Skip to main content

Full text of "Atomic Humanism The Case For Nuclear Power V 1"

See other formats

Nuclear Humanism The Case for Atomic Power 

Reading Time: 60 minutes 
Part ONE: Introduction 

1. Environmental Leaders Switch to Supporting Nuclear Electricity Generation 

2. The Data is Clear - Non-Nuclear 100% 'Wind Water & Solar’ power “simply won't work” 

3. Accurate Trustworthy Data: A) Energy & Electricity consumption; B) Green House Gas Emissions 
4. Intermittency & Storage: one of the Achilles heel of Wind Water & Solar (WWS) power generation 

5. No choice : Nuclear Power must be in the mix for plans that add-up' in short, medium, & long terms 

Part TWO: Science Informs Politics 

6. Scientists support Nuclear energy to help achieve IPCC under 2-degree Decarbonisation Targets 
7. We need a shared Pro-Arithmetic Ethical Plan that ‘Adds Up' 
8. There are no short-cuts around Political Engagement 

Part THREE: 100% Wind Water & Solar power is “nonsensical” 
in spite of “capturing the public imagination” 

9. Wind Water and Solar power can’t produce enough energy to cover embedded construction energy 
10. It’s not about Wind Water and Solar ~vs~ Fossil ~vs~ Nuclear it’s about which mix makes sense 
11. Failed Lawsuits : Climate & Power-Grid experts judge Non-Nuclear study “riddled with errors” 

12. Zero Carbon Britain ‘scenario’ for a Non-Nuclear 100% WWS and the UK Green New Deal 

13. Wind Water and Solar all need vast areas of Land & Sea to Build and Grow Infrastructure 

14. Electric Vehicles : Increase in Minerals, Mining & Fossil Fuel 

15. Externalities Limiting non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and Solar 

16. Energy Feudalism, Extractivism, Exploiting the Global South : Renewable Energy = Fossil Fuel+ 

Part FOUR: Nuclear Power : Answering Objections 

17. Nuclear Power is completely renewable 

18. SOLVED: Radioactive for 300,000 years 'Wast Storage Problem’ reduced to 300 years 

19. Recycle Generation Ill Nuclear ‘Waste’ & Warheads as Fuel for new Generation IV Reactors 
20. How much Un-Recyclable Nuclear 'Waste' is there? And what does ‘Half Life’ mean? 

21. Background Terrestrial Radiation — Is it dangerous? 

22. Chernobyl: Europe’s Largest Wildlife Refuge 

23. Fukushima : Radiation less than a Banana and below detectable levels 

24. Nuclear Weapons Proliferation risks not increased by Nuclear Power technology 

Part FIVE: CONCLUSION - A Call For Immediate 

25. Harmony a ‘plan that adds -up' for future Electricity Generation : 75% Renewable plus 25% Nuclear 
26. Energy supply is most efficiently configured as state owned ‘Natural Monopoly' 

27. It is just as nonsensical to say we have run out of Kilograms as to say we have run out of Money 
28. Global cooperation - achieving Harmony 

29. Progressive Political Support NOW : 75% Wind Water Solar plus 25% Nuclear Electricity Generation 

Part ONE: Introduction 

This discussion paper is an urgent call for political actors, parties and their networks in the UK to establish a 
robust long-term statutory framework to create the Ultimate Power Couple“ 1 a Pro-Nuclear electricity 
generation partnership with Wind Water & Solar renewable energy in recognition that it is the physical 
world, of science, maths and engineering that determines what is politically possible, 2 not the other way round. 

When the physical evidence presented here below is honestly and dispassionately analysed, it very strongly 
suggests that non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water & Solar (WWS) electricity generation systems “simply won't 
work” — not even close to the 50+ fold increase needed to displace Big Fossil's 85% global energy supply 

This means GLOBALLY there's an URGENT need for governments to explicitly support industrial partnerships 
between the Nuclear & the WWS energy sectors. Especially rich and developed countries, who have 
historically dominated fossil energy resources — usually by force — leading to their huge infrastructure, industrial 
and wealth advantages, must now re-dress these imbalances by aiming to: a) domestically create tens of 
thousands of new jobs building infrastructure; b) globally expand their technology exports c) freely share energy 
generation IP (Intellectual Property) rights; and d) ensure the private sector engages in immediate and ongoing 
action to realise and sustain these outcomes. 



ey A 


One of the defining inequalities in the world today is that between the electricity rich and the electricity poor. 
Electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy. However, global electricity 
generation still accounts for between only 9% to 15% (depending on data source) of global energy 
consumption. 3 4 Poverty, women’s rights, climate change — indeed, most of the world’s most pressing 
challenges — can be explained by answering one question: can you turn on your lights, if you're lucky enough 
to have them? While electricity availability doesn’t guarantee wealth, its absence almost always means poverty. 
Darkness kills human potential. Electricity nourishes it. 5 

In the battle to replace Big Fossil, there are many compelling equality benefits that an ‘Ultimate Power Couple’ 
partnership between the Nuclear and Wind, Water & Solar (WWS) electricity generation sectors could yield, for 

1.Eliminate millions of unnecessary deaths, disease and dramatically shortened life spans from respiratory and 
related diseases, and injuries caused by a) breathing emissions from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) 
which have an 85% share of global energy demand, and b) breathing smoke from bio-fuels' 8% share, used to 
cook and keep warm by burning wood, dung and grass; 6 

Percentage of population using solid fuels as the main cooking fuel pict: 
The share of households by region who rely on wood, crop residues, dung, charcoal, or coal as the main cooking fuel. — 
The burning of solid fuels in households for cooking and heating can lead to very low indoor air quality, and illness or 
mortality from pneumonia, stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. 


60% ® Africa 77.00% @Southeast Asia 
@ Southeast Asia 61.00% 
@ Western Pacific 46.00% @Western Pacific 

40% @ World 41.00% eWorld 
@ Eastern Mediterranean 35.00% i@Eastern Mediterranean 
@ Americas 14.00% 
@ Europe 7.00% 

20% @ High-income 0.10% 
oe Americas 
0% ee eh ligh-income 
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 
Source: Solid fuel use for cooking by region - Bonjour et al. (2013) CC BY 

D> 1990 Qa 2010 CHART DATA SOURCES &2i@07 

2.Connect electricity to 12% of humans - nearly a billion people - now off grid. More than half the 1 billion 
people in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) 7 live on less than a dollar a day. Women in LDCs have a one 
in 16 chance of dying in childbirth, compared to one in 3,500 in Europe; LDCs are among the groups of 
countries most affected by climate change, while they contribute least to it. Many LDCs are also small islands 
whose very survival is threatened by rising sea levels; 8 

Number of people without access to electricity 

1.4 billion 
1.2 billion 

1 billion 

800 million 

600 million 

Least developed countries: UN 

400 million 

200 million 

0 Euro area 
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016 

Source: OWID based on World Bank, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) and UNWPP * CC BY 

3.Increase electricity supply to 3 billion people on the planet today who are using less energy than the 
equivalent electricity needed to run by an average refrigerator. 

Energy use per capita 

Annual average per capita energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per person per year. 

40,000 kWh 

United Kingdom 
30,000 kWh 

10,000 kWh 

Least developed countries: UN 

Ce ee enna. |-1s11i(er-1116) a 

0 kWh 
1971 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) via The World Bank » CC BY 

Few would argue with these aims, but they cannot be realised by the Wind, Water & Solar power sectors 
alone, which will struggle to grow from their current supply of circa 2% of global energy demand, because 

1.Can’t produce enough net electricity to cover the energy embedded in their own construction; causing 

2.Orders of magnitude increases in mining & industrial-scale “extractivism’ 9 activities “renewable energy does 
nothing to remake exploitative relationships with the earth” compared to Nuclear power; causing 

3.Huge increases in fossil fuel burning to power material processing and infrastructure build-out, eroding health, 
wellbeing and life spans; causing 

4.Mass_industrialisation of nature accelerating the already rapidly degrading and impoverished local 
communities 10 and the natural environments people rely on rather than embracing gargantuan projects; plus 

5.Countless unborn generations will be denied access to essential non-fuel fossils resources if early 21st 

Century humans are foolish enough to chase the 100% renewables unicorn, by greedily burning all remaining 
finite and irreplaceable coal, gas and oil reserves, which we're already half way through. 11 


RAS y —— — ao nn 

Externalities enjoyed in the developed world, such as the historical infrastructure advantages, all won largely 
on the back of Big Fossil's toxic persistent exponentially expanding (from 1940 to 1970) deadly emissions over 
the last few hundred years, must not be ignored or made invisible in our deliberations and actions. Do we deny 
much of the rest of the global population access to abundant energy because some of us now enjoying these 
infrastructure advantages have adopted a false “austerity” rhetoric? But in defence of what? When Nuclear 
power can provide for every human beings' needs more equally and reduce energy access inequality more 
efficiently by every metric we care to apply? Ignoring such day to day / historical advantage is, | argue, both 
anti-scientific and thus immoral so | reject it in favour of Nuclear power as quickly as possible for the many not 
the few. | call this just being fair. 

Arguments over global warming don't reduce the weight of these conclusions. Even if you think climate change 
doesn't exist at all, the above aims and conclusions remain just as urgent and just as firm. Being “agnostic” 
about Anthropic Global Warming, or a “believer” in CO2, methane from cow farts, fluffy stratospheric clouds, or 
the “tooth fairy’ can only add, but never subtract moral & scientific weight of the conclusion that: 

Humanity URGENTLY needs to Electrify 1 billion people now off-grid, Electrify Transport, Electrify 
domestic Heat & industrial process Heat and Maximise Energy Efficiencies in EVERYTHING ceNOW! 

