Group items tagged

"Energy thinker Amory Lovins will speak at Salisbury's Catawba College on Feb. 23. Lovins is co-founder of Rocky Mountain Institute, a "think-and-do tank" that applies market-based solutions to efficient use of resources. Time magazine last year named him one of the world's 100 most influential people. He talked with energy and environment writer Bruce Henderson; comments are edited for clarity and brevity."

There's one issue that President Bush and presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama all agree on: expanding the use of nuclear power. We speak with Amory Lovins, the co-founder, chairman and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado, who has been described as "one of the Western world's most influential energy thinkers."

There's one issue that President Bush and presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama all agree on: expanding the use of nuclear power. We speak with Amory Lovins, the co-founder, chairman and chief scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado, who has been described as "one of the Western world's most influential energy thinkers."

Amory Lovins is on the warpath against nuclear power, battling the industry PR push that says nuclear is a viable climate solution. He's got a new report, co-authored with Imran Sheikh, called "The Nuclear Illusion" [PDF]. Spinning off from that report are a Newsweek article called "Missing the Market Meltdown" and an article on the RMI site called "Forget Nuclear."

AMory Lovins has a look at various new forms of nuclear power being touted as the next big thing - "New" Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story. he dominant type of new nuclear power plant, light-water reactors (LWRs), proved unfinanceable in the robust 2005-08 capital market, despite new U.S. subsidies approaching or exceeding their total construction cost. New LWRs are now so costly and slow that they save 2-20x less carbon, 20-40x slower, than micropower and efficient end-use.1 As this becomes evident, other kinds of reactors are being proposed instead-novel designs claimed to solve LWRs' problems of economics, proliferation, and waste.2 Even climate-protection pioneer Jim Hansen says these "Gen IV" reactors merit rapid R&D.3 But on closer examination, the two kinds most often promoted-Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors4-reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale, and the thesis is unsound for any nuclear reactor.

As industry lobbyists and campaigning politicians are busily pushing nuclear power as "a clean safe alternative" to fossil fuels, a landmark article by Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute shows conclusively that nuclear power is a "bad deal" any way you look at it. Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, in a recent analysis, 'The Nuclear Illusion," sets the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from a wind farm is half that. Why the huge difference? In addition to fuel costs, capital operations, transmission and distribution expenses, nuclear power must also pay for waste disposal, insurance against accidents, and plant decommissioning. The U.S. leads the world in nuclear power generation, with 104 reactors producing 101,000 megawatts, compared to second-ranked France which produces 63,000 megawatts. The estimated cost of constructing a permanent, safe waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, ballooned from $58 billion in 2001 to $96 billion by 2008, and this repository could not be completed before 2017, meaning that high-level nuclear waste must be stored at reactor sites at least until then.

PETER A. BRADFORD, adjunct professor, Vermont Law School, and former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: * For an even-handed recent overview of most nuclear power issues, see "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding," a June 2007 report by the Keystone Center, a non-profit organization that brought together a cross section of parties interested in nuclear energy - including environmentalists and consumer advocates, industry representatives and government officials - to create a base of agreed-upon knowledge about the costs, risks and benefits of nuclear power. www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf * For a responsibly skeptical look at nuclear power's rapidly rising costs in comparison to available low carbon alternatives, see "The Nuclear Illusion" by Amory Lovins and Imram Sheikh in the November 2008 Ambio, the Journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf The Journal Report * See the complete Energy report. * The Web site of the Nonproliferation Education Center, maintained by WSJ op-ed contributor Henry Sokolski, features an ongoing collection of thoughtful conservative pieces skeptical of nuclear power. http://www.npec-web.org/ * For an excellent short critique of reprocessing and the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, see Victor Gilinsky and Alison Macfarlane's Minority Opinion from the National Academy of Science's Review of DoE's Nuclear Research and Development Program, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11998&page=73 * For an even-handed look at how nuclear construction went astray in the U.S. in the 1970s, the best book remains "Light Water: How the Nuclear Dream Dissolved, Irvin C. Bupp and Jean-Claude Derian. * Another good overview text is Megawatts and Megatons, Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak.

Over the last few years the nuclear industry has used concerns about climate change to argue for a nuclear revival. Although industry representatives may have convinced some political leaders that this is a good idea, there is little evidence of private capital investing in nuclear plants in competitive electricity markets. The reason is simple: nuclear power is uneconomical. In an excellent recent analysis, "The Nuclear Illusion," Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14¢ per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7¢ per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Given this huge gap, the so-called nuclear revival can succeed only by unloading these costs onto taxpayers. If all the costs of generating nuclear electricity are included in the price to consumers, nuclear power is dead in the water.

Over the last few years the nuclear industry has used concerns about climate change to argue for a nuclear revival. Although industry representatives may have convinced some political leaders that this is a good idea, there is little evidence of private capital investing in nuclear plants in competitive electricity markets. The reason is simple: nuclear power is uneconomical. In an excellent recent analysis, "The Nuclear Illusion," Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14¢ per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7¢ per kilowatt hour.

Nuclear power, we're told, is a vibrant industry that's dramatically reviving because it's proven, necessary, competitive, reliable, safe, secure, widely used, increasingly popular, and carbon-free-a perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection, energy security, and powering a growing economy.

"Is there any chance that President Barack Obama can return to his long-held stand critical of nuclear power? Is he open to hearing from scientists and energy experts, such as Amory Lovins, who can refute the pro-nuclear arguments that have apparently influenced him? Obama's declaration in his State of the Union speech on January 27 about "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country" marked a significant change for him. His announcement Tuesday on moving ahead on $8.3 billion in federal government loan guarantees to build new nuclear plants and increasing the loan guarantee fund to $54.5 billion was a further major step. Wall Street is reluctant to invest money in the dangerous and extremely expensive technology. Before taking office, including as a candidate for president, Obama not only was negative about atomic energy but-unusual for a politician-indicated a detailed knowledge of its threat to life."

""...the phrase hoist with one's own petard...means 'to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else' or 'to fall into one's own trap'..." (Wikipedia) Announcements from the Obama administration of new financial support for the nuclear industry were met by declarations that the long-anticipated nuclear renaissance is finally at hand but the reality is quite different. There is a very real possibility that the President has just caught the nuclear industry in a trap of its own making. In February 8's ANOTHER NAIL IN NUCLEAR'S COFFIN, NewEnergyNews laid out the case (made in a recent paper, many papers before it, and many authorities over the last decade not the least of which is energy guru Amory Lovins) that there is a list of reasons why nuclear energy is simply not a wise choice for a smart society:"