see it as a necessary risk minimisation option, accepting the immense risks to society that go with climate change.
My own longstanding opposition to nuclear power has been tempered by the environmental movement’s obsession with supply-side energy solutions, a strategy which was always going to backfire.
If the energy debate is primarily geared around supply side (with energy efficiency always as a sub clause in that debate), then I think we have no choice but to go down the nuclear pathway, for all its attendant risks. I say that with a very heavy heart.
So long as we see the erection of wind turbines as a prime energy solution whilst glibly turning a blind eye to the fact that it is perfectly legal to sell (and buy) 300 square metre homes, 300 horse power motor cars, wall-sized plasma TVs that gobble up more energy than a refrigerator, patio heaters that futilely heat up the outdoors….. then we invite all manner of questionable energy choices, including the nuclear option.
Our blind spot is our downfall. By declaring ‘supply side’ as the prime energy solution, again and again, we have created a rod for our backs. Not until we question our society’s psychotic obsession with supply can we develop a sane energy pathway.
Great article.
My questions in regards to renewable energy: 2/3rds of Australia is desert. How much empty space is in that desert? How much sun shines on that desert? How feasable would it be to use that space and that sun to give us a buttload of solar power?
I did an hour or so of googling and found these installation costs (all converted to AUS$):
Nuclear: $3000 to $6000/kW
Solar Thermal: $1,000 to $2,000/kW
Wind: about $2,000/kW
Coal: $750 to $1,000
So nuclear tops out the list on price by a long shot. I imagine it would be close to the top on operating costs too.
I haven’t found any data on this, but it seems likely that wind and solar thermal would have very low operating costs.
Decomissioning costs are another thing altogether: for old nuclear sites in England they have been absolutely amazing.
I love the way you get off to such an unbiased start - but if we do start talking about that old chestnut. Come on, how about telling us where you really stand!
Mark has challenged us to name three “prominent environmentalists” who are pro nuclear.
I can name three: Professor Barry Brook, George Monbiot and Tim Flannery. The latter two, however are very reluctant supporters.
However I do not think nuclear is needed as part of the solution for Australia. Other energy sources are less risky (eg disposal of waste), less of a threat to terrorism and less expensive. And unlike Barry Brook who is pushing integrated fast reactors (IFRs) I would not like a reactor in my backyard (or the waste from a reactor which is unsafe for 300 years). Where would the enriched uranium be processed? How would it be transported to Australia? Where would the waste be stored? Who would indemnify the operators against accidents?
Wind and solar power generated in remote sites (eg our deserts) and transmitted on high voltage DC grids will provide for all our future energy needs. We need to start the rapid transition to these technologies which (unlike Carbon Capture and Storage and nuclear IFR) are available now. Neither of these technologies (CCS and IFR) could be built and commissioned in large scale within the necessary 2020 timeframe.
This “nuclear debate” only diverts our efforts away from real solutions for a sustainable future.
David Booth
Bywong NSW
Mark Diesendorf has written about those “Nuclear Falacies”. He mentions the supposed pro-nuclear propaganda, but his two references are to an article which incidentally mentions Nuclear Power, and a mistake that ANSTO publically admitted to.
But, two can play the game of “falacy”. Sure, I guess Mark has his arguments to make, which may be valid in their own way. But, here’s my article on “Anti - Nuclear Falacies”, which I wrote and was published in the Economic Reform Association Newsletter. I should point out the ERA identifies itself as a “progressive” group, but has had members (like myself) speak in favour of nuclear power. Anyway, here it is :
http://arachnid.apana.org.au/johna/nuclear.html
John August
Darlinghurst, NSW
GraemeF: In theory the integral fast reactor could “burn up” most of the long-lived high-level radioactive wastes, but not the fission products which have half-lives of about 30 years and so remain dangerous for 300–500 years, and not the low-level wastes which could be blowing in the wind for more than 100,000 years. Those who control integral fast reactors could (with difficulty) modify operations to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
MaryO: On the potential for renewable energy to fulfil US energy demands, see Jacobson’s article in a recent issue of Scientific American.More detail about technologies in my book “Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy”.
Dazza: As a former physicist, I have to say that its not very difficult to make a nuclear bomb, given either highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Iran now has the capacity to enrich uranium up to bomb grade. That’s not Israeli propaganda, but the view of scientific experts.