Natasha Thoday 12 13 

Brighton, S eptember 2019 

1. Environmental leaders switch to supporting Nuclear Electricity Generation 

Many now acknowledge their previous opposition to Nuclear power was irrational. 14 People such as 
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, Friends of the Earth founder Bishop Hugh Montefiore, Whole Earth 
Catalog founder Stewart Brand, WWF J ared Diamond, and academics such as Tim Flanery, J ohn Holdren, 
James Kunstler, Bill McKibben and James Lovelock, together with author Gwyneth Cravens, journalist 
Mark Lynas, historian Richard Rhodes and activist Michael Shellenberger one of the world's leading pro- 
nuclear environmentalists & atomic humanist movement founder, 15 have all decided that Nuclear power is 
consistent with environmental values. 16 17 In contrast, people who switch to supporting Nuclear power seldom 
if ever switch back to not supporting it. 

Climatologist Dr J ames Hansen said: "Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the 
foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that 
renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is 
almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." 





WHAT VE 17's 

we CReAle A BeTTerR. 

—= Ta a, 

2. The Data is Clear - Non-Nuclear 100% 'Wind Water Solar’ (WWS) “simply won't work” 

Global warming is very likely being caused by humans emitting greenhouse gases. 18 There is a high degree of 
confidence amongst climate scientists, and the general scientific community, that the dominant cause of 
observed global warming has been humans burning ever more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitting coal, gas, & oil 
over the last several hundred years. “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing 
global warming.” 19 

The world’s climate is a chaotic system. Even after decades of intense study and billions in research funding, 
scientists have barely begun to comprehend all its workings. Even if global climate change factors other than 
CO2 turn out (following new analysis and evidence being robust enough to withstand the cut and thrust of 
scientific peer review to change today’s consensus) to be equally or more significant 20 then we should 
preserve fossil coal, gas & oil reserves for future generations in any case, not selfishly burn them all now: about 
13% of total petroleum products consumed in 2017 were for non-combustion but vital non-fuel uses. 

Big Fossil now accounts for more than 85% of global energy consumption and rising (in 2018 by 2.3% - its 
fastest pace in ten years - with only 30% of that increase due to renewables and nuclear). 21 Only about 2% of 
global energy consumption is accounted for by Wind & Solar, with 2% by Nuclear power and 3% hydroelectric. 
Apart from traditional bio-mass 8%, per unit of energy generated, burning fossil coal, oil and gas kills and 
disables tens of thousands times more than all other energy sources combined, with Nuclear power having the 
lowest mortality and injury rate of all, close to zero (details below). 

For this reason alone, the immediate and rapid expansion of Nuclear powered electrification is essential to 
building an ethically just global energy system. 

Schematic of a Nuclear Power Plant 



ie ae secondaryleep Generator RY 
f Pressurizing 
7 system 




JH BBRRElei cout eed 
e ~ - 

§ ata 




Meanwhile humanity faces largely unavoidable -Deep Adaptation” 22 to global warming induced social & 
environmental chaos. 

To address this emergency, multiple decarbonisation studies show that financial, social, and environmental 
costs spiral out of control as Wind Water Solar (WWS) penetrates into (models projecting the future make-up 
of) electricity grids above circa 75% and that Nuclear Power generated electricity is the 'least-worst' choice for 

Remember: global electricity generation accounts for only 9% to 15% of global energy consumption. 

The cost escalation seen in studies of non-Nuclear 'scenarios' (models with aggressive carbon constraints) is 
mostly due to low energy density WWS renewable electricity generation's extra build-out demands -— like the 
huge numbers of plants themselves, and their distribution & storage infrastructure, cumulatively far exceeding 
global supplies of the construction materials & minerals needed, with their embedded extraction, mining & 
refining fossil fuel energy — which becomes necessary in future ‘scenarios’ that rely exclusively on variable 
renewable electricity generating technologies. 31 

— 1000 
‘E 800 
Ss 600 
@ 400 
® Hydro c 
5 200 
® Nuclear ©O 
A Coal 
M Wind 
3 Solar 100 200 300 400 500 
@ Natural Gas Combined Cycle Mass of Steel (MT/MW) 

Materials needed to install various energy systems 

Wind Water & Solar renewables require many times the amount of steel and concrete to build generating plants 
than thermal sources, such as Nuclear, coal & gas. 32 Solar and Wind farms require between 400 and 750 
times more land than nuclear and natural gas plants. 33 

But even if raw materials and their embedded fossil fuel extraction energy were not a limit, electricity grid 
instability problems arise, such as increasing risks of power-cuts with too little fossil or Nuclear base-load and 
dispatchable capacity. 34 

The underlying problem is that WWS electricity generating technologies are too unreliable and energy-dilute on 
their own. Modern civilization has evolved as a direct expression of (high energy density) fossil fuels. The 

inevitable (and desirable) move to new energy arrangements involving an increase in renewable (low energy 
density) sources will require society to undergo profound spatial restructuring of our energy systems. 35 

Below we explore the impacts this will demand, and why and how the Nuclear and WWS sectors must abandon 
historical antagonisms and work together in partnership to urgently decarbonise human energy use. 

3. Accurate Trustworthy Data 
A) Total global primary Energy & Electricity consumption by Sector 

In 2017 Wind, Solar & Geothermal accounted for under 2% ; Hydropower roughly 3%; Traditional bio-mass 
about 7%; Nuclear circa 2%. All the rest was Big Fossil 85% 36 according to senior academics and scientists at 
the University of Oxford based Global Change Data Lab (GDCL). 37 

Global primary energy consumption Spal Abele 
Global primary energy consumption, measured in terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. Here ‘other renewables’ are renewable a 
technologies not including solar, wind, hydropower and traditional biofuels. 

Other renewables 

140,000 TWh Wind 
2017 Nuclear 
120,000 TWh @ Other renewables 586.17 TWh Natural gas 
® Solar 442.62 TWh 
®@ Wind 1,122.75 TWh 
100,000 TWh @ Nuclear 2,635.56 TWh 
™ Hydropower 4,059.87 TWh 
80,000 TWh @ Natural gas 36,703.97 TWh Crude oil 
@ Crude oil 53,752.28 TWh 
60,000 TWh @ Coal 43,397.14 TWh 
@ Traditional biofuels 10,895.32 TWh 
Total 153,595.66 TWh 
40,000 TWh ee 
20,000 TWh 
Traditional biofuels 
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2017 
Source: Vaclav Smil (2017) and BP Statistical Review of World Energy CC BY 


According to BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy data, Wind, Water and Solar together accounted for 
only 9.4% of total energy consumption in 2017. 38 

Total Global electricity consumption (in 2014) accounted for only about 14% of primary energy consumption, 
39 40 with Nuclear electricity consumption accounting for only 11% (down from a high of 18% in 1996). 

GDCL also report UK electricity consumption (in 2015) accounts for circa 16% of overall primary energy used. 
41 42 Since 2000, UK energy usage has decreased by 20-25%, but globally from 1970 to 2014, average 
consumption increased by approximately 45%, whilst 12% of the world's 7.7 billion population are still without 

Non-Nuclear lobbyists, such as REN21 (a global 100% WWS industrial members networking association aiming 
to shape the energy debate) 43 agree closely with GDCL data, reporting global primary energy consumption in 
2016 thus: Wind, Solar, Geothermal, & Ocean power 1.7%; Biomass & Biofuels 5%; and Hydropower 3.7%. 
Traditional bio-mass 7.8%; Nuclear 2.2%; and Big Fossil accounting for 79.5%. 44 

B) Green House Gas Emissions by Sector 

Carbon emissions climbed by 2% in 2018, faster than any year since 2011 caused by the demand for energy 
easily outstripping the rapid rollout of renewable energy, 45 of which only 9% to 15% of global energy 
consumption is consumed as electricity (See above). 

The figure below shows the relative fraction of man-made greenhouse gases coming from each of eight 
categories of sources, as estimated by the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 
4.2, Fast Track 2010 Project. 46 These values are intended to provide a snapshot of global annual greenhouse 
gas emissions in the year 2000. The top panel shows the sum over all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, 
weighted by their global warming potential over the next 100 years. This consists of 72% carbon dioxide, 20% 
methane, 5% nitrous oxide and 3% all other gases. Lower panels show the comparable information for each of 
these three primary greenhouse gases, with the same colouring of sectors as used in the top chart. 47 United 
States Environmental Protection Agency gives similar results. 48 

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 

Industrial Electric power stations 
processes 15.9% i 

Transportation fuels 

13.2% Waste disposal 

and treatment 

3 Residential, 
7.5% commercial, & 

Land use and other sources 

biomass burning 12:1% 
Fossil fuel retrieval, 

10.5% processing, and 

j i 10) ‘ ‘ ‘ 
34.1% 40.8% 62.5% 
4.7% 3.4% 
8.9% 34.5% Tae 
17.3% 4. 
14.0% 16.5% 15.1% 6.1% 
Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide 
(72% of total) (20% of total) (5% of total) 

The chart below shows total greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 (measured in their carbon-dioxide equivalent 
values i.e. including nitrous oxide and methane) based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
data. 49 Agriculture 10%, forestry 2%, and land use 10% (AFOLU) are responsible for about one-quarter of 
global greenhouse gas emissions, and yield a similar result to that of the Fast Track 2010 Project data (above). 

