Ten Nuclear Lies
Published by the World Information
Service on Energy (WISE), April, 2001
The US 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 we present our "Top Ten Nuclear Lies"
together with arguments which can be used to counter them.
(548.5273) 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
we have 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 "doesn’t 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; FoE Scotland climate change briefing
(web site
www.nirs.org/factsheets/KYOTONUC.html <http://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 <http://www.nei.org> ; WISE News Communique
483/4.4795, "Stranded costs: California is not a sunny example", web site
www.rmi.org <http://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
Uranium’s Nuclear Fuel Balance Calculator.
Sources: International Herald Tribune, 8 May 2001; web site
www.antenna.nl/~wise/uranium/nfp.html
<http://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
<http://www.andra.fr> and
www.nirs.org <http://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 <http://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 IAEA’s 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 <http://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 <http://www.nei.org>
9. "Energy conservation isn’t enough". This claim made by Cheney concerning
the California energy crisis was criticized not just by environmentalists, but
also by California’s 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 <http://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 California’s energy problems. The Office of
Naval Reactors dismissed this suggestion, pointing out that major
modifications in the ships’ 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 California’s 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; e-mail
nirsnet@nirs.org; Internet:
www.nirs.org <http://www.nirs.org>
About World Information Service on
Energy (WISE) and for older contents see:
<http://www.antenna.nl/wise/ncidx.html>
———————————————————————————————-
Rudolf Rechsteiner (homepage:
www.rechsteiner-basel.ch)
Dr.rer.pol., Nationalrat
Murbacherstrase 34 CH-4056 Basel, Schweiz
Telefon ++41 +61 322 49 15 Fax ++41 +61 322 49 20
|