PowerSwitch

My curiosity is piqued. But I can't get owt on the link...

Actually I'd like to know how anyone can purport to have the faintest idea what Nuclear's C-footprint is, given that the waste disposal method (there are some good ones, but very costly) hasn't been finalised yet.

Not sure what happened to the Environmental Research Web link but the following web pages review the book to which they were referring:

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=101808

http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Energy-New-Real ... 199&sr=8-1

I'm afraid that £47.45, even if it does include P&P, is a bit rich for my blood.

Here's the 'permalink'

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blo ... ear-1.html

I wonder if the carbon footprint includes all those vehicle journeys that workers have to make to and from the nuclear power plant throughout its life and decommissioning?

foodimista wrote:Here's the 'permalink'

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blo ... ear-1.html

I wonder if the carbon footprint includes all those vehicle journeys that workers have to make to and from the nuclear power plant throughout its life and decommissioning?

Thanks for the revised link FM.

RenewableCandy wrote:My curiosity is piqued.

Then have a pique/peak/peek at this.

The operation of a nuclear reactor produces no carbon emmisions, BUT the building of the reactor, the obtaining of uranium, processing this into fuel rods, waste disposal and decommisioning all produce considerable carbon emmisions.

Whilst it could be argued that such emmisions should be included, that would not be a level playing field when compareing to coal.
The stated emisions of a coal burning power plant are normally only those from the flue.
The carbon emitted by building the plant, mining the coal, transporting the fuel, and the staff driving to work are not included.
If they were coal would look even worse.

Nuclear staff walk to work