Greenhouse gas emissions by sector Our World 
Breakdown of total greenhouse gas emissions by sector, measured in tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalents (CO,e). 
Carbon dioxide equivalents measures the total greenhouse gas potential of the full combination of gases, weighted by 
their relative warming impacts. 

in Data 

50 billion t 

Utner sources 


AO billion t - = pene Residential & 
: commercial 
} ~as 2010 Forestry 
—a ® Other sources 267.61 milliont Agriculture 

30 billion t : International bunkers 1.08 billion t Land use sources 
@ Waste 1.45 billiont 
Hl Industry 3.47 billiont —— 

so bill ®@ Residential & commercial 3.74 billion t 

i Forestry 1.18 billion t 
© Agriculture 5.08 billiont 
@ Land use sources 5.54 billiont 
— Energy 

10 billion t @ Transport 5.54 billion t 

@ Energy 23.24 billiont 
Total 50.58 billiont 
1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 
Source: UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) CC BY 

= Change country Relative CHART DATA SOURCES s < 

Germany's experiment closing its Nuclear electricity plants has not reduced its carbon emissions, which are set 
to rise, as are other pollutants. 51 Compared to France it produces ten times the emissions at twice the end 
user price per unit of energy because France receives 75% of its electricity from nuclear. Same in California. 
Strong evidence its nearly impossible to replace fossil without Nuclear. 52 

All decarbonisation 'plans' — whatever % Nuclear or 100% WWS electricity generation — will require a rapid and 
massive expansion of electricity storage and distribution technologies to have any chance of decarbonizing big 
fossil's 85% and rising domination of the yet to be electrified energy sector. 

4. Intermittency & Storage: one of the Achilles heel of Wind Water & Solar (WWS) power generation 

Grid-scale energy efficient power storage is required for WWS to work as a mature non-parasitic electricity 
generating technology. 53 54 When there's no sun or wind, intermittent WWS renewables (low energy density) 
must be backed-up by on-demand dispatchable electricity generation or storage (high energy density). 55 

Hydro provided 2.64% of global energy 56 with pumped storage generating 16.4% of the world’s electricity in 
2016, but it has very limited potential to expand 57 and has the highest death rate of all renewables (1,400 
deaths/million GWhr). 58 Geography and politics prevents further expansion in the UK beyond circa 2% of its 
electricity generating capacity. 59 

Battery storage will always be far too expensive environmentally and financially. 60 61 No digital-like ‘Moore's 
law' 10x gains exist for batteries to take over any time soon. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size 
of a book, costing tuppence, could power a jetliner to Australia. But that only happens in comic books. 62 The 
maximum theoretical energy in a kilogram of the best battery chemicals is 15x less than that in a kilogram of oil. 
And it takes the energy-equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate enough batteries to store the energy- 
equivalent of a single barrel of oil. 63 

Geothermal energy capacity is insignificant in the UK 64 and globally only 83GW. 65 

5. No choice : Nuclear Power Must be in the mix for 'plans that add-up' in short, medium, & long terms 
The UK has 15 Nuclear reactors generating about 21% of its electricity in 2019 but almost half of this capacity 
is to be retired by 2025. 66 In the short term, to avoid power cuts with this reduced base-load Nuclear, the only 

choices available to UK grid engineers, when there's no sun or wind — to replace this lost Nuclear capacity — is 
going to be some combination of on-demand dispatchable fossil gas, coal & oil. 

Extending life 

Hunterston B Key 

Capacity 890,000kW . Advanced 
Reactors 2 fof: Fpreele) (=e M g-t- [elke] g 
In operation 1976 

Scheduled to close 2023 — wy Pressured water reactor 

+f - >. Torness 
f »s Capacity 1.21 millionkW 

Reactors 2 
In operation 1988 
Scheduled to close 2023 

-| Heysham 1 | : 
| Reactors 2 Hartlepool 

In operation 1983 a Capacity: 1.19 millionkW 
Scheduled to close 2019 \w Reactors 2 

In operation 1983 

Heysham 2 Scheduled to close 2019 
Reactors 2 == 

In operation 1988 

Scheduled to close 2023 . Sizewell 
propose to build Capacity: 1.19 millionkW 

Combined capacity two new nuclear 

2.37 millionkW Reactors 1 

plants at Hinkley In operation 1983 

Point and two Scheduled to close 2035 
at Sizewell : 

Hinkley Point B 

Capacity: 870,0O0OO0kW 
Reactors 2 Dungeness B 

In operation 1976 Capacity: 1.04 millionkW L 

Scheduled to close 2023 | Reactors 2 
In operation 1983 

Scheduled to close 2018 

Source: EDF Energy 

The global fleet of Generation 3 water and gas cooled Nuclear reactor power plants are not prefect, but 
renewables could not even exist now — nor can they scale up much in the future — without increases in 
embedded high energy density fossil fuels. 

In 1966 the California Sierra Club’s Board of Directors (the prototype global environmental pressure group) 
voted nine-to-one to support the building of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to replace fossil fuels. “Nuclear 
power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation” argued Sierra Club President Will Siri. 

In response, the sole dissenter, David Brower quit and started a new group, Friends of the Earth (FOE). 
“There's no more important issue in my life,” said Brower, than to “see that Friends of the Earth does 
everything it can, here and abroad, to stop the nuclear experiment.” The founding donor of FOE was 
oilman Robert Anderson, owner of Atlantic Richfield. He gave FOE the equivalent of $500,000 in 2019 dollars. 
“What was David Brower doing accepting money from an oilman?” his biographer wondered. The answer is 
that he was developing the environmental movement’s strategy of promoting renewables as a way to 
greenwash the killing of nuclear plants and the expanded use of fossil fuels. Big fossil has been exploiting and 
directly financing and organising anti-nuclear propaganda using environmental groups like FOE and 
Greenpeace as smoke screens ever since. 67 


ilo SAYS We 

QA piop.B¢ TR, -ONTENT 
WASSERNNA sw bastoins tase coat KUNE eM 

This means that in the short to medium term, non-Nuclear 100% WWS 'plans' to displace Big Fossil's grip on 
the worlds electricity grids, and indeed expand those grids, must accept that however well intentioned, their 
decarbonisation goals will stall and reverse, due to both the physical and the propaganda / funding reasons 
discussed above, whilst waiting for long anticipated but yet-to-emerge technologies such as: Smart-Grids 
(online micro load management hardware, to match local demand-intermittency in every building, with continent- 
wide grid generation-intermittency); 68 69 Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion; 70 Mass Thermal Storage (in 
every building); Mass Carbon Capture (to enable fossil & bio-fuel carbon neutrality); 71 72 73 Power to 
Methane; 74 Synthfuel; 75 Graphene Super Capacitors; 76 77 Nuclear Fusion (lack of funding means its always 
30 years away); and the mythical Hydrogen / Fuel Cell economy (ditto). 78 79 80 

In particular, to become large scale industrial process in the real world, energy storage technologies such as 
Power to Methane, Synthfuel, and Hydrogen, all depend (if we don't care about CO2 emissions) on either fossil 
fuels, or if we are serious about reducing Anthropic Global Warming, then massive expansions of existing (high 
energy density) Nuclear power technology, as these chemical synthesis processes require lots of (high energy 
density) heat 81 which (low energy density) WWS power is poorly suited to supply. 82 83 84 

The figure below based on the 1972 book 'Limits to Growth' shows that even without Nuclear power and 
abundant fossil fuels humanity is already facing collapse. 85 The 2019 line is drawn based on where the world 
economy seems to be now, rather than on precisely where the base model would put the year 2019. “There 
have been many amazing coincidences over the past 4 billion years that have allowed life to continue to evolve 
on this planet. More of these coincidences may be ahead. We also know that humans lived through past ice 
ages. They likely can live through other kinds of adversity, including worldwide economic collapse.” 86 

At the urgent pace now required to decarbonise, the only technically and politically possible way is for WWS 
electricity generation to work in partnership with tried and tested Nuclear Powered electricity generation. 87 
Only by working together can Nuclear and WWS retire fossil fuels from the energy business, so that humanity 
can earn itself a break from impending climate chaos, being caused by well known Limits to Growth with the 
required response of Deep Adaptation and instead concentrate on ushering in all these wonderfully promising, 
but yet-to-emerge technologies. 

As we shall explore more fully below, increasing Nuclear power build-out (high energy density) would also 
significantly offset Wind Water & Solar power's (low energy density) impossible to achieve land, mineral, 
environmental, and embedded extraction and construction fossil fuel energy demands. 

The message is clear: we — i.e. the Wind Water Solar & Nuclear industrial sectors on behalf of humanity — need 
to urgently decarbonize over three quarters — 85% and rising — of global energy use by a combination of 
Electrifying the 12% of humanity now off grid, Electrifying Transport, Electrifying Heat (domestic & industrial 
process) and Maximising Efficiencies in EVERYTHING. 

Part TWO: Science Informs Politics 
6. Scientists support Nuclear energy to help achieve IPCC under 2-degree Decarbonisation Targets 

Surveys show with a high degree of confidence that the general scientific community, including most prominent 
climate scientists who've expressed a public opinion, believes both:- 

1. Global warming's dominant cause is human greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide) meaning we 
face “deep adaptation” 88 89 to climate induced global chaos; and 

2. Nuclear power must be part of human response because it:- 
a) Generates the least greenhouse gas emissions; and 
b) Has the least overall financial, environmental, and social costs of all; 90 and 

c) Is the only present-day low-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to scale-up to meet many, if not 
all, the energy demands of modern economies far into the future with an inexhaustible supply of uranium and 
other metals needed to build nuclear reactors dissolved in seawater (see below). 91 92 

A 2015 PEW survey of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science 93 94 found 87% of scientists 
believe global warming is being driven, at least in part, by human activity, with 65% saying they favour building 
more Nuclear power plants, or at the very least, feel that it should be on the table as an available emissions- 
mitigation option. 

