Talk:Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

Untitled
The recent editor "Tweenk" has not only added significantly to this page, but removed the "neutrality is under dispute" message, although I can see no sign whatsoever that the dispute has been resolved.

I have no data (that I can reference) to resolve the dispute either way. My personal suspicions are that the page is entirely accurate. But the dispute should be acknowledged and either debated, or the inability of supporters to defend Mr. van Leeuwen be visible.

If the page had been "unmolested" for years, I could point to that when using it. But a Wikipedia page involving hotly-disputed estimations that itself has not had the dispute resolved, can't be used in an argument.

Can we get some van Leeuwen /Caldicott supporters out to state their views and either reference them or admit that Mr. "Tweenk" can't be debated?

Rbrander (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have re-inserted the standard "this section is under dispute" Wikipedia notice just above the paragraph that refers to the study as "widely discredited". Actually, though I am persuaded by the 'discrediters', I'm not sure how "widely" the critics range. I have found the major discussion at nuclearinfo.net that cites the very different numbers from the Vattenfall utility in Sweden for their own power plant, but I'm not clear on what material - say, in peer-reviewed environmental journals - is available.

Rbrander (talk) I hope that all of this material can be collected on the Wikipedia and a conclusion with a neutral POV reached. Rbrander (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The page was edited and the "under dispute" marker removed again; as it reads now, I can't come up with an objection. At least one number showing a 69:1 exaggeration in the subject's famous analysis has been offered, I think I'll leave it up to Storm van Leeuwen supporters to make any other objections. Rbrander (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They are so far no arguments for the weasel (April 2010) tag. Therefore, the article cannot be improved. Please state your inquiry, User:Headbomb, or the tag will be removed over time. AlexH555 (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am actually thinking the best way to show some anti-nuclear POV is to write Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen opinion of himself/his studies. Talk about the smarts things he come up with as related as possible with the study (obviously, it may not rebutte the current arguments but may show some more. The article gotta at least give something to the anti-nuclear side. AlexH555 (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PROD

 * Keep The article has plenty of references to show that Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is notable under General Notability: "Significant coverage," - A Google search for "Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen" yields over 16,200 search results. "Reliable," - Many of those 16,200 search results are reliable sources. "Sources," - The sources are secondary and "Independent of the subject" - are independent of the subject. Furthermore, the Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith paper "Nuclear power – the energy balance" is widely quoted.[]   kgrr  talk 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The PROD in question was declined (by me) on the 20th, so I don't think this is at issue unless someone takes it to AfD. --  j &#9883; e decker  talk  00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html

Information from this source shows that using data from Storm van Leeuwen & Smith one gets annual energy costs for three major uranium mines of 5 PJ for Ranger, 60 PJ for Olympic Dam (both in Australia) and 69 PJ for Rossing in Namibia. These mines report their energy use as 0.8 PJ, 5 PJ and 1 PJ respectively, with that at Olympic Dam including copper production (only about 20% of value of output is uranium). Rossing mines very low-grade ores, but its energy cost is overestimated sixty-fold or more by Storm van Leeuwen & Smith and the figure they predict is more than that for the whole country (c 50 PJ).

Nuclearinfo.net concludes: "Our work shows that this (Storm van Leeuwen & Smith) work is not reliable and in fact leads to outrageously high predictions for the energy cost of Uranium mining for modern mines and mills."

Critique of 2001 paper by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith: Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? and its May 2002 successor: Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem? with reference to a 2005 version entitled Nuclear Power, the Energy balance

A "semi-technical" document by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith with the title Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? was prepared for circulation during the meeting in April 2001of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, and also during the continuation in Bonn in July 2001 of the Climate Conference. An updated version appeared in mid August 2001, then a "thoroughly-revised" version in May 2002, together with a "rebuttal" of this critique. However, at no point do the authors engage or refer to the substantive WNA paper to which this is an appendix! - and which counters their position. This was partly rectified in the 2005 version.