Chrisharries and Bywongbooth: Tim Flannery is opposed to nuclear power for Australia, although he accepts it for overseas countries. Barry Brook is a climate scientist — I’m unsure if he’s an environmentalist. Neither scientist has expertise in energy technologies. I agree with Chris that energy efficiency and renewable energy must be equal partners in a sustainable energy future.
Eurochild: Australia has enormous renewable energy potential, especially solar, far more than it needs.
Petrofletch: It is not correct to compare capital costs of different energy technologies, because they have different annual energy outputs per kW. For example, 2600 megawatts of wind power may generate the same amount of electricity each year as 1000 megawatts of coal or nuclear power. After taking this into account and also fuel, operation and maintenance costs, nuclear power is still more expensive than wind power.
Thanks John August for your article on anti-nuclear fallacies, which I’ve just read quickly. I agree that some anti-nuclear people utter these fallacies. However, I don’t think my article has any of them and neither would statements from the leading anti-nuclear spokespeople from ACF or Friends of the Earth. So, many of your ‘anti-nuclear fallacies’ are actually straw persons. On the other hand, the pro-nuclear fallacies that are refuted in my article were mostly taken from recent statements and slideshows by leading pro-nuclear spokespeople from ANSTO, who should know better.
For example, on 27-11-2009, Dr Ron Cameron presented an official ANSTO slideshow containing several of the pro-nuclear fallacies discussed in my article together with several fallacies and errors about renewable energy, for instance that global wind power capacity is 40 gigawatts. (At the end of 2008 it was actually 121 GW and increasing at 25% per year.)
Consider your first ‘anti-nuclear fallacy’, that “There’s only 60 years of uranium left”. This fallacy is sometimes stated by both pro-nuclear campaigners (who usually claim 80 years left) and anti-nuclear people (who claim 20–40 years left). Both are incorrect, UNLESS they specify the uranium ore-grade or the price. There are vast quantities of uranium on the planet, but most of the remaining uranium is low-grade (ie, U3O8 concentration less than 0.01%). Mining and milling low-grade ore generates a lot of CO2. With this in mind, my statement on this topic was: “But reserves of high-grade ore are limited and could be used up within several decades at current usage rates.” Taking into account the qualification ‘high-grade’ and that ‘reserves’ do not count undiscovered resources, my statement is correct.
Mary O and chrisharries -
There are many ways to use energy much more efficiently than we do. In other words we’re extremely wasteful. This presents us with the quickest and cheapest way to cut emissions. It could start tomorrow, and many improvements would save both money and emissions. McKinsey Australia estimates we can cut emissions 20% by 2020 for zero net cost to the economy. See my recent post
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-eco…
and my earlier piece
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/energy-efficiency/
The only reason we’re not doing this is because it would cut profits and jobs in SOME sectors of the economy, and the gutless pollies won’t touch it. Jobs and profits would be created in other sectors, probably more than would be lost. Of course both sides of politics have cut jobs and profits in major sectors of the economy over the past thirty years in the name of ideology, but that’s different.
One other point about nuclear power - it is physically impossible to demonstrate a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, except by waiting 100,000 years or so. The Earth’s crust is an awful mess, so the chances of the waste staying safe are difficult to estimate.
Mark, I respect your expertise on most matters. I agree with most of what you write and speak. But,
“Dazza: As a former physicist, I have to say that its not very difficult to make a nuclear bomb, given either highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Iran now has the capacity to enrich uranium up to bomb grade. That’s not Israeli propaganda, but the view of scientific experts.”
I do not think that anyone disagrees that Iran has the CAPACITY to produce a bomb or two (and maybe send it to where it wants to, within limits) but the Nuclear Watchdog and the US Security Intelligence say that it has NOT yet been done, and just maybe there is no actual intent to do so.
They say the have no such intent. The Western World is full of hypocrites of great magnitude. How about some questioning of the israeli Nuclear arsenal? It exists, Mordecai Vanunu (is he still under total israeli illegal shut-down?) assures us of this.
I do not, and I doubt that anyone else does either, know what dangerous game Ahmadinejad is actually playing on the world stage, but HE knows that israel and possibly the USA, at the bidding of the ‘dog ‘s tail’, really do want to wipe out Iran, and are quite capable of doing so at any time, if they want to ignore the ‘blowback’. israel seems quite capable of ignoring all intelligence and common sense, even the weak protestations of Obama, and acting unilaterally at any time, which would be utterly disastrous for the world.