7. We need a shared Pro-Arithmetic Ethical Plan that ‘Adds Up' 

The late Sir David MacKay, polymath, author of the influential book 'Without Hot Air and head-hunted UK 
government climate change advisor, appealed to his readers Please don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to be 
pro-Nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic. The one ethical position | wish to push is -we should have a plan that adds 
up’.” 95 96 97 

Despite being well intentioned, well-financed and well-organised, unfortunately non-Nuclear 100% renewable 
WWS 'plans' do NOT ‘add up', becoming 'An Exercise in Magical Thinking’ 98 with objections to nuclear 
eventually boiling down to a handful of arguments that are well-meaning but often ignore basic facts. 99 

They start with a hidden in plain sight contradiction: on the one hand accepting and urgently wanting to act on 
the scientific consensus that anthropic global warming is real; but then disregarding the same scientific 
consensus that humanity needs Nuclear power's unique balance of advantages / disadvantages to meet global 
decarbonisation goals to avoid climate induced social chaos and breakdown. 

Such inconsistency is obscured and sustained by inflating ‘Nuclear radiation contamination’ fears way beyond 
what the data supports. 100 This leads people to believe the pollution risks are too great even to consider 
Nuclear. But if its 'true' that 'radioactive Nuclear power 'waste' is dangerous for -millions“ of years' 101 102 (its 
not) then creating more can not make the 'problem' worse: we're ‘stuck with it' anyway (we're not) and since 
humans already barely have enough time or resources to prevent -an inevitable near term social collapse due to 
climate change“ 103 we may as well decarbonise as quickly as possible with Nuclear's help. 

These issues and objections are explored further below, in particular the Nuclear ‘waste’ problem which has now 
been solved by ‘burning’ it in new reactors i.e. recovering all its otherwise wasted energy rendering it 'safe as 
background in 300 years’. 

8. There are no short-cuts around Political Engagement 

Risk perception is an intrinsic, biologically rooted, inescapable part of how the human animal behaves. We need 
to accept this and use what we know about the way humans respond to risk in order to help ourselves make 
better, healthier choices. We need to bring the risk perception factors out of the subconscious shadows and use 
them as practical tools to allow our rational thinking to have more influence in the policy making process. 104 

When people express their hatred of Nuclear, stoked up by media -# it scares, it airs” stories, they usually argue 
about: the dangers from radiation leaks; the risk of weapons proliferation; the Nuclear waste problem; and that 
Nuclear power is too expensive; and in any case - we just don't need it! - but none of these objections have 
solid scientific or political backing (as we shall explore more below). If they did, countries around the world (like 
USA, UK, France, Finland, Russia, China, India, South Korea, UAE) would not continue to build new Nuclear 
power plants to supply their growing need for energy. 

Policy decisions based on fears rather than facts can lead to decisions that feel good (e.g. no Nuclear) but 
increase the overall risk to the population (more deaths and health risks from burning fossil fuels and climate 
risks from greenhouse gas emissions). 105 

ScrENCE v5 Puatic OPINION 
Aa Ss 4 ARE YOU Crazy? \ 

-¥> | polls Stow 79% | 

Z | Fl Tp q irs FLAT! 
as ™_ =~ a _ 

java ve CLAN! 


72 Peprpico-tniversal Ucliel 


In contrast China has a ‘go global’ policy of exporting Nuclear technology. 106 But China has seen a four fold 
increase in energy consumption per capita since the 1980s and is now the largest importer of oil, coal, and 
natural gas in the world, which its uses to manufacture exported goods to countries that are decreasing energy 
consumption per capita. 

Bright Green Environmentalists differ from the mainstream ‘Back-to-Nature’' romantic ideal of modern 
environmentalism, arguing that humans should protect nature by actively perusing technology to "decouple" 
anthropogenic impacts from the natural world. 107 Eco-Modernists 108 “affirm one long-standing environmental 
ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature ... Urbanization, 
agricultural intensification, Nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated 
potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species. 
S uburbanization, low-yield farming, and many forms of renewable energy production, in contrast, generally 
require more land and resources and leave less room for nature. ” 109 

Below we explore the “numerous shortcomings” in 'plans' put forward by 'non-Nuclear 100% WWS' renewable 
energy lobbyists in particular how they quietly enable their 'scenarios' to gobble up vast tracts of land, mineral 
resources, and fossil fuels. 

Part THREE: 100% Wind Water & Solar power is —-nonsensical” 
in spite of -eapturing the public imagination” 

9. Wind Water and Solar power can’t produce enough energy to cover its own embedded construction 

Water, Wind & Solar installations represent a net energy loss and cannot power their own paradigm shift alone. 
In 2011 Google says it invested over $850 million in the renewable energy sector, so are highly motivated to 
reduce their huge energy bills. 110 They concluded in 2014 after 4 years of effort that renewable energy -simply 
won't work" according to the scientists who led the research programme. 111 112 The key problem appears to 
be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total 
recoverable energy — the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to ‘balance the budget' of what 
was consumed in their construction. 

A ‘balanced budget’ of WWS plant also includes fossil fuels to manufacture all the parts, and mine and refine 
raw materials like iron, copper, lithium, cobalt, (more below) and, however abundant, rare earth metal ores, 
which are not really replaceable, 113 even with modern Reluctance generators that don't need magnets 114 in 
wind turbines. 115 All must be transported by diesel throughout the production chain. Have you ever seen an 
electric cargo ship 116 117 118 119 or JCB earth mover? Plus 5-25 years lifetime repeat costs of wind turbine 

120 and solar power equipment components, and energy for continuous maintenance like cleaning of solar 
panels. And recycling issues. 121 

at 7 Sieh 

This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more WWS renewable power plants, and supporting 
manufacturing infrastructure, micro-power distribution networks, all with inter-connecting continent-wide smart- 
grids, 122 simply to produce and deliver the energy required to manufacture and maintain WWS renewable 
energy facilities, an obvious practical absurdity. 

10. It’s not about Wind Water and Solar ~vs~ Fossil ~vs~ Nuclear it’s about which mix makes sense 

When all the complexities are properly considered, its clear that no single power generating technology is the 
best tool for the entire decarbonising job. All factors must be taken into account, such as geography, climate, 
weather, population density, whole life greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure, air pollution, land and water 
impacts, and the evolving face of electricity end-use. Only a diverse and balanced energy mix can succeed, one 
which works in harmony with the needs of people, the realities of various different environments, and the 
engineering constraints imposed by physics and maths. 

Running entirely counter to this principle, lobbyists pushing visions of 'non-Nuclear 100% WWS' disregard the 
global need for diversity in the energy system. This makes the task of balancing cost, energy security, and 
environmental considerations all the more difficult. Such 'voices' seem to dominate energy policy discussion and 
media attention, but regrettably they make no practical attempt to address all competing factors. 

The IPCC partially resists these 'voices' but “Nuclear stigma” is still very active active, for example in the way 
its unequivocal conclusion that nuclear is needed to meet the 2 degree goals (see page 304) is tucked away in 
the report’s appendix and thus hardly known by any of the environmentalists who otherwise rely on IPCC for 
climate science. 123 

And in its 2018 Special Report SR15 124 Nuclear generation increases on average 2.5 times by 2050 in the 89 
mitigation scenarios considered; 125 and -Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and 
physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes.“; 126 but then yields biases in favour of these 
‘voices’ such as promoting -policy interventions” to -enhance affordability“ for renewables, but never suggest 
similar -policy interventions” for Nuclear. 127 

For example, UK wind farms receive 40 per cent more cash when there's no wind or ‘switched off’ (i.e. 
curtailment, underlining the urgent need for a massive increase in storage capacity) 128 than supplying the grid, 
£108 million in 2017. 129 Nuclear Industry Subsidies are analysed here. 130 As we shall explore more below, 
such arguments miss that energy infrastructure is a 'Natural Monopoly’. 

11. Failed Lawsuits : Dozens of Climate & Power-Grid experts judge Non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and 
Solar power study “riddled with errors” 

Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson 131 is one of the most infamous of the lobbyists 'voices', who's 
-eutspokenness and solo style ... captured the public imagination“ 132 following a series (2009 - 2018) 133 of 
controversial studies. In 2011 Jacobson began vigorously promoting non-Nuclear 'Roadmaps' for 139 countries 
worldwide via campaigning network 134 135 and The Solutions Project. 136 

In 2017 Jacobson filed, then later withdrew a well publicised “unprecedented” lawsuit, demanding $10 million in 
damages 137 138 against a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study 139 140 published in the 
peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that the 
‘Roadmaps' contained -nonsensical“ assumptions, with a -staggering scale of modelling errors, inappropriate 
methods, and implausible assumptions [...] seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized 
energy system.” For example they “overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to 
increase its hydropower output” and would require “more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for 
each American ... a territory nearly twice the size of California” which “render it [Jacobson's 
‘Roadmaps' ] unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, 
solar, and hydroelectric power system.” 141 

The 'Roadmaps' rely on yet-to-emerge mass thermal storage, demand-response smart-grids, 142 and the 
mythical hydrogen economy, in 'plans' using ridiculously vast tracts of land in order for Jacobson to claim he'd 
demonstrated U.S. energy (and later globally via could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, 
primarily Wind, Water, and Solar. 143 144 

-A project of such epic proportions could be implemented only under the auspices of an authoritarian and totally 
-green” world government backed up by an equally -green“ populace, and the chances that we will see either at 
any time in the foreseeable future are zero.“ 145 

12. Zero Carbon Britain ‘scenario’ for a Non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and Solar & the UK Green New 

Another of these 'voices' is the 2013 Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) 146 report Zero Carbon 
Britain (ZCB) 147 with the laudable aim of decarbonising the UK energy needs without Nuclear by 2050, but in 
so doing they show just how hard politically and physically challenging such a ‘plan’ would be. The UK's Green 
New Deal (GND) group's (most recent) 2015 report 148 has -drawn" upon -much* of the anti-Nuclear ZCB 
report. At the same time, GND acknowledge the Committee on Climate Change 149 pro-Nuclear stance as an 
“authoritative sustainable energy scenario’. The GND “was designed to kick start a rapid transition to a new 

economy shaped to prevent a climate breakdown and transform a failed financial system. The GND will power a 
renewables revolution, [and] create thousands of green-collar jobs.” 

