CLIMATE scorecards?
I find it curious that WWF and Allianz, in trying to make a realistic assessment about the CLIMATE impact from each country and its policies, brings in a subjective variable because they do not like nuclear power. In the video is mentioned that countries lose in ranking due to the use of "potentially dangerous nuclear energy". Why not punish countries who rely on potentially dangerous hydro power as well? You can also put a weighting factor based on the number of cars per capita in each country, they are potentially dangerous no matter if they contribute to CO2-emissions or not.

If WWF and Allianz want to be serious about the CLIMATE assessment, then please stick to the CLIMATE impact of the energy sources and ambitions of each country. Otherwise, may I kindly suggest that you rename your report to "Climate and potentially dangerous nuclear energy reduction scorecards".

heath risks
Dear Thilo,

thank you for your response, however your claim that "Nuclear energy [..] poses significant health risks." is, with all due respect, a complete fabrication.

Humanity has decades of experience with all relevant energy sources, and the health risks and other external costs can be established. Please see this article about measurable health impacts as deaths per TWh energy produced: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html As you can see, the numbers are well sourced.

Please also see the ExternE (http://externe.info) study by EU commission concerning external damages from life cycles of the respective energy sources, in EUR cents per kWh: http://www.externe.info/nattable.jpg

The clear conclusion is that nuclear energy is the safest and the cleanest of the major energy sources, performing similar or better than other non-combustion sources. Hence it makes no sense to smear nuclear with such a dangerous and risky energy resource as methane (in the G8 study), neither it makes sense to claim "significant health risks", as those are clearly imaginary.

This is unless one's goal is to reinforce such false images, encouraging society to burn dangerous polluting natural gas (also a strong green house gas), a fuel with lower energy reserve available than the energy left in oil reserves. Natural gas is the only realistic alternative to balance out strong fluctuations from wind (energy grows with wind velocity *cubed*), therefore each percent of wind capacity really means 0.2% of wind, and 0.8% of dangerous (and scarce) natural gas. This clearly shows in the data, unless one "repairs" them. Anyway I appreciate the report owning to it.

cheers
Loiz

Inventing figures
Germany Leads G8 Climate Ranking ?

Of course it does, if you alter COs emission figures to suit whilst merely noting that in a small footnote.
It is OK to be against nuclear power, it is far from OK to write in emissions from France which simply did not happen to support your case.
In fact, Germany's policy has been an abject and expensive failure, with renewables falling far short, and new coal plants now needed.
It certainly gives one an insight into the likely accuracy of the accounts of Allianz as a financial institution if they are prepared to blatantly alter figures as the fancy takes them.

Reporting emissions for nuclear
Thilo,
Rather than changing the CO2 data a more appropriate response would be to include a footnote noting your company's concerns about nuclear power. We have no finished solution for CO2 emissions. All technologies have some issues. It is only by being explicit with those concerns that they can be addressed and mitigated.
Since very few of the you-tube viewers and most of the readers of your report will not read the footnotes you lead most viewers and readers to conclusions that are not true.

Misrepresentation
I am surprised at the level some organization will stoop for an ideology or dogma. It is one thing to oppose something, it is quite another to manipulate data in such a blatant fashion. George Orwell would be proud.

I understand that facts can be inconvenient things. However, you should not hide from them. Suggesting in the video that nuclear is dangerous or (in these comments) poses significant health risks is not supported by the facts.

As is the case when the facts do not support your cause, you turn to FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). This is doing the world, and climate, a huge disservice.

Deleted
This comment has been deleted due to an infringement of our Comment Policy
Comment Policy

Re: Allianz & WWF blatantly lie about CO2
Dear Loiz,

Many thanks for your comment. You are right, the figures were changed, but we have always been open about this; it has been stated both in the report and the articles published on this website. So calling it a lie is a bit over the top and, quite frankly, disrespectful. This being said, your argument is well taken. Nuclear energy is a difficult issue. It is virtually carbon neutral, but poses significant health risks. How to deal with this is an interesting and ongoing debate.

Best,
Thilo

Allianz & WWF blatantly lie about CO2 emissions fron nuclear plants
I would like to point out that the study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and global insurance company Allianz SE was blatantly manipulated by cooking up numbers to lie about the effectiveness of nuclear energy in combating the climate change. See the study page 14 down right:

"WWF does not consider nuclear power as a viable policy option [..] The indicators emissions per capita, emissions per GDP and CO2/kWh are adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas)."

In another words: Due to our ideological bias towards nuclear energy, we invent arbitrary numbers to miss-represent reality.

Here is an more detailed article: http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/07/11/the-wwf-cheats-on-the-climate-scorecards/