This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nuclear Is NOT a Low-Carbon Source of Energy
Why Do People Claim that Nuclear Power is a Low-Carbon Source of Energy?
Even well-known, well-intentioned scientists sometimes push bad ideas. For example, well-known scientists considered pouring soot over the Arctic in the 1970s to help melt the ice – in order to prevent another ice age. That would have been stupid. Even Obama’s top science adviser – John Holdren – warned in the 1970′s of a new ice age … and is open to shooting soot into the upper atmosphere. That might be equally stupid.
In other words, scientists – even prominent ones – sometimes fall prey to hairball theories and dangerous proposals. (Remember, doctors used to bleed patients to remove the “bad humors”.)
Similarly, some scientists are under the mistaken impression that nuclear power is virtually carbon-free, and thus must be pushed to prevent runaway global warming. (If you don’t believe in global warming, then this essay is not aimed at you … although you might wish to forward it to those who do.)
But this is a myth.
Amory Lovins is perhaps America’s top expert on energy, and a dedicated environmentalist for close to 50 years. His credentials as an energy expert and environmentalist are sterling.
Lovins is a former Oxford don, who taught at nine universities, most recently Stanford. He has briefed 19 heads of state, provided expert testimony in eight countries, and published 31 books and several hundred papers. Lovins’ clients have included the Pentagon, OECD, UN, Resources for the Future, many national governments, and 13 US states, as well as many Fortune 500 companies, major real-estate developers, and utilities. Lovins served in 1980-81 on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Research Advisory Board, and in 1999-2001 and 2006-08 on Defense Science Board task forces on military energy efficiency and strategy.
Lovins says nuclear is not the answer:
Nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard climate protection.
Here’s how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings (“cogeneration”), and renewable energy. The last two made 18% of the world’s 2009 electricity, nuclear 13%, reversing their 2000 shares–and made over 90% of the world’s additional electricity in 2008.
Those smarter choices are sweeping the global energy market. Half the world’s new generating capacity in 2008 and 2009 was renewable. In 2010, renewables except big hydro dams won $151 billion of private investment and added over 50 billion watts (70% the total capacity of all 23 Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero private investment and kept losing capacity. Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43-52% of four German states’ total 2010 electricity. Non-nuclear Denmark, 21% wind-powered, plans to get entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai’i plans 70% renewables by 2025.
In contrast, of the 66 nuclear units worldwide officially listed as “under construction” at the end of 2010, 12 had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official startup date, half were late, all 66 were in centrally planned power systems–50 of those in just four (China, India, Russia, South Korea)–and zero were free-market purchases. Since 2007, nuclear growth has added less annual output than just the costliest renewable–solar power –and will probably never catch up. While inherently safe renewable competitors are walloping both nuclear and coal plants in the marketplace and keep getting dramatically cheaper, nuclear costs keep soaring, and with greater safety precautions would go even higher. Tokyo Electric Co., just recovering from $10-20 billion in 2007 earthquake costs at its other big nuclear complex, now faces an even more ruinous Fukushima bill.
Since 2005, new U.S. reactors (if any) have been 100+% subsidized–yet they couldn’t raise a cent of private capital, because they have no business case. They cost 2-3 times as much as new windpower, and by the time you could build a reactor, it couldn’t even beat solar power. Competitive renewables, cogeneration, and efficient use can displace all U.S. coal power more than 23 times over–leaving ample room to replace nuclear power’s half-as-big-as-coal contribution too–but we need to do it just once.
(Read Lovins’ technical papers on the issue here.)
Alternet points out:
Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Vermont Law School … found that the states that invested heavily in nuclear power had worse track records on efficiency and developing renewables than those that did not have large nuclear programs. In other words, investing in nuclear technology crowded out developing clean energy.
BBC notes:
Building the [nuclear] power station produces a lot of CO2 ….
Greenpeace points out:
When it comes to nuclear power, the industry wants you to think of electricity generation in isolation ….. And yet the production of nuclear fuel is a hugely intensive process. Uranium must be mined, milled, converted, enriched, converted again and then manufactured into fuel. You’ll notice the [the nuclear industry] doesn’t mention the carbon footprint of all steps in the nuclear chain prior to electricity generation. Fossil fuels have to be used and that means CO2 emissions.