[From the Committee on Climate Change report: “Alongside new renewables, technologies which can offer 
firm and flexible power, such as Nuclear and CCS, will be required for a power system in 2050 contributing fully 
to achieving overall net-zero emissions. The scale of deployment required by 2050 will necessitate continued 
investment in these options between now and 2050.”] 

[From the Green New Deal 5th anniversary report: p18 “There are many authoritative sustainable energy 
scenarios for the UK that have been developed by a range of actors, including the Committee on Climate 
Change, research groups, business groups, and NGOs. The potential for the UK to go carbon free has most 
recently been extensively detailed by the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in the report: ‘Zero Carbon 
Britain: Rethinking the Future’ from which much of the following is drawn.”] 

Despite this hedging, some Green New Deal co-founder's have expressed a fear based irrational rhetoric 
against Nuclear power. One of them wrote a blog post in April 2019 to inform readers about what was presented 
as an "Historic Report" (by LUT University and Energy Watch 150 based on the “riddled with errors” / 
Jacobson study) the author commented that Nuclear is "[a]s profoundly wrong as burning our planet." And that 
“proNuclear power's rationality is not rational at all ceit's just another form of extinction risk. And we can well 
do without Nuclear ceas Jeremy Leggett shows [in a .ppt presentation celebrating the LUT report]. So the 
answer is a simple one celet's do without it, for good. No analysis will change that: playing with fire means we 
will get burnt. And Nuclear is worse than that." 151 

a ARE THE | 


l) haplarté 

Int'l Herald Tribune 

Leggett, also a Green New Deal co-founder, set up Solar Century in 1998 with an annual turnover of £168 
million in 2015-16, and is now pursuing £3 billion of projects in Latin America and Europe. 152 Its regrettable 
that Green New Deal group members refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence suggesting 
the long term commercial and political success of the Wind, Water and Solar electricity generation industries 
relies, indeed is guaranteed by having Nuclear in the mix, as we shall explore below. 

To begin with, the ZCB 'Scenario' and hence “much” of the Green New Deal 'plan' for the UK repeats many of 
the same ‘Roadmap’ “errors” as Jacobson / in trying to tackle the non-Nuclear 100% WWS 
Intermittency & Storage ‘Achilles Heel’. To lower the electricity storage capacity needed by 2050, ZCB first 
suggests a 55% reduction in UK power demand to 1,160 TWh per year by 2050 (Down from 2,535 TWh per 
year in 2010) with the aid of yet-to-be developed corporate “dream” smart-grids. 153 

13. Wind Water and Solar all need vast areas of Land & Sea to Build and Grow Infrastructure 

To provide this more than halved electricity demand, the ZCB 'Scenario' builds offshore wind farms around the 
entire UK coastline providing 45% (530 TWh/y) of capacity. But Wind (and Solar) power requires five to 20 times 
more land & sea area than previously thought according to Harvard University research published in 2018 and 
would significantly warm average surface temperatures. 154 These observation-based wind power densities are 
also much lower than important estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 155 156 

First large-scale direct observation of wind energy’s power density is consistent 
with physically-based models and inconsistent with wind resource estimates 
that ignore interactions between wind turbines and the atmosphere 

Red studies indicate model-based estimates that consider turbiné-atmosphere interactions: 
red range is 10-90" percentiles of US wind farms observed in Miller & Keith (2018) in ERL 

Miller & Keith, 2018 (Harvard) , 
0.7% Cont. US land nd 
Miller & Keith, 2018 (Harvard) & 
33% Gont. US land 
Jacobson et al., 2018 (Stanford) aK 
43 North Am. cities 7) 
Danish Tech. U for World Bank (2018)' 
10% global land —> 227 W.m* 

Kammen & Sunter, 2016 (UC Berkeley) 7 3 
cities —— 30 W.m 
Miller & Kleidon, 2016 (Max Planck) 
100% global land ) 
Miller et al., 2015 (Max Planck) 
1% US land ce) 
Fitch, 2015 (NCAR) 
1% global land @ 
US DOE, 2014 
2% US land 
Mackay, 2013 (U of Cambridge)* 3 
Adams & Keith, 2013 (UNC Charlotte) 
3% US lana @ 
IPCC, 2012 from Rogner, 2000 
23% global land | —> 6.2 W.m* 
Jacobson & Archer, 2012 (Stanford) 
100% global land =] 
Lopez et al, 20712 (US DOE) _ 
29% US land a, 
Dabiri, 2011 (Cattech)* 4 
obs. over 49 m* —> 21-47 Wem ° 
Miller et al., 2011 (Max Planck) 
100% global land G 
Archer & Jacobson, 2005 (Stanford) 
13% global land 
Keith et al., 2004 (U of Calgary)" 
10% global land @ 
Gustavson, 1979 (Lawrence Livermore)" 
100% global land 

0 1 2 3 4 5 
power density (Wz m*) 

[*) for studies that compute power density limits (saturation), we report half the limit 
[1] “The mean power density & a measure of the wind resource," (https://globalwindatlas. into); 
used in McKinsey & Co, Exhibit 8 in Decarbonization of industrial sectors: the next frontier 
[2] relatively small wind power plants (range: 0.14-13.3km®, avg=2.4 km*) 
[3] "Averaged over the 48,6 m* footprint of the six-turbine VAWT [vertical axis wind turbine array)..." 
“in vacant desert...[with] topography [that] ts flat for approximately 1.5 km in all directions" 
used in Kammen & Sunter (2016) for city-scale estimate; see our 2 eLetter responses at https:/ 

Biomass & biogas then provides 20% (237 TWh/year) of the ZCB 'Scenario's' power supply capacity, with a 
75% reduction (“agricultural GHG emissions down from 63.4 MtCQ2e [in 2010] to 17 MtCO2e per year” in 2050) 
in the amount of -grassland required for grazing livestock” by 2050 via -a combination of [human] dietary 
changes“ just to make way for yet-to-be bioengineered monoculture biofuels. ZCB -+esearch shows that we can 
[...] meet our entire energy demand without imports“ meaning the 'Scenario' expects the UK to eat 75% less 
meat / dairy implying most people become vegetarian or vegan claiming a -healthier and more balanced 
average diet for the UK.“ 157 

All this effort — when there's week long winter lulls in wind and sun — to finally supply the grid with electricity from 
burning dirty inefficient biomass and biofuels, emitting large amounts of air pollution, whilst waiting for yet-to- 
emerge mass carbon capture incinerators and / or yet-to-emerge power to methane and mass thermal storage 
technologies, 158 and competing with food and water supplies. 159 

And where to grow all these monoculture yet-to-emerge bioengineered biofuels when the UK's 250,000Km2 is 
57% farm, 35% natural, 3% green urban, and 6% built on? (BBC summary based on 2017 Corine data). 160 

ZCB admits in its own report that they have to perform these anti-Nuclear ideological contortions because the 
otal amount of [hydro] energy that can be stored is small [and the] UK‘s largest pumped storage station, 
Dinorwig in North Wales, can only store around 10 Gwh [but] the UK consumes far more than 1,000 GWh of 
energy ona Single cold winter day.“ 

14. Electric Vehicles : Increase in Minerals, Mining & Fossil Fuel 

The Zero Carbon Britain / Green New Deal 'Scenario' and Jacobson / 'Roadmaps' laudably wish to 
reduce the portion of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 due to Transport (15%) and Aviation (1.5%) by 
replacing UK-based cars with electric vehicles powered by lithium batteries. 

When it comes to mass production of hybrid and electric vehicles, the main problem has been a shortage of 
batteries. And the main material in growing demand is lithium. An element found in abundance in South 
America, where the cheapest extraction method by evaporating salt brines in the solar ponds deploys usage of 
cheap and toxic PVC; and in lithium-rich regions of Chile where extracting the metal uses two-thirds of the 
area’s fresh drinking water. 161 

To achieve this, the Natural History Museum calculated in 2019 (in an open letter to the Committee on 
Climate Change) 162 that the UK (not including the LGV and HGV fleets) would need just under two times the 
current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, at least 
half of the world’s copper production, and three quarters the world’s lithium production during 2018. 163 

Or to put it another way, ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles from 2035 will require the UK to annually 
import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt 164 needs of European industry with at least a 20% increase in 
UK generated electricity. 

Even if we burnt all the fossil fuels needed to extract all the minerals to enable a global 100x growth in the 
number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040, it would displace only 5% of global oil demand. 
Extrapolated to 2 billion cars worldwide, the energy demand for extracting and processing the metals alone is 
almost 4 times the total annual UK electrical output. 

