n109.

As is standard for the work of whistle-blowers, Storm van Leeuwen’s study of the energy balance of nuclear power is subject to criticism, especially from the industry body, the World Nuclear Association. While it would be surprising if it were accurate in all its details, van Leeuwen’s study should be recognised as robust, for three reasons:

1. It is a consistent exercise in evaluating the energy inputs and outputs at every stage of the nuclear cycle, down to the detail. Critics who dismiss his work find themselves at the same time dismissing comprehensively the literature on which our understanding of nuclear energy is based.
2. Its consistent programme of evaluating the energy balances ties the research down to the detail, and van Leeuwen strongly encourages comment and criticism at that level, so that its accuracy is being constantly assessed and improved.
3. The collapse in the quantity of net energy available as the ore grade approaches 0.02 percent is so dramatic that, even if there were substantial inaccuracy in his work, it would make little difference to his essential findings on the limited expectation of life for the nuclear industry. Even if no energy at all were needed to clear up the waste, nuclear power would still be closed as an option at that grade of ore.

If it were really shown that van Leeuwen had made an error on a scale large enough to cast significant doubt on his findings, this would place his work in the kind of fantasy habitat in which you would be likely to bump into Calvin and Hobbes — that’s not Hobbes the philosopher, but Hobbes the stuffed tiger.