An International Forum on Globalization report – written by environmental luminaries Ernest Callenback, Gar Smith and Jerry Mander – have slammed nuclear power as catastrophic for the environment:
Nuclear energy is not the “clean” energy its backers proclaim. For more than 50 years, nuclear energy has been quietly polluting our air, land, water and bodies—while also contributing to Global Warming through the CO2 emissions from its construction, mining, and manufacturing operations. Every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle—mining, milling, shipping, processing, power generation, waste disposal and storage—releases greenhouse gases, radioactive particles and toxic materials that poison the air, water and land. Nuclear power plants routinely expel low-level radionuclides into the air in the course of daily operations. While exposure to high levels of radiation can kill within a matter of days or weeks, exposure to low levels on a prolonged basis can damage bones and tissue and result in genetic damage, crippling long-term injuries, disease and death.
See this excellent photographic depiction of the huge amounts of fossil fuel which goes into building and operating a nuclear power plant.
Nature reported in 2008:
“You’re better off pursuing renewables like wind and solar if you want to get more bang for your buck.”
***
Evaluating the total carbon output of the nuclear industry involves calculating those emissions and dividing them by the electricity produced over the entire lifetime of the plant. Benjamin K. Sovacool, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore, recently analyzed more than one hundred lifecycle studies of nuclear plants around the world, his results published in August in Energy Policy. From the 19 most reliable assessments, Sovacool found that estimates of total lifecycle carbon emissions ranged from 1.4 grammes of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (gCO2e/kWh) of electricity produced up to 288 gCO2e/kWh. Sovacool believes the mean of 66 gCO2e/kWh to be a reasonable approximation.
The large variation in emissions estimated from the collection of studies arises from the different methodologies used – those on the low end, says Sovacool, tended to leave parts of the lifecycle out of their analyses, while those on the high end often made unrealistic assumptions about the amount of energy used in some parts of the lifecycle. The largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for 38 per cent of the average total, is the “frontend” of the fuel cycle, which includes mining and milling uranium ore, and the relatively energy-intensive conversion and enrichment process, which boosts the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to useable levels. Construction (12 per cent), operation (17 per cent largely because of backup generators using fossil fuels during downtime), fuel processing and waste disposal (14 per cent) and decommissioning (18 per cent) make up the total mean emissions.
According to Sovacool’s analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh. “A number in the 60s puts it well below natural gas, oil, coal and even clean-coal technologies. On the other hand, things like energy efficiency, and some of the cheaper renewables are a factor of six better. So for every dollar you spend on nuclear, you could have saved five or six times as much carbon with efficiency, or wind farms,” Sovacool says. Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing.
***
Money spent on energy efficiency, however, is equivalent to increasing baseload power, since it reduces the overall power that needs to be generated, says Sovacool. And innovative energy-storage solutions, such as compressed air storage, could provide ways for renewables to provide baseload power.
Thomas Cochran, a nuclear physicist and senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group in Washington DC … argues that the expense and risk of building nuclear plants makes them uneconomic without large government subsidies, and that similar investment in wind and solar photovoltaic power would pay off sooner.
***
Another question has to do with the sustainability of the uranium supply itself. According to researchers in Australia at Monash University, Melbourne, and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by. The deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting leaving only lower-quality deposits to be exploited. As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, and greenhouse gas emissions rise. “It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of … greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term,” conclude the researchers. [And see this.]
Beyond Nuclear notes:
The energy consulting firm Ecofys produced a report detailing how we can meet nearly 100% of global energy needs with renewable sources by 2050. Approximately half of the goal is met through increased energy efficiency to first reduce energy demands, and the other half is achieved by switching to renewable energy sources for electricity production. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees and predicts close to 80% of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid?century.
***
Since nuclear power plants are reliant upon the electrical grid for 100% of their safety systems’ long?term power, and are shut down during grid failure and perturbations, it is “guaranteed” only as long as the electrical grid is reliable. When the Tsunami and earthquake hit and power was lost in the Fukushima Prefecture, nuclear energy wasn’t so “guaranteed.” Instead, it became a liability, adding to what was now a triple threat to the region and worsening an already catastrophic situation.
***
[The claim that] Nuclear power is “low?carbon electricity” … is the propaganda line commonly used by the nuclear industry which conveniently leaves out every phase of the nuclear fuel chain other than electricity generation. It ignores the significant carbon emissions caused by uranium mining, milling, processing and enrichment; the transport of fuel; the construction of nuclear plants; and the still inadequate permanent management of waste. It also ignores the release ? by nuclear power plants and reprocessing facilities ? of radioactive carbon dioxide, or carbon?14, to the air, considered to be the most toxic of all radioactive isotopes over the long?term.