The massive expansions of mining activities demanded by WWS technology increases already severe 
environmental degradation. 165 And the Electric Vehicle industry is now realising scalability is dependent on 
reliable sources of supply and is waking up to the threat of massive constraints in the future. 166 

Its clear WWS technologies do not scale-up well, they soon hit a runaway cycle of constructing more and more 
renewable plants, causing fossil fuel energy use to rise chasing ever diminishing global supplies of bulk metal 
resources such as steel, copper, lithium, cobalt, and neodymium, as Google already found out. 167 168 

15. Externalities Limiting non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and Solar power 

The ZCB / GND 'Scenario' laudably aims to reduce the UK contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions by 
focusing on the portions taken by: Buildings (18%) reduced by upgrades; Transport (14%); Agriculture, Forestry 
and Other Land Uses (25%) which includes livestock at circa (5.5%); (IPCC) 169 all only yielding very limited 
scope for reductions. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sectors 

and Heat Production 





—— Transport 
Transport 0.3% 

49 Gt CO,eq 
14% —— 




Other | 

9.6% AFOLU 

Direct Emissions Indirect co, Emissions 

But it fails to emphasise the significant increases in minerals and mining and greenhouse gas emissions 
necessary with Wind Water and Solar systems in the portion taken by: Energy needed to supply energy (13%); 
the contributions of Heavy Industry (29%); and Other (10%); 170 (IEA, 2012 et al) 171 which are largely 
sidestepped, whilst quietly expecting industrial and domestic energy demand is halved, three quarters of the 
population become vegetarian or vegan, and yet be able to build & maintain the largest infrastructure project 
humanity ever envisioned. 

16. Energy Feudalism, Extractivism, Exploiting the Global South : Renewable Energy = Fossil Fuel+ 

Assembling the biggest work force in global history devoted to extracting and processing the billions of tonnes of 
metals and other minerals needed, all mostly powered by fossil fuels, then sequestering all the land and sea 
bed needed to build and maintain the energy infrastructure transformations conjured up in the Green New Deal 
/ Zero Carbon Britain 'Scenarios' and Jacobson / 'Roadmaps' (and others) would amount to Energy 

It is inconceivable that the additional unnecessary austerity in energy (55% cuts, dressed up as consumer 
efficiencies), and food (75% cuts, dressed up as health improvements), as suggested by the ZCB / GND 
‘scenario’ will be acceptable to people in the UK. It will be politically impossible to persuade a majority in the UK 
to voluntarily choose a vegetarian or vegan diet, and then to also reduce their current energy footprint by over a 
half, whilst living with intermittent electricity power grid failures and cuts in winter. 

Even if it were, UK domination of globally limited metal and mineral supplies is not possible at any price. 

“When liberals, progressives, “the Left,” and even environmental justice activists applaud the large-scale 
transition to renewable energy, they ignore the many hazards that would otherwise be unacceptable to them. 
Displacing fossil fuel industries to the Global South, where there are fewer environmental regulations and 
political rights, makes possible the use of excessive forms of state-private security violence against anyone who 
might protest them. Furthermore, the material [minerals, metals & land] necessary for renewable energy can 
only result in an increase in Extractivism in the Global South and all the negative consequences this entails for 
people on the ground. If we do not confront these facts, then the solution of today — like previous energy 
systems and regime changes — will likely result in the complicated tyrannies of tomorrow. Recognizing 
renewable energy as Fossil Fuel+ is a first step to combat the fairytale of renewable energy. By 
highlighting the myths surrounding renewable energy, we also create the groundwork for greater environmental 
considerations and the enactment of radical ecological alternatives that address the roots of consumer society 
and its marketed solutions.” 172 

Pitching even further into the fairytale realm, the Green New Deal and other similar wew energy economy” 
proposals both in Europe and the US rests on the belief that the technologies of wind, solar power, and battery 
storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically 

lowering costs and increasing efficiency when they are not, as we have discovered above. Certainly not in the 
short and medium terms needed to match the urgency of the climate and humanitarian emergency we now face. 

Instead we need more honesty and transparency from leaders and commentators about the true impacts of fear 
based deeply irrational ideological rejections of Nuclear power in the 'Scenarios' and 'Roadmaps' on offer, such 
as in this compendium of 'plans' 174 (including ZCB & Jacobson etc.) that yet again fails to account for limiting 
physical externalities, trying to argue that 100% WWS can supply base-load without Nuclear or fossil or 
adequate storage. Their agenda(s) self evidently rests on overlooking the engineering constraints imposed on 
100% WWS technology by the laws of physics, maths, 175 and basic ethics, and so we must reject their 
conclusions as anti-scientific. 

Part FOUR: Nuclear Power : Answering Objections 
17. Nuclear Power is completely renewable 

Nuclear power's raw materials foot print (minerals, metals & land) is thousands of times smaller than WWS 
because Nuclear has a very high energy density. 176 This means future Nuclear power build-out expansion is 
not limited by any of the scale-up blockages that plague WWS, with its ever increasing demands for more 
mining & raw materials powered by fossil fuels spiralling out of control. 

Uranium (used as fuel for Nuclear power) is now being extracted from seawater by Japanese, Chinese and US 
engineers, finally ending the shameful historical exploitation of African and other uranium miners. 177 178 
There’s about 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean at any one time. Whenever uranium is extracted from 
seawater more is leached from rocks to replace it. The process is controlled by steady-state, or pseudo- 
equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks in the ocean and on land. Even if Nuclear provided 
100% of our energy, it is impossible for humans to lower the overall seawater concentrations of uranium over 
the next few billion years, 179 180 181 182 if we last that long. 

~ Recovery of uranium from seawater — 

Utilization of braid adsorbent 
~ Temperature effect Of. 4 5 times 
- Geometrical effect of . 
adsorbent . 
_,. Adsorption performance 
~~ enhanced 3 times 

2 times | 



ra 4 ¢ 
Braid Offshore 
adsorbent mooring C) 

| E: | 
| peers is, b 
: We tie caaitns 


Yellow cake 
(uranium) obtained 
from seawater 

Stack adsorbent 


Adsorbed of uranium 


0 10 20 30 40 

Soaking time [day] weuaae eerie 
adsorbent equipment 

Future Nuclear power build-out is also not limited as some anti-Nuclear lobbyist claim, 183 184 by strategic 
-€riticality” 185 or availability of rare metals needed to expand Nuclear build-out such as thorium, uranium, 
hafnium, beryllium, zirconium, and niobium 186 187 188 because (as for uranium) recoverable limitless supplies 
are also dissolved in seawater. 189 190 

18. SOLVED: Radioactive for 300,000 years 'Wast Storage Problem’ reduced to 300 years 

The current global fleet of Generation II] Nuclear reactors uses only about 2% of the energy in their uranium 
fuel. The remaining 98% remains in the spent fuel. But new Generation IV reactors can recover all that 
otherwise wasted energy by ‘burning it down’ to generate electricity simultaneously rendering it safe as 
background radiation in 300 years. 191 These reactors have multiple passive fail-safe features and are now 
being built in China 192 and will be available with its policy to ‘go global’ exporting Nuclear technology. 193 

19. Recycle Generation Ill Nuclear 'Waste' and Nuclear Warheads as Fuel for new Generation IV 

In the UK in 2006 GE Hitachi wanted to build such a generation IV rector design called PRISM with no upfront 
public plant commissioning costs and income only from selling the electricity generated from 120 tonnes of 
spent fuel 'waste' (from the current fleet of Generation Ill reactors) sitting in storage tanks at Sellafield enough 
for 500 years or so of all UK post-carbon electricity demand. 194 195 

In Canada Moltex are building a Molten Salt Reactor (first built in the 1950s) 196 designed to generate 
electricity by using generation IIl spent fuel waste as fuel, or fresh uranium, or thorium. These ‘swords to 
ploughshares' reactors can also be designed to 'burn' Nuclear warheads as fuel to generate electricity. 197 

The Generation IV International Forum fourteen members including the UK, US, China, India, Russia, France 
are pursuing all these solutions and more. The first Generation IV systems are expected to be deployed 
commercially around 2030-2040. 198 

Whilst we wait for politicians to commission these reactors, Finland has taken the lead on the issue and is 
constructing a permanent underground depository. The project has been supported by the government and, 
most importantly, by the local community. And for good reason. The science supports the safety of their 
approach. Spent fuel can be safely stored deep underground in stable rock formations, such as the granite 
bedrock in which the Finnish site is being constructed. 199 

20. How much Un-Recyclable Nuclear 'Waste' is there? And what does ‘Half Life’ mean? 

When packaged, the total amount of radioactive waste produced in the UK (including waste in stock and 
estimated to arise over the next ~100 years) would fill a volume roughly the size of Wembley stadium. 200 

More than 90% of all radioactive waste in the UK is Low Level Waste or Very Low Level Waste, including 
waste in stock and everything estimated to arise over the next ~100 years. Most of this waste will be produced 
during the dismantling of existing Nuclear facilities and cleaning up of Nuclear sites. Less than 10% of all 
radioactive waste to be produced in the UK will be Intermediate Level Waste and less than 0.03% will be High 
Level Waste. (i.e. the 120 tonnes waiting for PRISM reactors to get built and start recovering the remaining 
98% of the energy remaining in it). 

