This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/17/beware-nuclear-industrys-fake-news-on-being-emissions-free
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free | Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free |
| (17 days later) | |
| I wholeheartedly agree with much of your editorial (14 September), as the economics of new nuclear is weaker than ever at a time when renewables are coming in cheaper year on year. You point out the crisis in the funding of renewables and we could not agree more. The UK desperately needs to reboot financial support for decentralised energy in order to maximise long-term benefits for all. Councils, in particular, are calling for the restoration of feed-in tariffs and other support that has been instrumental in the creation of innovative, local, low-carbon energy schemes, Passivhaus-accredited buildings, and energy efficiency programmes for dealing with the scourge of fuel poverty. | I wholeheartedly agree with much of your editorial (14 September), as the economics of new nuclear is weaker than ever at a time when renewables are coming in cheaper year on year. You point out the crisis in the funding of renewables and we could not agree more. The UK desperately needs to reboot financial support for decentralised energy in order to maximise long-term benefits for all. Councils, in particular, are calling for the restoration of feed-in tariffs and other support that has been instrumental in the creation of innovative, local, low-carbon energy schemes, Passivhaus-accredited buildings, and energy efficiency programmes for dealing with the scourge of fuel poverty. |
| While the dramatic cost reductions in offshore wind are to be welcomed, it has to be joined with renewed support for decentralised energy projects, approval for tidal energy schemes and the resumption of support for solar and onshore wind. The government must see that the energy landscape has changed dramatically. An energy review and reboot is urgently required.Cllr David BlackburnVice-chair, UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Authorities | While the dramatic cost reductions in offshore wind are to be welcomed, it has to be joined with renewed support for decentralised energy projects, approval for tidal energy schemes and the resumption of support for solar and onshore wind. The government must see that the energy landscape has changed dramatically. An energy review and reboot is urgently required.Cllr David BlackburnVice-chair, UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Authorities |
| • Your incisive editorial makes many strong points, not least highlighting the exigencies of potential security compromises and terrorism vulnerabilities of the planned new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But there is a fatal flaw in the argument you set out. The editorial asserts: “Nuclear power has a trump card: it is a zero-carbon technology which delivers a continuous, uninterrupted supply.” | • Your incisive editorial makes many strong points, not least highlighting the exigencies of potential security compromises and terrorism vulnerabilities of the planned new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But there is a fatal flaw in the argument you set out. The editorial asserts: “Nuclear power has a trump card: it is a zero-carbon technology which delivers a continuous, uninterrupted supply.” |
| This is demonstrably untrue. On the latter point, you only have to consult the published operating record of reactors to see this is an unsustainable claim. All reactors have lengthy planned outages (shutdowns) for operational reasons; some have significant unplanned outages due to operational failures; and in the extreme case of post-accident safety prudence, such as in Japan, their 54 reactors were all closed for years after the 2011 Fukushima disaster – and became hugely expensive “stranded assets”. | This is demonstrably untrue. On the latter point, you only have to consult the published operating record of reactors to see this is an unsustainable claim. All reactors have lengthy planned outages (shutdowns) for operational reasons; some have significant unplanned outages due to operational failures; and in the extreme case of post-accident safety prudence, such as in Japan, their 54 reactors were all closed for years after the 2011 Fukushima disaster – and became hugely expensive “stranded assets”. |
| On alleged zero-carbon status of nuclear plants, you repeat a similarly erroneous assertion made in your editorial of 1 October 2005 (Pre-empting debate), where you wrote: “The big advantage of nuclear generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does.” | On alleged zero-carbon status of nuclear plants, you repeat a similarly erroneous assertion made in your editorial of 1 October 2005 (Pre-empting debate), where you wrote: “The big advantage of nuclear generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does.” |
| You printed my response to this assertion (There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, 20 October 2005) in which I set out the various ways the carbon footprint of nuclear power is substantial, if the whole “cradle-to-grave” nuclear fuel chain (uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, in-reactor fuel irradiation, storage and final long-term management) is properly calculated. I pointed out that the nuclear industry’s proponents, such as those gathered at last week’s World Nuclear Association jamboree in London, are fond of spreading fake news such as describing nuclear energy as “non-carbon emitting”. It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history.Dr David LowrySenior research fellow, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA | You printed my response to this assertion (There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, 20 October 2005) in which I set out the various ways the carbon footprint of nuclear power is substantial, if the whole “cradle-to-grave” nuclear fuel chain (uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, in-reactor fuel irradiation, storage and final long-term management) is properly calculated. I pointed out that the nuclear industry’s proponents, such as those gathered at last week’s World Nuclear Association jamboree in London, are fond of spreading fake news such as describing nuclear energy as “non-carbon emitting”. It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history.Dr David LowrySenior research fellow, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA |
| • With reference to your editorial, we are used to electricity being on tap. That will continue when we are recharging our car batteries in the years ahead. Accordingly, there is a requirement for a significant fraction of our supply to come from a source that is independent of wind and sun. Battery storage on the scale required is a pipe dream. Nuclear power is the obvious solution. To reject it in principle would be absurd, especially in view of our nuclear heritage. | • With reference to your editorial, we are used to electricity being on tap. That will continue when we are recharging our car batteries in the years ahead. Accordingly, there is a requirement for a significant fraction of our supply to come from a source that is independent of wind and sun. Battery storage on the scale required is a pipe dream. Nuclear power is the obvious solution. To reject it in principle would be absurd, especially in view of our nuclear heritage. |
| There is a better solution available than that pursued by our current planners. It is to build the remaining nuclear plants with CANDU-type reactors, pioneered by the Canadians. These run on any nuclear fuel and use heavy water as moderator. A heavy-water plant could be built and fed by off-peak renewables, of which tidal power would be ideal. In effect, this provides a solution to the energy storage problem – electricity is “stored” in the form of heavy water.David HayesFormerly of the Central Electricity Generating Board, Bristol | There is a better solution available than that pursued by our current planners. It is to build the remaining nuclear plants with CANDU-type reactors, pioneered by the Canadians. These run on any nuclear fuel and use heavy water as moderator. A heavy-water plant could be built and fed by off-peak renewables, of which tidal power would be ideal. In effect, this provides a solution to the energy storage problem – electricity is “stored” in the form of heavy water.David HayesFormerly of the Central Electricity Generating Board, Bristol |
| • Re your article Cheap, fast wind turbines are leaving nuclear behind (12 September) and your editorial: an even more persistent myth than nuclear being cheaper than renewables is its supposed usefulness in providing a reliable supply of electricity. | • Re your article Cheap, fast wind turbines are leaving nuclear behind (12 September) and your editorial: an even more persistent myth than nuclear being cheaper than renewables is its supposed usefulness in providing a reliable supply of electricity. |
| Base load nuclear, as it is referred to, is incapable of increasing or decreasing its output in response to the daily fluctuation in demand. This is a significant drawback, given that peak daytime demand is twice that at night. During the day, nuclear has to be supported by gas or coal plants, in almost the same way as wind and solar. So much for nuclear’s green credentials, locking us in to the emission of greenhouses gases indefinitely.Dr Fred StarrLondon | Base load nuclear, as it is referred to, is incapable of increasing or decreasing its output in response to the daily fluctuation in demand. This is a significant drawback, given that peak daytime demand is twice that at night. During the day, nuclear has to be supported by gas or coal plants, in almost the same way as wind and solar. So much for nuclear’s green credentials, locking us in to the emission of greenhouses gases indefinitely.Dr Fred StarrLondon |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |