US: We need to expand nuclear energy

[emordnilap]

Salt Lake Tribune - 21/07/07despite the fact that at present 103 U.S. nuclear plants provide over 76 percent of our emission-free electricity. There are no viable options for limiting greenhouse gases without nuclear energy.

If you ever needed an example to demonstrate the meaning of the word "greenwash", then the heap of bollix quoted above is it.

This is taking your fight into the enemy camp, a "fight fire with fire" or "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" move designed to emasculate those wishing to confront climate change in one fell swoop. I'll bet the marketing guy who snapped his fingers at this 'spin spun green' is forever chuckling behind his hand.

As John Cleese said before slamming the cleaver into the table, "Ooh, it makes me maaad! Maaad!"

Instead of actually doing anything about their lifestyle, millions will happily swallow this 'emissions-free electricity' shite. Another example of a pile of anodyne tripe readily gobbled up by the sheeple.

Take a tour around even this one single example and tell me again that nuclear power is emissions-free.

[clv101]

I used to get worked up about the "CO2 emission free" phrase and nuclear power, I sent hard copies of that link to several MPs (anyone I heard on the radio saying nuclear was CO2 emission free). I've calmed down a lot now. In the way the term is used - in comparison to coal and gas it's reasonable.

At the nuclear powerstation, the generation of electricity is CO2 emission free whereas coal and gas produce CO2. That's how the phrase us used. Of course there are other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle that emit CO2 - but critically there are other parts of the coal and gas fuel cycle that do too and aren't included.

When we talk about the CO2 from a kWh of coal or gas generated electricity we don't include anything other than the combustion in the powerstation. Why should nuclear have to be compared to the higher standard of its CO2 being measured over the whole fuel cycle? It's inconsistent.

This is accurate - as far as it goes, CO2 emissions at point of generation:
Coal 890g/kWh
Gas 360g/kWh
Nuclear 0g/kWh

The fact that the fuel cycle adds additional CO2 is another issue. Do we also count the CO2 used by the powerstation workers driving to work?

[Totally_Baffled]

I used to get worked up about the "CO2 emission free" phrase and nuclear power, I sent hard copies of that link to several MPs (anyone I heard on the radio saying nuclear was CO2 emission free). I've calmed down a lot now. In the way the term is used - in comparison to coal and gas it's reasonable.

At the nuclear powerstation, the generation of electricity is CO2 emission free whereas coal and gas produce CO2. That's how the phrase us used. Of course there are other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle that emit CO2 - but critically there are other parts of the coal and gas fuel cycle that do too and aren't included.

When we talk about the CO2 from a kWh of coal or gas generated electricity we don't include anything other than the combustion in the powerstation. Why should nuclear have to be compared to the higher standard of its CO2 being measured over the whole fuel cycle? It's inconsistent.

This is accurate - as far as it goes, CO2 emissions at point of generation:
Coal 890g/kWh
Gas 360g/kWh
Nuclear 0g/kWh

The fact that the fuel cycle adds additional CO2 is another issue. Do we also count the CO2 used by the powerstation workers driving to work?

Damn it - you beat me to it Chris!

[clv101]

Here's some discussion:
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/artic ... r_se74.php

The chart shows the average annual amount of CO2 emitted for a given amount of electricity, either generated or saved, equivalent to the lifetime output of a 1,000 MW PWR (171TWh).


NOTE THE LOG SCALE.

It nuclear producing 3.9% of the CO2 of a coal powerstation and hydro 1.3%, wind 0.9%. If we are to refer to hydro and wind as CO2-free, it's only fair to also refer to nuclear as CO2 free.

The article goes on to say that most of the nuclear CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel generated electricity used in fuel processing. It says if the gas diffusion method of fuel enrichment was replaced with the gas centrifuge method and the electricity came from nuclear the CO2 emissions could fall by a factor of ten, coming in under hydro, wind and tidal.

[snow hope]

I agree with the last 3 posts - some sense of reality here.

[Bandidoz]

If we are to refer to hydro and wind as CO2-free, it's only fair to also refer to nuclear as CO2 free.

Not sure I agree with that - because no CO2 is used to deliver the "fuel" as opposed to nuclear/fossil (and possibly even biomass).

[kenneal - lagger]

I would be interested to know if the nuclear includes the mining of ores at 0.2 to 2% concentrations and the yellow cake production from those ores. Also, has anallowance been made for decommissioning and long term waste waste storage? I bet there hasn't.

[clv101]

If we are to refer to hydro and wind as CO2-free, it's only fair to also refer to nuclear as CO2 free.

Not sure I agree with that - because no CO2 is used to deliver the "fuel" as opposed to nuclear/fossil (and possibly even biomass).

This shows how important it is to define system boundaries. Sure - delivering wind is CO2 free - but building wind turbines isn't. I don't jump on people who claim nuclear to be "CO2 free" like I used to as they are broadly right. Nothing is totally 100% CO2 free but nuclear is much lower than coal - the natural alternative. I don't think it's worth fighting nuclear on the CO2 angle, nuclear is on the right side of the CO2 debate.

There are plenty of areas to productively knock nuclear - I just don't believe CO2 is one of them.

[Totally_Baffled]

There are plenty of areas to productively knock nuclear - I just don't believe CO2 is one of them.

Indeed.

IMO nuclear is good for Co2, but it is shite on long term waste storage and cost.

The former is unresolved and the latter is a bugger because the billions could be spent on renewables and conservation.

Thats why I changed my mind on Nuclear anyways...(although I beginning to wonder that we have to make a decision either way asap or we are guaranteeing failure from 2015 onwards)

[RenewableCandy]

I would guess that the reason people say "What about the building/waste disposal/decommissioning Carbon-footprints with Nuclear?" is because these 3 activities form so much greater a proportion of the cost (Carbon and money) of Nuclear power generation than they do with, say, coal-fired generation. And even if it turns out that they don't, people still tend to THINK that they do.

Also Nuclear and coal aren't natural substitutes one for the other: coal can be wound down and up with relative ease, Nuclear not so.

[clv101]

Also Nuclear and coal aren't natural substitutes one for the other: coal can be wound down and up with relative ease, Nuclear not so.

Coal and nuclear are the most similar of all the major generating sources - if any two live in the same box it's these two. Coal takes some 8hrs or so to come up and down, key point being that neither can track hourly changes over a day.