, _ Total packaged volume of all 
Waste Type beerecines — waste in stock and due to arise over the 
at 2150 in (TBq) : 
next ~100 years (cubic metres) 

Very Low Level Waste | 14 TBq 2,720,000 m? 

intermediate Level 

All machines generate waste, and fission reactors are no exception. Radioactive waste decays to a stable state 
after some period of time and becomes normal waste. This decay is exponential, so if we create Q cubic meters 
of new radioactive waste each year, the total amount in existence quickly stabilizes to a constant multiple of Q, 
which depends only on the half-life of the material. For instance, if the half-life is one year, every year we have 
1Q + 1/2 the previously existing amount. This quickly converges to 2Q. 201 

Low-level waste includes things like metal reactor parts, protective clothing, etc. that becomes radioactive in the 
course of reactor operation. Typical half life for these materials is 10 years, leading to an equilibrium amount 15 
times annual production. 202 203 

We need to consider the three different kinds of radioactive materials produced in reactors: actinides, fission 
products, and low-level waste. Actinides typically have long half lives, but they are not waste. They are fuels that 
can be separated (reprocessed) and re-used again. This is done on an industrial scale today, in France and 
elsewhere for Generation III reactors. (PRISM generation IV recycling described above is a different technology 

Fission products have a wide range of half lives. Many decay to stability in seconds. Some are used in 
medicine. Cs137 and Sr90, with half lives of 30 years, are responsible for the lion's share of fission product 
radiotoxicity. The steady cumulative amount of these fission products is therefore about 44 times their annual 

Worldwide, this takes up a tiny amount of space, a maximum of 900 tonnes of these radiotoxic fission products 
existing at any one time, assuming our current rate of production, barely enough to fill a cube 25 feet on a side. 
Thermal energy produced from fission was about 2.765e10 GJ in 2009 204 meaning that about 340 tonnes of 
fission products were created 205 of which about 6% was Cs137 and Sr90. So 44 * 0.06 * 340 = 900 tonnes. 

21. Background Terrestrial Radiation — Is it dangerous? 

Eating Brazil nuts 206 or butter beans or bananas or working as airline flight crew or living in locations with high 
radiation levels 207 increases your annual dose rate. 208 

For example Kerala's monazite sand (containing a third of the worlds radioactive thorium) emits about 8 micro 
Sieverts per hour of gamma radiation, 80 times the dose rate equivalent in London, but a decade long study of 
69,985 residents published in Health Physics in 2009: "showed no excess cancer risk from exposure to 
terrestrial gamma radiation ... indicating no statistically significant positive or negative relationship between 
background radiation levels and cancer risk in this sample.“ 209 

22. Chernobyl: Europe’s Largest Wildlife Refuge 

Visitors to the 30 kilometre radius exclusion zone will get more radiation from the flight they take to get to a 
guided tour. According to biologists, far from a Nuclear wasteland, the exclusion zone has become a sanctuary 
for flora and fauna - precisely because people were forced to flee. 210 211 National Geographic “30 Years 
After Chernobyl, Nature Is Thriving.” 212 BBC “The Chernobyl exclusion zone is arguable a nature reserve.” 

The problem is that at the very low doses found in the exclusion zone, its practically impossible to correlate any 
irradiation with certain biological effects. This is because the baseline cancer rate is already very high with the 
risk of developing cancer already fluctuating 40% because of individual life style and environmental effects, 
obscuring the subtle effects of low-level radiation. Secondly, and this is crucial, the truth about low-dose 
radiation health effects still needs to be discovered. It's still not exactly Known whether these low doses of 
radiation are detrimental or beneficial nor where the thresholds are. 214 215 

Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence suggests that women who stayed in the exclusion zone have generally 
outlived their neighbours who stayed away, -Aappiness” — or relative happiness, anyway — is a key reason 

why. About 100 people live there now, the last remnants of more than 1,000 mostly older women who moved 
back into the exclusion zone in the weeks and months after the disaster. 216 

The disaster caused circa 50 direct deaths plus a few thousand early deaths from cancer above the 100,000 
expected deaths in the exposed population. 217 218 219 But tragically, it was very preventable and the result of 
decision-makers’ hubris and bad policy that encouraged shoddy practice. The design of the reactors were 
significantly flawed with a well known -built-in instability”. An early Generation II reactor based on 1950s Soviet 
technology, the RBMK design was optimized for speed of production over redundancy. The combination of 
graphite moderator and water coolant is found in no other power reactors in the world. 220 221 

23. Fukushima : Radiation less than a Banana and below detectable levels 

It has long been asserted that nuclear reactor accidents are the epitome of low-probability but high- 
consequence risks. Understandably, with this in mind, some people are disinclined to accept the risk, however 
low the probability. Let them be reassured: Chernobyl Fukushima, and Three Mile Island are the only major 
accidents to have occurred in over 17,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 
33 countries. The global fleet of Nuclear reactors all now have massive concrete containment buildings, and 
multiple fail-safe operator independent systems making the chances of another Chernobyl style accident 
vanishingly small. 222 


es : @ELIEVE IT!... 

ee i 

Two years after the tsunami and meltdown at Fukushima in 2011, the World Health Organization reported in 
2013 that residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health effects 
were likely to be below detectable levels. 223 224 Evacuated residents are now returning. 225 The amount of 
radioactivity typically reported in wildlife in the pacific ocean blamed on Fukushima is less than that found 
naturally in a banana. 226 227 

24. Nuclear Weapons Proliferation risks not increased by Nuclear Power technology 

As long as there are physics, maths and engineering textbooks, the Nuclear proliferation problem will not go 
away, or lessen even if there are no civilian power reactors. All the technical knowledge to start a Nuclear 
weapons program can be found in physics and engineering text books. Nations that have developed Nuclear 
weapons without authorization under anti-proliferation treaties, have done so without possessing civilian Nuclear 
power industries. For example South Africa demonstrated that a limited number of Nuclear weapons could be 
built from scratch very cheaply. 228 

Part FIVE: CONCLUSION -—- A Call For Immediate 

25. Harmony a ‘plan that adds -up' for future Electricity Generation : 75% Renewable plus 25% Nuclear 

By every humane measure, the world needs more energy. Energy multiplies human labor, increasing 
productivity. Global energy demand will likely double in the next 50 years and may double again in the next 100 
years as world population increases and people seek to improve their standards of living. [Royal Society (1999), 
p. 3.] 


Li cr 
’ Energy Resources —UNWASHED) 

Power & Eleletricity 

For the Wind Water and Solar sectors to penetrate over the coming decades from its present delivery of circa 
5% of global energy consumption, and begin to displace fossil fuels' circa 85% share of global carbon 
emissions, will require massive interventions by private corporate and state actors as well as all the help the 
‘modern renewable’ WWS sectors can get from the Nuclear power sector. 

The World Nuclear Association has developed such a shared vision for the future of electricity based on the 
IPCC 2-degree scenario called 'Harmony' 229 whereby WWS expands to supply 75% of global electricity by 
2050 and Nuclear energy expands to 25% together forming part of a diverse mix of available low-carbon 
generating technologies which are deployed in such a manner that the benefits of each are maximised while the 
negative impacts are minimised. In this optimised energy system the needs for societal development and 
prosperity are mindfully balanced against those of the natural environment. 

Nuclear energy is proven, available today and can be expanded quickly, making it an important part of the 
solution. 230 

( steamtines Warm water inlet 

Containment building i 
Steam generators }--..__ H H 
i rr Com by 

- 1 
Controlrods _—wWbK==-... Le | aay | baa a 
=a ! AAA 

as a8 
ElE|= zlEle 
=== =lEl= 

// Cold water basin 
ff rune _) (cotawaterbasin) 

Reactor vessel 

=n €"3 

26. Energy supply is most efficiently configured as a state owned & controlled ‘Natural Monopoly' 

Complaints the private Nuclear power sector always suffer financial losses 231 232 miss the point: all energy 
infrastructure is a ‘Natural Monopoly’ i.e. its a utility with very high fixed costs meaning its impractical and 
inefficient and more expensive to have more than one publicly owned firm like water, sewer, or railway services. 
233 234 A natural monopolist can produce the entire output for the market at a cost lower than what it would be 
if there were multiple firms. A natural monopoly occurs when a firm enjoys extensive economies of scale in its 
production process. 235 All the proposed 'plans' for non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water Solar are also 'plans' to 
formally set up functioning state owned ‘Natural Monopolies’, whether they explicit admit it, or even realise it, or 

For example, WWS can only claim to undercut Nuclear power on end-user prices when the overall costs of 
intermittency, storage, and environmental damage, such as mining of raw materials and its hidden reliance on 
fossil energy, and excessive land use are excluded. 

27. It is just as nonsensical to say we have run out of kilograms as to say we have run out of money. 

Publicly created brand new money to build state controlled / owned ‘Natural Monopoly’ infrastructure 
partnerships between the Nuclear and WWS sectors is, and never will be, a scarce resource. The energy to 
build such infrastructure is scarce. Labour, and fossil fuels, and minerals, and metals, and clean water are all 
scarce. And political will to do the right thing is scarce. But money is not. Money can be and is created with a 

Th Workforce & 
and/or E Resources 
ISSUER | [LENDING conomy Materials & 
1. Government / Spaces 
Central Bank 
and - TAXES i j 
2. Private Banks and/or es 
Savings to 
Make Things 
Old & Provide 

Money is only numbers on spread sheets that simply measures and balances those scarce resources. The 
plain brutal fact is that money is only an accounting identity. It allows dealings to be consummated. A measuring 
ticket of a deed done. It is the blood of human exchange. It is bookkeeping by electricity. 

It is just as nonsensical to say we have run out of kilograms as to say we have run out of money. This is true in 
both the public and private sectors. The private sector creates brand new money every time someone takes out 
a loan. In the public sector the government finances itself through money creation because for all intents and 
purposes, the treasury and central bank act together. 236 This happens every day and is nothing new. 237 238 
Most common assumptions on how banking works are simply wrong, with even the Bank of England in 2014 
throwing out of the window any residual theoretical basis for “austerity” based on deceitful claims by some 
governments that “we've run out of money.” 239 

28. Global cooperation - achieving Harmony 

For Nuclear to grow from supplying 11% of global electricity today to 25% in 2050 (i.e. grow from 2% of global 
energy supply, to, say an optimistic 8% due to increased electrification expected by then) will require roughly 
1000 GWe of new Nuclear capacity to be constructed - depending on other factors like reactor retirements, 
electricity demand growth etc. These targets may seem underwhelming to some and far-fetched to others, but a 
great deal of consideration has gone into them. 