In fact, studies show that extending the operating licenses of old nuclear power plants emits orders of magnitude more carbon and greenhouse gases per kilowatt hour from just the uranium fuel chain compared to building and operating new wind farms.
***
Nuclear might begin to address global carbon emissions if a reactor is built somewhere in the world every two weeks. But this is an economically unrealistic, in fact impossible, proposition, with the estimated construction tab beginning at $12 billion apiece and current new reactors under construction already falling years behind schedule.
According to a 2003 MIT study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” such an unprecedented industrial ramping up would also mean opening a new Yucca Mountain?size nuclear waste dump somewhere in the world “every three to four years,” a task still unaccomplished even once in the 70 years of the industry’s existence. Further, such a massive scale expansion of nuclear energy would fuel proliferation risks and multiply anxieties about nuclear weapons development, exemplified by the current concern over Iran. As Al Gore stated while Vice President: “For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program.”
Many experts also say that the “energy return on investment” from nuclear power is lower than many other forms of energy. In other words, non-nuclear energy sources produce more energy for a given input.
David Swanson summarizes one of the key findings of the International Forum on Globalization report:
The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy.
Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Also not counted is any mitigation of the relatively routine damage done to the environment, including human health, at each stage of the process.
***
Nuclear energy is not an alternative to energies that increase global warming, because nuclear increases global warming. When high-grade uranium runs out, nuclear will be worse for CO2 emissions than burning fossil fuels. And as global warming advances, nuclear becomes even less efficient as reactors must shut down to avoid overheating.
Also not counted in most discussions is the fact that nuclear reactors discharge tremendous amounts of heat directly into the environment. After all – as any nuclear engineer will tell you – a nuclear reactor is really just a fancy way to boil water.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted in 1971:
In terms of thermal efficiency, current nuclear reactors are even worse off than the coal plants. Against the 50 per cent loss of heat in the newest coal plants, as much as 70 per cent of the heat is lost from nuclear plants. This means that thermal pollution can be even more severe ….
1971 was a long time ago, but some nuclear plants are older. For example, Oyster Creek was launched in 1969, and many other reactors were built in the early 1970s. Most American nuclear reactors are old (and they are aging very poorly).
Indeed, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service claims:
It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy –heat– that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast.
It doesn’t make too much sense to dump massive amounts of heat into the environment … in the name of fighting global warming.
The German Example
Germany permanently shut down 8 nuclear power plants in 2011. Indeed, Germany’s phase-out of nuclear will speed up the reduction in its carbon footprint.
PhysOrg reported last year:
A special issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by SAGE, “The German Nuclear Exit,” shows that the nuclear shutdown and an accompanying move toward renewable energy are already yielding measurable economic and environmental benefits, with one top expert calling the German phase-out a probable game-changer for the nuclear industry worldwide.
***
Freie Universität Berlin politics professor Miranda Schreurs says the nuclear phase-out and accompanying shift to renewable energy have brought financial benefits to farmers, investors, and small business;
Felix Matthes of the Institute for Applied Ecology in Berlin concludes the phase-out will have only small and temporary effects on electricity prices and the German economy;
***
Lutz Mez, co-founder of Freie Universit?t Berlin’s Environmental Policy Research Center, presents what may be the most startling finding of all …. “It has actually decoupled energy from economic growth, with the country’s energy supply and carbon-dioxide emissions dropping from 1990 to 2011, even as its gross domestic product rose by 36 percent.”
Beyond Nuclear notes:
Germany reduced its carbon emissions in 2011 by 2.1 percent despite the nuclear phaseout. The cut in greenhouse gases was mainly reached due to an accelerated transition to renewable energies and a warm winter. In addition, the EU emissions trading system caps all emissions from the power sector.
While eight nuclear power plants were shut down, solar power output increased by 60 percent. By the end of 2011, renewable energies provided more than 20 percent of overall electricity.
***
Even after shutting its eight oldest nuclear power plants, Germany is still a net exporter of electricity. In 2011, Germany exported 6 TWh more than it imported. Additionally, German electricity exports to Europe’s nuclear power house France increased throughout 2011.
The Big Picture
The former chief American nuclear regulator says that nuclear energy is unsafe and should be phased out. Whistleblowers at the Nuclear Regulator Commission say that the risk of a major meltdown at U.S. nuclear reactors is much higher than it was at Fukushima.
And an accident in the U.S. could be a lot larger than in Japan … partly because our nuclear plants hold a lot more radioactive material. Radiation could cause illness in huge numbers of Americans, and a major nuclear accident could literally bankrupt America.
More than 75 percent of American nuclear reactors leak radiation … and – contrary to what the snake oil salesmen say – radiation form nuclear plants is very damaging to our health.
Nuclear is wholly subsidized by the government … and would never survive in a free market.
Anyone who says the only choices are nuclear, oil or coal are wrong. The question isn’t one type of centralized energy generation versus another.
Decentralizing energy production, increasing efficiency, and increasing energy conservation are the real solutions for the environment.
Watch this must-see talk by Lovins, and this inspiring talk by Justin Hall Tipping.
The bottom line – as discussed above – is that scientists pushing nuclear to combat global warming are misinformed. (True, nuclear industry lobbyists may be largely responsible for the claim that nuclear fights climate change. Indeed, Dick Cheney – whose Halliburton company builds nuclear power plants, and which sold nuclear secrets to Iran – falsely claimed that nuclear power is carbon-free in a 2004 appearance on C-Span. But there are also sincere environmental scientists who are pushing nuclear because they have only studied a small part of the picture, and don’t understand that there are better alternatives.)
- advertisements -


Speak for yourself, I have no expectations about future quality of life. I am fairly confident we can maintain the crucial 6:1 EROI needed for modestly complex society, so I doubt we'll be reverting back to 90% of the population as subsistance farmers, at least in North America. Some of the other places are likely going to have some serious depopulation in the not-to-distant future.
Yes of course. You are right. It is impossible to run out of anything. Like oil. All we have to is wait like, a couple of million years while the oil supply builds back up. We are gradually running out of everything even vaguely safe or we wouldn't be discussing this. You think conservationists are just biologists with nothing else to do? ROFL.
Nailed it.
"More than 75 percent of American nuclear reactors leak radiation … and – contrary to what the snake oil salesmen say – radiation form nuclear plants is very damaging to our health."
Can you say, bio-accumulation of radioactive hot particles in everything, and everyone? Imagine, those babylonian banksters thinking they could eliminate 99% of humanity and then go hide down in the undergrounds to escape the wrath of a planet that has had ALL OF ITS BIOLOGICAL LIFE FORMS WIPED OUT. They may go down into those underground cities and escape the initial horrendous radioactive contaminations, but they will never see daylight again in this lifetime because the planet will be decimated of any life for a half million years, or more.
One can not emphasize enough that the future has been shown to the lemming society. It is their choice to accept it, or not. When ever the prophets of truth would tell the masses what could happen, it has traditionally been up to the masses to change it, or not. if you are told you will die if you step out the door, will you do it, or heed the warnings?
Stupid is...as stupid does.
Nuclear energy successively destroys every nation it is used in.
People can't control their children let alone nuclear power.
"Germany reduced its carbon emissions in 2011 by 2.1 percent despite the nuclear phaseout. The cut in greenhouse gases was mainly reached due to an accelerated transition to renewable energies..."
this is sooo 2011..enough already with this greenwashing of Germany, get op to speed!
Tax Breaks and Subsidies for Industry Divide Germans
SPIEGEL ONLINE - October 26, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/medium-sized-german-companie...
Germans Grow Wary of Switch to Renewables
SPIEGEL ONLINE - October 15, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/consumers-bear-brunt-of-germ...
German Energy Plan Plagued by Lack of Progress
SPIEGEL ONLINE - October 10, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/energy-turnaround-in-germany...
A New Role for Coal in German Energy Revolution
SPIEGEL ONLINE - September 07, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-coal-fired-plants-could-...
North Sea Wind Offensive Plagued by Problems
SPIEGEL ONLINE - September 04, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-offshore-wind-offensi...
Biogas Boom in Germany Leads to Modern-Day Land Grab
SPIEGEL ONLINE - August 30, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/biogas-subsidies-in-germany-...
Germany Rethinks Path to Green Future
SPIEGEL ONLINE - August 29, 2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/problems-prompt-germany-to-r...
