I’ve said before that one major difference between US and UK newspapers is that over there there are teams of fact checkers. Over here, even in the Comments pages of The Times, there are not. As I know from personal experience, it’s only the most outrageous claims that get questioned by Robbie, Daniel et al.
Which gives us Joan Ruddock’s piece on nuclear power as an example.
Securing energy supplies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are
rightly at the top of the political agenda, but they have to be
considered in relation to the whole energy mix and not just to the 8
per cent provided by nuclear power.
Nuclear provides 8 % of the total? OK.
The nuclear debate must be seen for what it is — a debate about
electricity, which accounts for only 18 per cent of total energy
consumed. As obsolete power stations are closed, nuclear’s contribution
will fall from 19 per cent of electricity generated today to 7 per cent
by 2020. This is the basis of the powerful nuclear industry’s campaign
to “keep the lights on”.
Right, nuclear only provides electricty, fine, electricity is 18% of the total, nuclear is 19% of that…100x.18x.19 equals 3.42 %. Err, her numbers are not even internally consistent, let alone factually so (upon which I pass no judgement).
It is argued that nuclear is essential to this low carbon future. It is
not. It is possible now to calculate CO2 emissions from new nuclear
on-stream in 2024. The Sustainable Development Commission found a mere
4 per cent CO2 advantage in nuclear over gas.
4% of what? Of total emissions? Perhaps, mebbe. Of emissions from that form of generation? No, not even the most outlandish estimates say there is that small a difference. Even that report that assumed vastly higher uranium consumption, the use of ever lower ore grades and the use of fossil fuels to extract them (and most miners have simply laughed when shown the calculations) said that new nuclear would have about 1/3 the emissions of new gas.
You can have a look around in the nuclear category to the side there if you wish to look for the emissions from nuclear re wind power as well….they’re roughly comparable.
Over the past decade Germany has demonstrated what can be achieved. Its
wind power already exceeds our nuclear capacity and its solar energy is
rapidly catching up.
Really? Now, Denmark, yes, 20% of electricity is generated from wind (or so Wikipedia says) and in the same piece:
Germany is the leading producer of wind power with 32% of the total
world capacity in 2005 (6% of German electricity); the official target
is that by 2010, renewable energy will meet 12.5% of German electricity
needs – it can be expected that this target will be reached even
earlier.
So, is 6% of electricity the same as 19%? Is the target of 12.5% for 2010 even the same? Solar fast catching up? Installed capacity is off grid 26,000 KW and on grid 768,000 KW…Germany’s wind power (that 6% remember) is 18,428 MW….18,428,000 KW. Solar installation in Germany last year was 363,000 KW. The installation of 2% of 6% of total electricity production may be many things but it’s not "rapidly catching up" with 19% of total electricity generation.
It may even be true that new nuclear is not needed although that‘s not my own opinion. But this particular piece doesn’t give me much confidence in the mathematical rigour of those arguing that case really.
Leave a Reply