Nuclear Energy & Greenhouse Effect
Tom Gray
/* Written 1:59 pm Jun 2, 1989 by gn:wiseamster in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "NO PLACE FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN THE" ---------- */
PRESS RELEASE
Embargoed until: Friday, 2 june 1989
Contact: Ian Tellam (WISE-Amsterdam) Tel: 31-20-853857
Fax: 31-20-838955
Herman Damveld Tel: 31-50-125612
NO PLACE FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN THE EUROPEAN GREENHOUSE
Why Nuclear Power cannot be a Sustainable Solution to the Greenhouse
Effect
by Herman Damveld and Ian Tellam
An expansion of nuclear power will have little effect on global
warming and would only postpone the problem of climate change accor-
ding to a report, No Place for Nuclear Power in the European
Greenhouse by Herman Damveld and Ian Tellam, released today by the
Amsterdam based World Information Service on Energy (WISE).
The authors of the report are Dutch nuclear energy expert Herman
Damveld and UK climate change specialist Ian Tellam. In the report
Damveld and Tellam ask the Council of Ministers of the European
Community, who will be meeting in the beginning of June to discuss
responses to the greenhouse effect, not to promote nuclear power.
The WISE report shows that even if 70% of the world's electricity
were to be supplied by nuclear power by 2005 (involving the
completion of 110 nuclear power stations every year and representing
three times the present maximum capacity of the nuclear industry
worldwide) the total world energy consumption of fossil fuels would
by 7% higher than today (due to increase in energy demand) and
global warming would still increase.
Known global uranium resources could supply no more than the equiva-
lent of 3 1/2 years of present day total world energy consumption
and expected, not proven, resources could extend this supply by
only another 2 1/2 years. A 70% contribution from nuclear power
would mean that all uranium supplies would come to an end by 2011.
Fast breeder reactors are unable to extend this supply; current
experience with fast breeder technology shows that an expanded
nuclear power programme would run out of uranium fuel before fast
breeders could produce enough plutonium surplus for new reactors.
This means that even if nuclear power could make a difference to
the greenhouse effect it would only postpone the problem.
Flood, drought and famine have all been predicted to occur as a
result of the greenhouse effect. In June 1988 the Commission of
the European Community submitted a report to the Council of Ministers
on "The Greenhouse Issue and the Community". The Council of Ministers
will be meeting in the beginning of June to discuss responses to
the greenhouse effect. The report from the Commission suggests the
abandonment of low lying areas and the relocation of populations
away from vulnerable sites as adaptation measures to be taken if
preventive action is not effective. As a preventive measure the
Commission advocates the increased use of nuclear power.
The WISE report shows, however, that expanding nuclear power could
at best make a short and limited contribution to solving the problem
of climate change.
Available from: WISE-Amsterdam, cost $6 cash (or equivalent).
-- Transfer complete, hit <RETURN> to continue --
Mike Coffin
> NO PLACE FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN THE EUROPEAN GREENHOUSE
> Why Nuclear Power cannot be a Sustainable Solution to the Greenhouse
> Effect
> by Herman Damveld and Ian Tellam
> [...]
> Known global uranium resources could supply no more than the equiva-
> lent of 3 1/2 years of present day total world energy consumption
> and expected, not proven, resources could extend this supply by
> only another 2 1/2 years.
As a former uranium mining engineer, I must point out that this
statement in essentially meaningless. The size of "proven" and
"expected" reserves depends entirely on the price you are willing to
pay for the uranium. The amount of uranium is probably an exponential
function of the price. If you are willing to pay for mining and
milling 0.025% ore, there is essentially an infinite amount of it ---
if my memory is correct, granite is about 0.03% uranium oxide by
weight. And 0.025% ore is not out of the question; ten years ago we
were mining ore that was only about twice that rich.
--
Mike Coffin mi...@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858