The 2001 Storm van Leeuwen & Smith (SLS) paper dismisses arguments that nuclear energy is sustainable, either physically, environmentally or in terms of its energy costs, and this is repeated in the numerically-depleted May 2002 version. They purport to offer "evidence" that building, operating and producing fuel for a nuclear plant produces as much carbon dioxide as a similar sized gas-fired plant. The foregoing WNA paper, quoting all the reputable studies we are aware of, shows that this is demonstrably wrong - there is a 20 to 50-fold difference in favour of nuclear.

The SLS arguments regarding sustainability are based on a "Limits to Growth" perception of mineral resources and a misunderstanding of the notion of ore reserves. The fallacies of the "Limits to Growth" argument have been well canvassed since the 1970s, and their falsity best illustrated by declining mineral prices (in real terms). In respect to uranium, they are addressed in the WNA paper Supply of Uranium in this series. The SLS papers depend on outdated and invalid assumptions, largely because many of the figures used are taken from a study originally done in 1982. Much has changed since then and much more work has been done on quantifying the issue.

Only diffusion enrichment is considered, whereas centrifuge methods now widely used are up to 50 times more energy efficient (less than 50 instead of 2400 kWh/SWU operationally). There is no reason to suggest that the energy capital of centrifuge plants would be greater. About two thirds of current enrichment is by centrifuge. The future use of new reactor designs, including fast reactors, is dismissed on the grounds that some research programs in Europe have been closed down. However, Russia has been operating a 600 MW commercial fast reactor at Beloyarsk in the Urals for decades and on the basis of its operating success is now building a new larger version on the same site. The main reason there are not more fast reactors is that they are uneconomic in an era of low uranium prices. SLS completely misrepresents the reason for fast reactors being sidelined: the abundance of cheap uranium fuel. Should uranium ever look like becoming scarce, there is over 200 reactor-years of operating experience, including some in breeder reactor mode, on which to base a new generation of fast breeder reactors. Over the shorter term, no allowance is made for plant life extension of nuclear reactors, although this is now commonplace and extends operating life significantly, typically to 60 years. In uranium mining, energy costs are now very well quantified, and no consideration is given to relatively new technologies such as in-situ leaching which is more efficient than traditional mining methods in terms of both cost and energy use.

One important point of agreement with Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, however, is that all relevant energy inputs throughout the fuel cycle need to be considered in any comparison with fossil fuels or other sources of electricity. Their assertion that large energy debts are incurred in operating the nuclear fuel cycle, on the other hand, is demonstrably false, as is the assumption that nuclear plants incur excessive economic debts. Any debts incurred are normally funded during operation. Moreover, they are minor and of the same order as those of other industrial plant. The energy debts are trivial in relation to the net output from any nuclear plant.

The brief 2002 paper itself (now 8 pages and devoid of data except for its preoccupation with low ore grades) refers to a "Facts and Data" supplement. The 2001, 52-page version was a little closer to real life than the earlier 29-page version, though it did correct some gross errors. The 2002 version was said to be "thoroughly revised" and chapters of the 2005 web version are fourth and sixth revision.

Rather than using audited industry data the 2001 version used figures which are questionable and need to be examined in more detail. They all refer to the base case of a 1000 MWe (3125 MWth) PWR reactor with 3.3% enriched fuel @ 33 GWd/t burn-up and make reference to 4.2% enrichment and 46 GWd/t "advanced practice". Some of these figures are changed in the 2005 version. (Electrical figures multiplied by 3 to give basis comparable with main paper.)

Mining & milling: 275 GJ/tU for soft ores and 654 GJ/tU in hard ores, giving respectively 54 TJ/yr and 127 TJ/yr (@ 195 tU/yr) Conversion 1.6 GJ/kgHM (1.5 GJ/kgU in 2002 & 2005) Enrichment (diffusion only, 0.2% tails) 31.3 GJ/SWU = 2900 kWh/SWU (same in 2002). The 2005 revision has 3.1 GJ/SWU for centrifuge and quotes old figures for diffusion. Fuel fabrication 3.8 GJ/kgU in 2005 (6.0 GJ/kg in 2002, using ERDA 76/1 data) Power plant construction 81 PJ, or 95 PJ if all thermal basis (this is from Storm van Leeuwin 1982/1985 paper, see below). In 2002 & 2005 a number of figures are given based on mass and costs. Those for $1400/kW plant cost range 31-45 PJ, which are credible but untested. Operation & maintenance 2.8 PJ/yr (2.85 PJ/yr in 2002, 3.2 PJ/yr in 2005) Decommissioning 240 PJ (same in 2002 & 2005) Spent fuel storage, conditioning & disposal: 11.2 GJ/kg, 5.6 GJ/kg, 12.2 GJ/kg respectively, hence say 30 GJ/kg overall, so 2.4 PJ for initial fuel load plus 0.6 PJ/yr. 2002 figures are 11.1, 2.65 & 12.26 respectively, total 26 GJ/kg overall)   Other radwastes: 56 GJ/m 3

While some figures are based on real data, others depend on a notional relationship between capital costs and energy inputs which in the case of nuclear power need to be qualified for sometimes lengthy construction delays. It is quite obvious that if the capital cost blows out due to delays, the energy cost of a plant does not increase accordingly. It should be possible to get actual energy data for recent nuclear plants constructed in Japan, South Korea and Europe but neither we nor SLS have them. The life cycle assessment for Vattenfall's Forsmark-3 nuclear plant showed that 4.1 PJ was required for construction and decommissioning, on basis of 40 year plant life.

The most contentious SLS figures came from an earlier paper "Nuclear Uncertainties" by Storm van Leeuwin (Energy Policy 13,3, June 1985), itself based on an earlier 1982 study. This contained some interesting presuppositions which the "rebuttal" strenuously disowns, eg a PWR "optimistically" has an operating life of 12 full-load years (cf typical 40 years @ 90% = 36 full-load years). But reference to this happily seems to have been jettisoned.

Some of the figures quoted above from the 2001 paper are based on real data, but some are apparently far from having any empirical basis, particularly those depending on speculative and unsupported figures from the earlier paper. The energy costs of uranium mining and milling are well known and published, and form a small part of the overall total. Even if they were ten times higher they would still be insignificant overall. However, the authors first totally ignored these but in 2002 have published data mostly from 1970s but finally arriving the figures quoted above which are reasonable and in line with ours. The energy costs of nuclear power plant construction can readily be estimated, as can those for waste management and decommissioning, and recent Scandinavian work (Vattenfall 1999, 2001 & 2004, Vattenfall's life cycle studies of electricity and also Finnish data) has quantified these with a higher degree of precision than has previously been attempted. The Vattenfall EPD studies giving rise to the LCA data are audited. These confirm that the capital, decommissioning and waste management costs are not unduly high nor even close to the well-quantified energy costs of enrichment.

The following indicates how widely the 2001 and subsequent SLS figures diverge from recently-published data (treating it all on thermal basis): Power plant construction: suggested as 95 PJ. This is four times higher than the nearest published figure from the 1970s, and more significantly it compares with 4.1 PJ for building and decommissioning in the Vattenfall 2002 life cycle study. Kivisto gives comparable figures for the Finnish study: 650 MWh/MW capacity, hence energy payback in a month's operation, and 7.0 PJ overall for a 1000 MWe plant.

