Comments on: Nuclear Energy not Carbon Free? http://oliveridley.org/2007/03/26/nuclear-energy-not-carbon-free/ Slow and Steady on the Environment, Development. Race, Feminism and Politics Sun, 22 Apr 2012 00:31:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: oliveridley http://oliveridley.org/2007/03/26/nuclear-energy-not-carbon-free/#comment-161 oliveridley Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:43:02 +0000 http://oliveridley.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/nuclear-energy-not-carbon-free/#comment-161 Eric: I respect your expertise and your point of view and I simply do not have the background in LCA to comment on the specifics of either this study, or your debunking. There will always be arguments arond LCAs because the conclusions are very sensitive to the starting assumptions and depending on your favorite conclusion, you can get creative! Maybe studies get recycled because rationales for nuclear power keep getting recycled. Nuclear technology is subsidized, that is a fact. Maybe it has a place among various energy options, but the waste issue is not going away, the safety issues are not going away, the mining of uranium is still a dangerous activity, and political and security considerations will tend to preclude the use of efficiency increasing reprocessing and fast breeder technology in all but rare cases. None of these issues have been addressed in the last 40 years that nuclear power has been around. If this country cannot decide on a repository for waste in all this time, how can it deal with even more nuclear waste? I grew up in a country in love with all things nuclear, so I appreciate the power it has over the people that work in the industry and the incredible potential it seems to have. Eric:

I respect your expertise and your point of view and I simply do not have the background in LCA to comment on the specifics of either this study, or your debunking. There will always be arguments arond LCAs because the conclusions are very sensitive to the starting assumptions and depending on your favorite conclusion, you can get creative!

Maybe studies get recycled because rationales for nuclear power keep getting recycled. Nuclear technology is subsidized, that is a fact. Maybe it has a place among various energy options, but the waste issue is not going away, the safety issues are not going away, the mining of uranium is still a dangerous activity, and political and security considerations will tend to preclude the use of efficiency increasing reprocessing and fast breeder technology in all but rare cases.

None of these issues have been addressed in the last 40 years that nuclear power has been around. If this country cannot decide on a repository for waste in all this time, how can it deal with even more nuclear waste?

I grew up in a country in love with all things nuclear, so I appreciate the power it has over the people that work in the industry and the incredible potential it seems to have.

]]> By: Eric McErlain http://oliveridley.org/2007/03/26/nuclear-energy-not-carbon-free/#comment-160 Eric McErlain Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:28:19 +0000 http://oliveridley.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/nuclear-energy-not-carbon-free/#comment-160 This report is simply a recitation of a 2001 study that a colleague of mine debunk back in July 2005: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-oxford-research-is-wrong-on-nuclear.html This report is simply a recitation of a 2001 study that a colleague of mine debunk back in July 2005:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-oxford-research-is-wrong-on-nuclear.html

]]>