Iran and Ahmadinejad are demonised by the Yanks and the isreali lobbies constantly and intensely, called lots of very bad names, like ‘insane’, but I think that, as bad as he may be, and he (and others) certainly do nasty things to his own people, but can any one really assure me that the Far-Right-wing fundamentalist religious nutters that now totally control israel have half a brain between them? I think NOT!
THEY are the greatest danger in the Middle East. Have been for 60 odd years. Most of the US problems in the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Irag, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan can be laid directly at the feet of the religious nutters in occupied Palestine.
The Administrations, the Media in the rest of the world (but particularly in the USA), are totally incapable of recognising and admitting this fact, it seems. Or maybe they are just too scared to do so.
It really confuses me that instead of following an approach that is simple, effective and … well … cheaper they decide to spend a massive amount of time and money to wank around with bollocks.
I don’t think any government is really taking global warming seriously, all they seem to be doing is saying “hey look at me! Look at me! I’m doing something!” and all they’re actually doing is jumping up and down on the spot throwing wads of cash through the air.
This whole nuclear reactor stuff is something like the de-salination plant we’re going to have in SA. It’s a pointless and expensive gesture to support the governments “pretence” of action.
We already have a great system of recycling storm water in place with our wet lands and about 60% of that water is wasted. Shouldn’t we think to reduce that 60% slipping through the cracks before we start wasting our money on desperate plight for attention?
Apparently not, and I’m anti-environmental for even suggesting it. Execute me now Prime Minister TinTin and Premier Runn.
Nuclear nonsense from Dr Mark Diesendorf of UNSW. He doesn’t seem to realise that all of his fallacies are truths and his truths are fallacies.
He makes an interesting comment about the BraveNewClimate owner:
Excuse me, but isn’t that a classic ad hominem?
Here is the definition, for clarification:
“A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute…. an attack on the person rather than on the opponent’s ideas”
For a real environmentalist’s view on nuclear power as a sustainable energy source, visit: http://bravenewclimate.com and click on the tab “Sustainable Nuclear”
Always been puzzled by the slavish following of nuclear power by a certain kind of person. They sometimes talk about it merely being “in the mix” as if this is just a harmless little addition that no one except a green fanatic could possibly object to. But they really mean that it should be the only answer to whatever problem environmentalists might claim to perceive.
The psychology I addressed elsewhere as follows “nuclear energy is, like coal power stations, and the oil industry, and land clearing, a sign of masculinity. These are the occupations of real men. These are the tools of the stern father, defeating nature for the benefit of the whole world. Renewable energy - wind and solar and tidal and geothermal - is the field of the nurturant parent. These are soft and wussy forms of energy. They hum away quietly, responding to the rhythms of the earth. They don’t involve brute force and monumental buildings. The hard men of the Right could no more adopt renewable energy than they could consider social support for the poor, or the decent treatment of refugees, or drug addiction to be a medical matter. Real men have big prisons and big power stations.” (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/33315/Real_Men_Smoke_Uranium.html)
Thanks for your answer Mark.
Mark: I suggest you go to bravenewclimate.com and click on “About” and
from there you can go to the Adelaide University web site where you will find
a little about Barry Brook … then you won’t need to guess. Given Barry’s extraordinary
publication record in ecology journals and in general journals like Nature, to be
“unsure if he is an environmentalist” is an embarrassing faux pas.
Regarding IFR nuclear. The major features have been well demonstrated in a
reactor that ran for 30 years. This wasn’t a toy, but about the size of Andasol 1,
generating 20 MWe. Here’s a couple of links. The first is a book chapter and the
second is to an ABC radio talk.
http://tinyurl.com/cwvn8n
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/22/fast-reactor-radio/
Thanks for response, Mark. Will chase up a copy. Cheers!
Mark
To Geoff Russell:
The integral fast reactor (IFR) has never reached the demonstration stage. EBR-II (= Experimental Breeder Reactor-II) was an experimental reactor, 20 MW electrical, which is tiny for a nuclear reactor. Scaling up is difficult for nuclear power and so IFR is a long way from the demonstration scale. I’m aware that much bigger fast breeder reactors have operated, but they weren’t IFRs.
