Hansen misguided about value of nuclear [View all]

[kristopher]

Comment on “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power”
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401667h | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 6715−6717
© 2013 American Chemical Society

Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen have made a contribution in their article about the benefits of nuclear power.1 However, issues of technology systems integration deserve added attention as well as addressing a few errors. Though there is some logic underpinning the notion that nuclear power can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions as a “stabilization wedge”,2 we argue that (a) its near-term potential is significantly limited compared to energy efficiency and renewable energy; (b) it displaces emissions and saves lives only at high cost and at the enhanced risk of nuclear weapons proliferation; (c) it is unsuitable for expanding access to modern energy services in developing countries; and (d) the authors’ estimates of cancer risks from exposure to radiation are flawed.

First, nuclear power reactors are less effective at displacing greenhouse gas emissions than energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy technologies. According to one early study, each dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces nearly 7 times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power.3 McKinsey & Company’s cost abatement curves have repeatedly affirmed this point, concluding that nuclear power is a significantly more expensive mitigation option than investments in efficiency, waste recycling, geothermal, and small hydro- electric dams, among others.4

<snip>

In sum, Kharecha and Hansen’s article is incomplete and misleading. Energy efficiency and renewable energy should be front and center in any campaign to address environmental pollution and climate change - they should not appear, as Kharecha and Hansen treat them, as an afterthought. If wind energy is truly 96 times as effective as nuclear power at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, then it may have saved - and can save - 96 times as many lives. Renewables and efficiency also get you faster climate protection as well as more carbon displaced per dollar expended.
The urgency of world hunger does not require us to fight it with caviar, no matter how nourishing fish eggs might be. In the end, buying the most expensive remedies first will only diminish what we can - and must - spend on more promising approaches.25 Given the opportunity costs involved, nuclear power could reduce and retard the climate protection the authors so rightly seek.

http://www.nirs.org/climate/sovacool-et-al-hansen.pdf