Power plant operatio: given as 2.8 PJ/yr, which compares with 1.1 PJ over 40 years in the Vattenfall 2002 life cycle study. Power plant decommissioning: suggested as being more than twice that for construction, but see above re Vattenfall life cycle study where it is aggregated with construction. Uranium enrichment: 3.1 GJ/SWU for centrifuge compares with actual 0.673 GJ/SWU at URENCO Capenhurst in 2001-02, including some capital works. Spent fuel management: 2.4 PJ initial + 0.6 PJ/yr compares with 4.3 PJ total in Vattenfall 2002 life cycle study. Mining: It is difficult to discern a sensible figure from the paper, though it is clear that ores of less than 0.1% U are seen as energy-intensive with traditional mining methods. However, little of the world's uranium comes from such. In contrast, a modest 5.5 PJ over 40 years or 0.1375 PJ/yr is shown from the Vattenfall 2002 life cycle study for mining and milling, using low-grade ores, and 0.039 PJ/yr would be the contribution on the basis of more limited Ranger mine data (excluding mine and mill construction etc) for higher-grade ores. If the Ranger operation were producing from 0.01% ore this would give 0.9 PJ/yr. In 2004 ERA reported 199 GJ/tU for Ranger, a figure about one third of SLS for hard ores. The increasing production from solution (in situ leaching) mining (including some low grade ores) would be lower again.

Conclusion

The 2001 and 2002 Storm van Leeuwen & Smith papers and Background Information represent an interesting attempt to grapple with a complex subject but depend on many essentially speculative figures to put the case that nuclear energy incurs substantial energy debts and gives rise to minimal net energy outputs considered on a lifetime basis. Recent life cycle assessment (LCA) studies such as Vattenfall's show figures around ten times lower for key capital and waste-related energy demands. The Vattenfall life cycle study gives a bottom line of 1.35% of lifetime energy output being required for all inputs, and only a tiny fraction of this being in the nature of energy debts.

Finally, it should be pointed out that, even on the basis of their assumptions and using their inaccurate figures, Storm van Leeuwen & Smith still are forced to conclude that nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than fossil-fuelled plants, although in their view "the difference is not large". Others might see a 20 to 50-fold difference (between nuclear and gas or coal) as significant. The audited Vattenfall figure for CO2 emission on lifecycle basis is 3.10 g/kWh, less than one percent of the best fossil fuel figure. This could approximately double if nuclear power inputs to enrichment were replaced by fossil fuel ones, but it is still very low.

It is clear, then that the concerns related to energy costs at the heart of the Storm van Leeuwen & Smith paper can be dismissed. The authors' other point, that nuclear energy is not sustainable, is addressed in the Sustainable Energy and Supply of Uranium papers in this series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renevers (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion: the general observation of Storm van Leeuwen & Smith are correct.

These and other rebuttals and partly falsifications on details, do not falsify the general observation of Storm and Smith that uranium ore is limitedly available. Markets for uranium "fuel" work in such a way that the cheapest way to produce uranium "fuel" is to use the richest uranium ore first, and gradually switch to less rich sources, that need more energy to refine and produce uranium of "fuel" quality. Storm and Smith, show that the last resort source of uranium, seawater, needs so much energy to extract uranium from it, that the extraction energy is more than the produced fuel will generate.

And that somewhere in the future, the scarcity of uranium sources will lead to a negative energy balance, because more energy is needed to concentrate the uranium to "fuel" quality, than the fuel itself will generate, a negative energy balance in the complete fuel cycle.

Storm and Smith dismiss the alternative of breeder reactors, that would extend the use of less concentrated uranium, by transforming it to more potent radioactive elements, that are also more poisonousness for life on earth. The market choices, worldwide agree with Storm and Smith, there are almost no breeder reactors built, nor plans to build them. From a market perspective renewable energy from wind and sun are already less expensive then mainstream nuclear power plants, let alone the more expensive breeder reactors. Henk Daalder (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718134347/http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/aboutauthors.pdf to http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/aboutauthors.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705071025/http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/Jan_Willem_Storm_van_Leeuwen.jsp to http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/Jan_Willem_Storm_van_Leeuwen.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302202226/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903013536/http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf to http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601194052/http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=633521 to http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=633521
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312015354/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37405 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37405
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012104230/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull471/nuclear_reactions.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull471/nuclear_reactions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)