Life Cycle Emissions Facts Acceptance Reluctance

Last week I had an interesting email exchange with Dulce Fernandez, research and policy coordinator for the GRACE Energy Initiative. Ms. Fernandez emailed NEI looking for the International Energy Agency (IEA) study we cited in in last October's point-by-point rebuttal that took the air out of GRACE's claim that nuclear can't claim to have the "second-lowest emissions of greenhouse gases next to hydro electric, which is not a baseload electricity source."

I sent Ms. Fernandez the IEA report, "Externalities and Energy Policy: The Lifecycle Analysis Approach," (available by purchase from IEA), and even pointed her to the specific pages from which we pulled the information, including a chart on the NEI web site. I told her that unlike many organizations, NEI "validates our positions with facts; not blatant the-sky-is-falling myths and flagrant misrepresentations." I received the following response:

"As you certainly noted the study is based on data published from various sources and not on any original data acquisition, a situation that may raise questions regarding data consistency. Moreover, the wide range of emissions variation for each type of energy makes direct comparisons somewhat dubious, as acknowledged in the study itself. Therefore, this issue certainly warrants deeper scrutiny and the information you sent me is certainly useful for continuing to look for the best scientific information available concerning this topic.

Please feel free to send me any other information concerning this issue that you may find relevant."

Ms. Fernandes response is sadly typical of groups who come to a pre-determined conclusion and try to backfit data to support it. Not one to just shake my head and drop it, I wrote:

"I think you're missing the point by saying the results from different studies as pointed out on the NEI web site and the blog posting raise questions on data origination and consistency. First of all, I believe all the sources provided come to their conclusions by analyzing original data, but can't swear to it. You'd have to ask IEA, the professors at the University of Wisconsin, British Energy, etc.

In addition, putting aside certain minor differences in results (most likely due to slightly different methodology approaches as can be the case in public opinion polls) the fact that all these INDEPENDENT analysis show nuclear life-cycle emissions to be very low provides substantial proof that it is true. No amount of spinning can change that. As I learned a long time ago, if the sky is bright and the sun is warming you but you insist that it's gray and cold perhaps you should take a second look. But don't forget your sunglasses."