dard of living, using 125 kWh per day derived from fossil sources, from

nuclear power, or from mined geothermal power. The area of the earth

per person would be 51 000 m2. Dividing the power per person by the area

per person, we find that the extra power contributed by human energy use

would be 0.1 W/m2. That’s one fortieth of the 4 W/m2 that we’re currently

fretting about, and a little smaller than the 0.25 W/m2 effect of solar vari-

ations. So yes, under these assumptions, human power production would

just show up as a contributor to global climate change.



I heard that nuclear power can’t be built at a sufficient rate to

make a useful contribution.



The difficulty of building nuclear power fast has been exaggerated with

the help of a misleading presentation technique I call “the magic playing

field.” In this technique, two things appear to be compared, but the basis of

the comparison is switched halfway through. The Guardian’s environment

editor, summarizing a report from the Oxford Research Group, wrote “For

nuclear power to make any significant contribution to a reduction in global

carbon emissions in the next two generations, the industry would have to

construct nearly 3000 new reactors – or about one a week for 60 years. A

civil nuclear construction and supply programme on this scale is a pipe

dream, and completely unfeasible. The highest historic rate is 3.4 new

reactors a year.” 3000 sounds much bigger than 3.4, doesn’t it! In this

application of the “magic playing field” technique, there is a switch not

only of timescale but also of region. While the first figure (3000 new reactors

over 60 years) is the number required for the whole planet, the second figure

(3.4 new reactors per year) is the maximum rate of building by a single

country (France)!



A more honest presentation would have kept the comparison on a per-

planet basis. France has 59 of the world’s 429 operating nuclear reactors, so

it’s plausible that the highest rate of reactor building for the whole planet

was something like ten times France’s, that is, 34 new reactors per year.

And the required rate (3000 new reactors over 60 years) is 50 new reactors

per year. So the assertion that “civil nuclear construction on this scale is

a pipe dream, and completely unfeasible” is poppycock. Yes, it’s a big

construction rate, but it’s in the same ballpark as historical construction

rates.



How reasonable is my assertion that the world’s maximum historical

construction rate must have been about 34 new nuclear reactors per year?

Let’s look at the data. Figure 24.14 shows the power of the world’s nuclear

fleet as a function of time, showing only the power stations still operational

in 2007. The rate of new build was biggest in 1984, and had a value of

(drum-roll please...) about 30 GW per year – about 30 1-GW reactors. So

there!

