http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf wrote:Future nuclear footprint & global uranium resources
Some analysts are concerned that the future carbon footprint of nuclear power could increase if lower grade uranium ore is used, as it would require more energy to extract and refine to a level usable in a nuclear reactor.
However, a 2006 study by AEA Technology calculated that for ore grades as low as 0.03%, additional emissions would only amount to 1.8gCO2eq/kWh. This would raise the current footprint of UK nuclear power stations from 5 to 6.8gCO2eq/kWh (Fig 3). If lower grades of uranium are used in the future the footprint of nuclear will increase, but only to a level comparable with other ?low carbon? technologies and will not be as large as the footprints of fossil fuelled systems.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ Note 0.03% is a ratio of 1:3333. Note it's not specifying the baseline ratio. I believe the source document is here:
Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source
No, I do not accept that, and I shall explain why nuclear power would not address climate change. Nuclear has been described as a carbon-free technology, but it is nothing of the sort. Nuclear power generation and the construction of nuclear power facilities create a considerable carbon footprint. Work done by a university in the Netherlands has suggested that the carbon footprint of a nuclear facility is equivalent to between 20 and 40 per cent. of that of a gas-fired power station over the lifetime of its existence, when one takes account of the mining of uranium, transport and decommissioning.
