Study says nuclear power isn’t as “safe and clean†as Bush claims | Cleantech.com
Study says nuclear power isn’t as “safe and clean†as Bush claims
March 5, 2008
Similar* Scheer calls nuclear power stupid
* Bush cleantech fund “window dressing”
* Nuclear power is green power, says expert
* $13B nuclear fusion research agreement signed
* The greening of the U.S. PresidentPhysicist says nuclear power production can’t scale up to meet all energy demands by 2050.
Nuclear energy doesn’t live up to its billing as the “emission-free panacea,†says a study from Pennsylvania’s Clarion University.
According to physicist Joshua Pearce, each step in the current U.S. process of building and operating the power plant, mining the uranium ores and disposing of the wastes contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.
For nuclear power to work as an alternative energy source, his analysis shows, it needs to be more efficient than it currently is.
By Pearce’s calculations, for nuclear energy to completely replace fossil fuels and meet all future energy demands, production has to increase by more than 10 percent each year between 2010 and 2050. There are limiting factors to scaling up production, such as the supply of uranium ore grade.
If production doesn’t increase, Pearce said, new power plants will feed off of existing nuclear plants rather than actually generating energy for others to use.
And if production did increase, he said, by 2050, the world would still end up back at square one, faced with dependence on one major energy source and its emissions.
Pearce’s findings counter U.S. President George Bush’s keynote message at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) this morning.
Though he was addressing a crowd of solar and wind energy enthusiasts, Bush advocated nuclear power, using the phrase nearly 20 times in his speech, saying, “There is no better way to produce electricity and promote the environment.”
He also called on developing nations to adopt “proliferation-resistant nuclear power,†saying he was working with countries like France, Japan and China to get the message out. “You can’t have vibrant economy without reliable electricity,†he said.
“You people in developing nations know what I’m talking about.”
U.S. federal regulators have received six applications to build new nuclear power plants since his administration introduced the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, Bush said. These plants, which he described as “safe and clean,†will be built with $18.5 billion in loan guarantees from the government and a streamlined regulatory process to encourage investment.
Bush reaffirmed his commitment to energy security, ending oil dependence and combating climate change, noting that “America’s gotta change its habits.” Demand is outstripping supply, he said, which has caused the price of corn, hog feed and food to rise.
Physicist Joshua Pearce’s study appears in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology.
Study says nuclear power isn’t as “safe and clean†as Bush claims | Cleantech.com
Study says nuclear power isn’t as “safe and clean†as Bush claims
March 5, 2008
Similar* Scheer calls nuclear power stupid
* Bush cleantech fund “window dressing”
* Nuclear power is green power, says expert
* $13B nuclear fusion research agreement signed
* The greening of the U.S. PresidentPhysicist says nuclear power production can’t scale up to meet all energy demands by 2050.
Nuclear energy doesn’t live up to its billing as the “emission-free panacea,†says a study from Pennsylvania’s Clarion University.
According to physicist Joshua Pearce, each step in the current U.S. process of building and operating the power plant, mining the uranium ores and disposing of the wastes contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.
For nuclear power to work as an alternative energy source, his analysis shows, it needs to be more efficient than it currently is.
By Pearce’s calculations, for nuclear energy to completely replace fossil fuels and meet all future energy demands, production has to increase by more than 10 percent each year between 2010 and 2050. There are limiting factors to scaling up production, such as the supply of uranium ore grade.
If production doesn’t increase, Pearce said, new power plants will feed off of existing nuclear plants rather than actually generating energy for others to use.
And if production did increase, he said, by 2050, the world would still end up back at square one, faced with dependence on one major energy source and its emissions.
Pearce’s findings counter U.S. President George Bush’s keynote message at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) this morning.
Though he was addressing a crowd of solar and wind energy enthusiasts, Bush advocated nuclear power, using the phrase nearly 20 times in his speech, saying, “There is no better way to produce electricity and promote the environment.”
He also called on developing nations to adopt “proliferation-resistant nuclear power,†saying he was working with countries like France, Japan and China to get the message out. “You can’t have vibrant economy without reliable electricity,†he said.
“You people in developing nations know what I’m talking about.”
U.S. federal regulators have received six applications to build new nuclear power plants since his administration introduced the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, Bush said. These plants, which he described as “safe and clean,†will be built with $18.5 billion in loan guarantees from the government and a streamlined regulatory process to encourage investment.
Bush reaffirmed his commitment to energy security, ending oil dependence and combating climate change, noting that “America’s gotta change its habits.” Demand is outstripping supply, he said, which has caused the price of corn, hog feed and food to rise.
Physicist Joshua Pearce’s study appears in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology.