Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 19–23 | Cite as

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change

  • Kristin Sharon Shrader-FrechetteEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is “carbon free” and “releases no greenhouse gases.” However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

Keywords

Climate change Conservation Data trimming Energy Energy efficiency Greenhouse-gas emissions Renewables Solar photovoltaic Wind 

References

  1. 1.
    Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), 968–972. doi: 10.1126/science.1100103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson, R. S. (2008). Nuclear energy: Securing Our Energy future. Washington, DC: US DOE.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, B. (2006). Insurmountable risks: The dangers of using nuclear power to combat global climate change. Takoma Park: IEER Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Department of Energy (DOE). (2001). A roadmap to deploy new nuclear power plants in the United States by 2010: volume I summary report. Washington, DC: US DOE.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deller, N., Makhijani, A., & Burroughs, J. (2003). Rule of power or rule of law? An assessment of the US policies and actions regarding security-related treaties (pp. 106–110). New York: Apex Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Leeuwen, W. S. (2007). Secure energy? Civil nuclear power, security, and global warming. In F. Barnaby & J. Kemp (Eds.), CO 2 emissions from nuclear power (pp. 40–44). London: Oxford Research Group.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meserve, R. (2004). Global warming and nuclear power. Science, 303(5657), 433. doi: 10.1126/science.303.5657.433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Department of Energy (DOE). (2008). President Bush requests $25 billion for US department of energy’s FY 2009 budget. Washington, DC: US DOE Office of Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). (2007). Nuclear Statistics. Washington, DC: NEI. http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs. Accessed 15 Feb 2008.
  10. 10.
    Bunyard, P. (2006). Ecologist: Taking the wind out of nuclear power. Pacific Ecologist, 11(Summer), 51–57.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butler, D. (2004). Energy: Nuclear power’s new dawn. Nature, 429(6989), 238–240. doi: 10.1038/429238a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, 36, 2940–2953.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fthenakis, V. M., & Kim, H. C. (2007). Greenhouse-gas emission from solar-electric and nuclear power: A life-cycle study. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2549–2557. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barnaby, F., & Kemp, J. (2007). Too hot to handle? The future of civil nuclear power. In F. Barnaby & J. Kemp (Eds.), Executive summary (pp. 7–14). London: Oxford Research Group.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, 36, 2940–2953.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hagen, R. E., Moens, J. R., & Nikodem, Z. D. (2001). Impact of U.S. nuclear generation on greenhouse gas emissions. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makhijani, A. (2007). Carbon-free and nuclear-free. Takoma Park, MD: IEER.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ho, M. W., Bunyard, P., Saunders, P., Bravo, E., & Gala, R. (2006). Which energy? London: Institute for Science and Society.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Leeuwen, W. S. (2006). Energy security and uranium reserves. London: Oxford Research Group.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barnham, K. (2007). Secure energy? Civil nuclear power, security, and global warming. In F. Barnaby & J. Kemp (Eds.), If not nuclear, then what? (pp. 45–50). London: Oxford Research Group.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Information Service on Energy (WISE), & Nuclear Information Research Service (NIRS). (2005). Nuclear power: No solution to climate change. Tacoma Park, MD: WISE/NIRS.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reichhardt, T. (1997). No net cost in cutting carbon emissions. Nature, 389(6650), 429. doi: 10.1038/38841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Makhijani, A. (2008). A reliable electricity grid in the United States. Science for Democratic Action, 15(2), 9–11.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kennedy, J., Zsiga, A., Conheady, L., & Lund, P. (2006). Credit aspects of North American and European nuclear power. Standard & Poor’s, January 9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Council on Renewable Energy (ECRE). (2004). Renewable energy scenario, 2040. Gussing, Austria: ECRE.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shell International. (2001). Energy needs, choices, possibilities: scenarios to 2050. Global Business Environment.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Philosophy and Biological Sciences, Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s HealthUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations