[I have been writing the _Guardian_ and other papers, to try to get them to stop calling nuclear a 'low' or 'zero' (!) carbon source of energy. I encourage readers to do the same! They aren't publishing my letters, perhaps because they don't appreciate the criticism. But how can I help but criticise, when they are so wrong on this?
Here is my most recent letter:]
Why does the _Guardian_ keep publishing articles that propagate the myth
that nuclear is 'low-carbon'? (The latest is Mark Milner and David Gow,
writing on Monday Jan. 26, including nuclear alongside renewables in their
article on the EU's efforts to incentivise green energy.) It surprises me
that so many _Guardian_
environment correspondents have swallowed this uber-myth of the nuclear
PR industry. Once one factors in the very substantial amount of energy
needed for mining, transporting and processing uranium, for
building nuclear power plants, for protecting them and their fuel
from sabotage and accident, etc, and once one includes the
vast amount of energy needed to decommission, monitor and protect
nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years, then nuclear
ends up with an absolutely huge carbon footprint -- and very
probably a negative net energy balance.
As David Fleming's sadly-neglected report on this vital issue
(www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/Nuclear.pdf ) makes clear, the
real question now is whether nuclear power even has enough energy left,
from its fast-depleting uranium, to clean up its own wastes, let alone
to contribute anything to our energy needs beyond that.
I call upon the _Guardian_ to
engage in a public and journalistic investigation of the true carbon
footprint of nuclear.
Here is my most recent letter:]
Why does the _Guardian_ keep publishing articles that propagate the myth
that nuclear is 'low-carbon'? (The latest is Mark Milner and David Gow,
writing on Monday Jan. 26, including nuclear alongside renewables in their
article on the EU's efforts to incentivise green energy.) It surprises me
that so many _Guardian_
environment correspondents have swallowed this uber-myth of the nuclear
PR industry. Once one factors in the very substantial amount of energy
needed for mining, transporting and processing uranium, for
building nuclear power plants, for protecting them and their fuel
from sabotage and accident, etc, and once one includes the
vast amount of energy needed to decommission, monitor and protect
nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years, then nuclear
ends up with an absolutely huge carbon footprint -- and very
probably a negative net energy balance.
As David Fleming's sadly-neglected report on this vital issue
(www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/Nuclear.pdf ) makes clear, the
real question now is whether nuclear power even has enough energy left,
from its fast-depleting uranium, to clean up its own wastes, let alone
to contribute anything to our energy needs beyond that.
I call upon the _Guardian_ to
engage in a public and journalistic investigation of the true carbon
footprint of nuclear.
Comments