The French demonstration fast breeder reactor, Superphenix, was shut down permanently in 1998 after costing about A$15 billion. It had many technical problems and malfunctions and only generated the equivalent of about one year’s operation at full power. It was an abject failure. Scaling up nuclear power is difficult and expensive.
On the other hand, solar thermal power stations Andasol-1 and Andasol-2 are each 50 MW electrical and could be much bigger if the feed-in tariffs in Spain weren’t limited to plants of rated power less than 50 MW. They each have 7.5 hours of storage and that could be greatly increased. They are beyond the demonstration stage, at the pre-commercial stage, and on the brink of commercial production. The 250 MW electrical Mojave Solar power station will be built in California by Abengoa Solar. it already has a power purchase agreement with PG&E. If investment capital is forthcoming, it will commence operation in 2013.
Let’s face it, nuclear power is a declining energy source, despite 50 years of massive subsidies, amounting to US150 billion in the USA alone. The proponents of IFR are living in a dream world, even claiming specific low costs when they have never had a demonstration system. It’s time for a reality check.
David Horton,
I think there’s truth in what you suggest about the psychology - a lot of it’s about macho. Even less than using wussy wind and sun would a macho man look for elegant, small-footprint ways to live on the planet, such as using energy frugally rather than wastefully. So it seems. Never mind that every other species on the planet lives that way, and we won’t survive unless we do too.
Can you (or anyone) suggest why discussions like this stay relentlessly stuck on energy supply, and why remarks that it’s cheaper and quicker to stop wasting energy just seem to fail to compute? Isn’t that of interest to anyone? Doesn’t it sound like good news, worth looking into?
I don’t mean this to sound like a whine. I’ve been sorely puzzled by this for quite a while, and I’m still looking for some insight.
Geoff I think it’s part of the same syndrome. Energy saving = “back to the stone age” which is where evil greenies want to send real men. And of course energy companies have absolutely no interest in people buying less of their products.
Not surprising then that all the focus on the ETS discussion was about the “extra costs” to business and to the little aussie battler whose interests the Murdoch Press is so keen to protect. Any ETS/Carbon tax scheme is (or should be) aimed at encouraging efficiencies in factory and home so that there is eventually NO net cost. This idea was discussed nowhere that I saw. Which leaves a hole big enough to drive a truck full of yellow cake through.
Mark: I’m not opposed to solar or geothermal or anything else that people can build which
works. If IFR doesn’t scale, then so be it, but globally speaking, it won’t cost much
to try. And if it works, it bypasses a whole raft of tough problems, like building
new power networks … HVDC seems to be
absolutely essential to make solar thermal scale.
GeoffDavies: I’m all in favour of small footprint living, but most people don’t
have the foggiest how small that footprint has to be. It has to be small enough
to leave all of the remaining coal in the ground. The remaining oil and gas is going
to be used anyway, and there is no room for anything else.
e.g., Think <2 tonnes CO2 per annum. The average Aussie diet, on its
own, is about 6 tonnes, so it means vegan (or close) just for starters. Fine
by me, but how many other Aussies will bury their BBQ? To have a good
chance of keeping the climate close to the present
state, Co2 reductions are necessary, but not sufficient, methane has to
be slashed along with black carbon. Methane needs to be cut not just
to reduce its own forcing, but to also reduce
tropospheric ozone
I’m not that impressed with your arguments Mark. If you really want to put the case that nuclear isn’t the way to deal with climate change and reduce global emissions you need better arguments, preferably with a bit less straw filling.
No. 1 - lots of new nuclear, just not in western countries. If it’s slipped as a percentage of total that’s because there’s lot’s more new coal fired electricity. Renewables have barely made a dent.
No. 2 - not sure where nuclear substituting for oil argument comes from except indirectly… Electrical powered transport needed, won’t reduce CO2 that much if electricity comes from burning coal, better to power electric vehicles with nuclear (or renewables) to reduce emissions? Nuclear military shipping already exists of course, but nuclear substituting for oil isn’t a primary argument for nuclear but if alternatives to oil aren’t introduced the urge to turn coal into oil at even greater emissions cost looks on the cards. That scares me more than nuclear power.
