Content deleted Content added
→Other papers: Was it peer reviewed? Of course not. |
m Reference before punctuation detected and fixed using AWB (9585) |
||
Line 12:
The study was heavily criticized, such as a rebuttal by researchers from the [[Paul Scherrer Institute]].<ref>http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Critical%20note%20GHG%20PSI.pdf Dones, Roberto, 2007. Critical note on the estimation by storm van Leeuwen J.W. and Smith P. of the energy uses and corresponding CO2 emissions from the complete nuclear energy chain. Paul Scherrer Institute Policy Report, April</ref>
With further criticism from Sevior and Flitney who issued the following statement:<ref name=ninfo/><ref name=wna/>
<blockquote>
''We compared the predicted energy cost [using Storm van Leeuwen's study<ref name=original/>] of Uranium mining and milling for Ranger, Olympic Dam and Rössing to the energy consumption as reported. All are significantly over predicted (5 PJ, 60 PJ and 69 PJ vs 0.8 PJ, 5 PJ and 1 PJ respectively). [...]''
Line 27:
==Other papers==
Storm van Leeuwen also presented his previous work as part of another non-[[peer reviewed]] controversial paper "''Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming''",<ref name=storm2/> published by a [[think tank]], the [[Oxford Research Group]], claiming that nuclear power is not a long-term reducer of greenhouse gas emissions.<ref name=storm2med/>
His original results has been used in a study<ref name=sydlen/> -'' Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Conversion and Management -'' with several modifications.
| |||