Note these targets do not rely on the expected commercialisation of any advanced Generation IV reactor 
designs (discussed above). A quarter of electricity generation easily fits within the baseload profile of most 
countries and this could readily be met by currently available reactor designs. 240 

29. Progressive Political Support NOW : 75% WWS plus 25% Nuclear Electricity Generation the ‘Ultimate 
Power Couple’ 

To be credible voices in the policy space opening up earlier in 2019 following the UK parliament's 241 global 
lead in being the first to declare a “Climate Emergency” 242 this paper calls on all anti-Nuclear power actors 
and environmentalists across the progressive political soectrum in UK politics, such as members and supporters 
of the Green Party, the Labour Party, the Green New Deal group, Friends of The Earth, and Greenpeace to 
now fully accept the scientific consensus and join their colleagues some of whom are listed above, in letting go 
of their anti-Nuclear stance and acknowledge that not only is Nuclear power is the safest of all electricity 
generation technologies, 243 but that it can also begin to make energy poverty history by ensuring greater 
equality of energy access for all. 

Figure 1: Global income deciles and associated lifestyle consumption 

Percentage of CO: emissions by world population 

Richest Richest 10%. responsible for almost hail of total litestyle 
Tig 49 Sonsumotion emissions 


Poorest 50% 

| Poorest responsible for 
cals only around 10% 

of total lifestyle 



World population arranged by income (deciles) 

Source: Oxfam 

Externalities enjoyed in the developed world, in particular the historical infrastructure advantages, all won 
largely on the back of Big Fossil's toxic persistent and deadly ever expanding emissions over the last few 
hundred years, must not be ignored or made invisible in our deliberations and actions. Do we deny much of the 
rest of the global population - 12% of humans who are off electricity grid entirely nearly 1 billion people and 3 
billion people using less electricity than a refrigerator - access to abundant energy because some of us now 
enjoying these infrastructure advantages have adopted a false “austerity” rhetoric? 

But in defence of what? When Nuclear power can provide for every human beings' needs more equally and 
reduce energy access inequality more efficiently by every metric we care to apply? Ignoring such day to day / 
historical advantage is both anti-scientific and thus immoral so we must reject it in favour of Nuclear power as 
quickly as possible for the many not the few. This is just being fair. 


Copywightby Signe Wilkinson 
In particular to recognise that the only technical, and politically possible way - at the pace now required - to 
equalise the global energy system whilst simultaneously decarbonising it, is to admit the Nuclear power sector 
as an essential renewable and low-carbon supporting part of the UK electricity energy generation mix, 
together with the Wind Water & Solar power sectors in a mutually enabling partnership to achieve the Green 
New Deal aim “to power a renewables revolution” and “create thousands of green-collar jobs.” 

Fossil fuels will be needed for a very long time so we should preserve fossil reserves for future generations vital 
non-fuel uses, not selfishly burn them building and maintaining impossibly inefficient 100% WWS electricity 
generating systems. In 2017, about 13% of total petroleum products consumed were for non-combustion but 
vital non-fuel uses, such as construction materials, chemical feedstocks, plastics, lubricants, solvents, waxes, 
natural gas used in fertilizers, and many other products. 244 

The stone age did not end because humanity ran out of stones, and neither will the fossil fuel age with -a plan 
that adds up.“ 

The most dangerous Nuclear power station is the one that doesn’t get built. 245 When Nuclear plants aren't 

built, or are shut down, fossil fuels are burned and people will needlessly die. 24 

ePer kilo-watt hour of power generated : Natural Gas kills 38 times as many more people as Nuclear Power; 
Biomass 63 times; Petroleum 243; and Coal 387 times as many, perhaps a million globally a year (p147). 247 

eEnergy sector related accident fatalities : global average deaths/millionGWhr: Coal (170,000); Oil (36,000); 
Biofuel/Biomass (24,000); Natural Gas (4,000); Hydro (1,400); Solar rooftop (440); Wind (150); 

Nuclear worst case estimates (90); Chernobyl (total direct deaths 47); 

Nuclear — commercial power plants only rest of the world (0). 248 

eln equivalent lives lost per gigawatt generated annually : Coal = 37; Oil = 32; Gas = 2; 

Nuclear = 1 (i.e. loss of life expectancy from human exposure to pollutants) 

[IAEA (1997), table 4, p. 44.] 249 

Compared to Nuclear power, in other words fossil fuels and Wind, Water & Solar renewables, have all enjoyed a 
free ride with respect to protection of the environment and public health and safety. 

‘ cal Share of Nuclear Generation in Total Power Supply 




10 SPeccce 

== Nuclear countries total nuclear share 

== World nuclear share 

80 85 90 95 OO O05 10 15 


Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014; IAEA PRIS; World Nuclear Association (for 2014-15 data) 

Progressive Political forces in the UK and globally MUST now be courageous and call for an immediate 
reversal in the decline in Nuclear power's share of global electricity and energy supply in the fight do away with 
energy poverty and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, by FULLY and LOUDLY embracing the ALL the 
following policy options:- 

1. The pro-Nuclear electricity generating mitigation scenarios given in the IPCC 2018 Special Report 250 
(SR15); and 

2. The 75% Wind Water & Solar renewable power plus 25% Nuclear energy balance as set out by the World 
Nuclear Association in its ‘future of electricity’ Harmony 251 vision; and 

3. The Confederation of British Industry July 2019 press release 252 253 urging government to prioritise 
new Nuclear electricity generating power stations in the UK. 


ICO 100 IN 10) 107 | [Oo [Ro | 



12 Contact, comments and reviews: 
13 Natasha graduated in 1982 specialising in 3D design, and worked in industry designing spiral staircases, and high end audio 

(vacuum tube, horn speaker & vinyl turntables) she has written & filed 2 patents, rebuilt a 5 storey terraced house, is a secondary, 
further & higher education teacher, special educational needs (EBD & ASD), was diving officer at University of Brighton Sub Aqua 
club for a decade, and worked as a whale shark spotter at Ningaloo reef during 1 year tour of SE Asia's wrecks & reefs. In 2001 
she completed a Post Graduate Diploma, Business Research, (first of two year MA Change Management), University of Brighton, 
through out the early 2000's active in Brighton's multi agency Home Office funded Anti Victimisation Initiative (AVI), participated in 
University of Brighton 'Count Me In' research, wrote and won several high profile employment tribunal cases supported by (former) 
statutory body (EOC), in 2007 helped set up Transition Town Brighton, in 2011 helped Occupy Brighton. Since 2014 she's been 
advocating for local people the ASD spectrum, helped secure local authority housing and written and won disability (PIPs & ESA) 
appeals. In 2015 Natasha completed the University of Cumbria MA equivalent online (MOOC) course Money & Society. Since 2013 
Natasha's been running a local electronic musicians collective, that regularly puts on synthesiser jams and DJ gigs. and and 

14 = 


om } 

= | 
— climate change 


2 Conca - data from DOE and UC Berkeley normalized to capacity factor. 



O1|4 | 

00 IN |OD 

Global electricity per capita = 3,127 kWh/person/year. Global primary energy per capita = 22,336kWh/person/year. 
UK electricity per capita = 5,130 KWh/person/year. UK primary energy per capita = 32,145 Kwh/person/year. 

ee (SS es Se Se SS SS SS 

I a se (ee 

01 [01 (O17 |B |B |B |B [A [A [A |B JA [BR [Oo 
httops:// United Kingdom 

67 _ 


SS]_ eee eee ee OE ESE EE ee Our ee_—e ee _  erO 



80 = 


85 Graphics by Charles Hall and John Day in Revisiting Limits to Growth After Peak Oil 

86 Dotted line at 2019 added by author 


© |00 


94 = 

95 _ 

96 _ 



99 _ 
101  https:/ 

102  https:/ 




106  https:/ 




110 = 


112 = 


115 = 

116 _ 

117 = 7-global-co2-making-it-elephant-climate-negotiations-room 

119 EN.pdf 


122  https:/ 

124  https:/ 

125 https:/ 




127  https:/ 





140 = 



143 = 

145 — 


147 — pdf 

148 _ 

150 = LUT 100RE All Sectors Global Report _2019.pdf 

151 ~— 

152 = 

153 — 


155 — 

156 — 

157 — pdf 

159 ~~ 

160 = 

161 = 

162 = 

164 = 

165 = 

166 = 


168 = 
169 = 

170 = 

171 IEA, 2012, CO2 emissions database Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2011, Global Emissions EDGAR v4.2, IEA, 2012, Energy Balances Global Carbon Project, 2012, data available at 



175 Aristotle said a bunch of stuff that was wrong. Galileo and Newton fixed things up. Then Einstein broke everything again. Now, 
we’ve basically got it all worked out, except for small stuff, big stuff, hot stuff, cold stuff, fast stuff, heavy stuff, dark stuff, turbulence, 
and the concept of time. 

176 — 


184  httos:// 
185 _ The criticality of four_nuclear_energy_metals 
187  httos:// The criticality of four _nuclear_energy_metals 
188  httos:// 
189  httos:// 

201 = 

203 ~== 
204 = 
205 = 

206 _=— 

207 = with high natural_background_radiation 

208 = 

209 = 


211 _ ~=‘ 

12 ffcOb080000 

214 = 

21 the Chernobyl _disaster#Long-term_health_effects 

226 = 




230 ~= 


233  https:/( 
234  https:/ 

239 = 
241 = 



245 = 


248 = 
249 = 

251 ~~ 
252 ~~ 

253 ~~