No. 3 - grids will grow in developing countries. Powering the manufacture of remote area power systems is still needed for where the grid’s slow to reach. Best if that’s low emissions rather than coal. Powering the existing better-off portion of developing nations needs to be low emissions. If renewables can do that, that’s great but I think nuclear should be an available option. I doubt if developing nations will be pleased to be told by Australia - the world’s biggest coal exporter and highest per capita emitter - that they can’t.
No. 4 - I am concerned for the environment and for sustainability and I think nuclear should be on the table because if we fail to cut emissions seriously the consequences look very bad and very long lasting. Australia can probably do okay without nuclear but we are, in renewable resources terms, the lucky country. And still we haven’t managed to shut down a single coal plant. Not my preferred option to go nuclear but time’s running out.
No. 5 - lots of mine tailing and other low level waste, buried and covered, isn’t that dangerous; radioactive ore was in the ground and wasn’t that dangerous. Demand better practices but, sorry, failure on climate change scares me more.
No. 6 - Mark, antinuclear campaigners have done all they could to prevent the construction of repositories for long-lived waste. And, of course, technologies like IFR will run on depleted uranium and reduce the overall amounts. The Swedish repository looks like making it something only a highly motivated, advanced, hard-rock mining operation could uncover. Even in my staunch anti-nuclear days - and for a long time I was - I thought that anti-nuclear campaigning to prevent work on waste disposal was misguided. Failure on climate change scares me more than deep buried nuclear waste.
Sorry, running out of time to devote to this, but I think reasonable counter arguments could be made to most of the other points too. This from someone who really wants to see low cost renewables become the mainstay of our future. Roads paved with solar cells, batteries that can run trucks and ships and planes, global grids that can send Aussie solar power all over the world by day and import it by night. We need things like that, but time’s running out on climate, our energy sector has strongly resisted making serious efforts to replace coal and, even now, our energy policy planners consider coal the cornerstone of our future energy. Our State and Federal governments are putting more effort into expanding coal exports than on developing any clean energy alternatives.
Nuclear needs to be on the table for consideration. Climate change and the need to reduce emissions is too important.
John A,
I took a very quick squiz at your web/blog site and have a quick response regarding item 5 on CO2 emissions. My guess - because I’m not willing to put the time in to verify - is that a good chunk of the emissions associated with nuclear power plant construction will be attributed to the production of cement in the concrete. (Aside: cement production is one of the very few genuinely chemical, that is, not related to mere energy provision, sources of CO2 production in industrial economies.) I’ll bet the (in)famous paper by Storm and van Leeuwen will be able to verify.
(Second aside: nice to see a skeptical eye being cast over the debate and what appears to me to be your genuine attempt to make an assessment without polemic. We need more of that kind of discussion, and less of the noisily passionate stuff.)
Blue Ajah,
Although m’s response regarding barry brook might appear at first glance to be an ad hominem attack, in this particular case, it is not.
The issue at question is whether or not there are many (prominent) environmentalists who are pro-nuclear. So whether or not brooks ought to be counted as an environmentalist or “merely” a climate scientist is not motivated by attacking his credibility, but simply to debate whether he meets the criteria for representing a valid counterexample to the claim that there are very few environmentalists who are pro-nuclear.
On the other hand, in the hands of a dishonest debater or a lazy thinker, the original claim itself is at risk of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
Pedrofletch,
As I’ve told you before if you read carefully, for back of the envelope capital costs of electricity generation you have to take into account capacity factor as well as construction cost per kW. Wind and solar generators won’t run near maximum rated output for nearly all of the time - they’ll average between 20% and 40%. Thermal plant running on fuel like coal, gas or nuclear fuel can be dispatched at near maximum output nearly all of the time. Standard assumptions on capacity factor for this sort of plant are 80-90%.
CSIRO, CIL Tasman, EPRI, the US Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency have all published various reports that include estimated capital and operating costs of various supply side technologies. One of my contacts at csiro indicates that they’ll soon be launching a spreadsheet product that contains a lot of this information all in the one place, allowing you to compare and contrast the cost assumptions of a variety of different official agencies (who are mostly quite conservative, so you won’t tend to see extreme estimates). It may also allow you to change some of the assumptions to see the various sensitivities.
Dazza: Mordecai Vanunu is one of my heroes. I’m do not doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons and is a threat to its neighbours. However, I didn’t list Israel in my article because it didn’t use nuclear power to develop its nuclear weapons. How can I be sure that Iran intends to use uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons? Because Iran has never had an operating nuclear power station, so why else would it want to enrich uranium, and on a large scale? (Iran’s nuclear power station has been under construction for the past 25 years.) I can understand why Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons, and I’m opposed to a preemptive attack on Iran or any other country, but that’s not a good reason for believing that Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons.
Blue Ajah and Geoff Russell: The Oxford dictionary defines ‘fallacy’ to be a misleading argument, delusion or error. It has nothing to do with attacking a person. Anyway, I haven’t attacked anyone. I’m simply pointing out that being a climate scientist, or an environmental scientist, or an ecologist (in the scientific sense), or a promoter of nuclear power does not necessarily make someone an environmentalist. Indeed, at my university there are lots of scientists in these fields who would be horrified to be called an environmentalist.
I visited Brave New Climate and was repelled its the fanatical pro-nuclear, anti-renewable energy postings and by the sheer ignorance and superficiality of most of the blogs and postings about renewable energy.
Ken Fabos: As I mentioned previously, most of the fallacies discussed in my article are being promoted by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in 2009. They are not straw arguments. I’m not impressed with your ‘counter arguments’ and don’t think they deserve a reply.
Concluding remarks:
Australia (where I live) is wasting enough taxpayers’ money on carbon capture and storage. There is no good reason why it should pour billions of additional dollars down the drain on nuclear power, when the world’s richest country has not built a new nuclear power station for 30 years, despite enormous subsidies. If the US decides to build a demonstration integral fast reactor, so be it, but a small economy like Australia would foolish to do so.
Australia has enormous renewable energy potential. Solar hot water, wind power, bio-electricity and PV are commercially available; solar thermal electricity with thermal storage is now beyond the demonstration stage at the pre-commercial stage and will soon be fully commercial in Spain and the USA; wave power is at at the demonstration stage and hot geothermal will soon be there. All we need are some supporting government policies to achieve some very large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy and energy efficiency before 2030. These policies include:
• a ban on new and refurbished dirty coal-fired power stations;
• gross feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity, both small- and large-scale;
• mandatory energy efficiency standards for ALL buildings and energy-using appliances and equipment;
• instead of an ineffective emissions trading scheme, a gradually increasing carbon tax with no exemptions apart from border tax adjustments for emissions-intensive, trade exposed industries;
• grants for research, development and demonstration;
• funding for essential infrastructure, such as transmission lines, pipelines and railways.
Sadly, the Australian government has either broken, or decimated or delayed almost all its election promises for renewable energy.
wind energy is not exactly environmentally friendly. in fact its appalling!
m.diesendorf can u explain which posts on brave new climate you find :
“fanatical pro-nuclear, anti-renewable energy postings and by the sheer ignorance and superficiality of most of the blogs and postings about renewable energy.”
an excellent place to see the dark side of industrial scale wind energy is :
http://www.windaction.org/
a documentary on industrial wind energy can be found here ->
http://www.youtube.com/user/penaproductionsinc
they should show this on ozzy tellly to stimulate some more debate.
The “They’re Not Green” documentary mentioned above has a web site also :
http://web.me.com/thrnotgreen/thrnotgreen/Home.html
“I visited Brave New Climate and was repelled its the fanatical pro-nuclear, anti-renewable energy postings and by the sheer ignorance and superficiality of most of the blogs and postings about renewable energy.”
Mark, if you’re so repelled by it, why not properly critique some of the posts he has written, rather than merely accusing him of being ignorant, superficial and “not an environmentalist”? Fight the numbers, not the person.
I’ve been following BNC for a while now, and I have never read any “anti-renewable energy postings” on there. Just honest postings detailing potential short-falls in renewable energy if the world’s energy demand continues to grow - which it is doing and will inevitably continue to do so.
You state that “energy efficiency and renewable energy must be equal partners in a sustainable energy future”. You’re not an economist, yet you’re basically stating that it’s possible for a wholesale contradiction of Jevon’s Paradox for the first time, with an unprecedented reduction in overall energy demand. And in none of your papers have I ever read HOW this contradiction will be achieved (I haven’t read them all - perhaps you can point one out?).
From what I’ve learned from the enormous amounts of literature on renewables (and nuclear), the best I can conclude is that there is a big “maybe” for renewables replacing all fossil fueled electricity on earth, and that is utterly unacceptable to me.