Germany Hits Brakes on Race to Renewable Energy Future
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 28.08.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-addresses-problems-w...
Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling for Solutions
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 16.08.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-co...
Doubts Rising over German Switch to Renewables
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 17.07.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/doubts-increasing-about-germ...
'Green' Transport Idea Is Expensive Folly
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 06.07.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/siemens-misguided-idea-about...
Germans Cough Up for Solar Subsidies
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 04.07.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-re...
Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out Brings Unexpected Costs
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 06.06.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-nuclear-phase-out-...
'We Can't Allow Electricity to Become a Luxury'
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 06.06.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-environment-minister-...
German Power Grid Expansion to Cost Billions
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 30.05.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-needs-miles-of-new-p...
German and Chinese Solar Firms Battle for Survival
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 29.05.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/german-and-chinese-solar-fi...
Merkel Faces 'Herculean' Task on Green Energy
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 24.05.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/angela-merkel-pledges-progre...
Germany Stalled on the Expressway to a Green Future
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 23.05.2012
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-energy-revolution-...
..just at taste of the problems the Germans have with their "green energy revolution"
"Merkel’s No-Nuke Stumble May Erode Re-Election Support"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-10/merkel-s-no-nuke-stumble-may-erode-re-election-support-energy.html
Good Job on the article GW.
Enjoyed the links and cites, well thought through, I'll be processing this for a few days. ;)
lol......acting like amory lovins is an authority discredits this piece immediately......there are bogus numbers from all sides because energy is hard to calculate. it is better to look at the real world to get an idea of what is actually going on.
meaning: mining companies routinely need to build their own power plants to mine unindustrialized parts of the world, and when they do, what type of energy do you think they seek to utilize? are they building solar or wind plants? lol.....no. they build natural gas, coal, or nuclear plants. modular nuclear reactors will allow for decentralization, something washington never acknowledges in spite of the fact that modular nuclear reactors are in the process of becoming the dominant design with china, the country leading the way in terms of nuclear power generation.
EROEI calculations should also consider the cost of all raw materials. it could be extrapolated to infinity, i.e. the energy of the food need to ensure the great-grandparents of hte miners who secured the silver to create solar panels could survive and reproduce........from this perspective EROEI will always yield 1 or less than 1. that is why it is useful to look at what real companies that have significant power needs choose to utilize. google and apple go green because of the immense subsidies, amazon is about as far from solar and wind as one can get -- because they know it is not economically viable -- i.e. because EROEI is too low, regardless of what numbers amory lovins concocted from his imagination.
lovins, like most solar/wind fans, admits when pressed that the solar/wind utopia they envison is only possible if one accepts a world that uses less energy all together. this ultimately puts us down a path of energy rationing -- i.e. GREATER centralization of energy -- and more nefarious things like population control (since all humans use energy).
since washington, like tyler durden and many other intelligent people, is a conspiracy scientist, i recommend he search the web for "21 goals of the illuminati and the committee of 300" and read what is said about nuclear energy. peaceful nuclear energy is not the problem -- quite the opposite, it is a key part of the solution.
I doubt you have to be a conspiracy theorist to notice that a lot of people are greedy idiots. Also please, folks read some R. Koselleck on the history of crises,the Illuminati, and the 18th century clarification, aka the enlightenment,later imported into the colonial pre-U.S. It make the conspiracy talk a lot less mysterious and more understandable. The secrecy was mostly just a way to recruit people by making it feel "special" to belong. Not entirely but that was a lot of it. And those folks didn't really agree anymore than people who didn't join the intellectual elite.
Remote generation also uses wind and solar. But you have to use the right tool for the right application.
Wind and solar are used as back-up for the back-up. When the shit hits the fan you can always count on the sun to shine and the wind to blow (eventually....lol) and use those to "boot strap" your way back on-line. Keep the plant from going completely black, load management issues become critical.
For stand alone power generations for large loads that are required to come on line quickly.... and are reliable and easy to repair and operate.... these are your options
1: Solar/wind (straight forward no brainer to operated and maintain) fuel not a issue but low power outputs, used to keep the place from going black, again load management etc a real issue.
2: Diesel gen set -any diesel machanic can keep running, have to have reliable diesel deliveries (how remote are you?) to keep running... this can become an issue...
3: Gas Turbines (can run on No2 or natural gas) -requires better trained operators and maintence crew and you are going to pay those people well to keep the damn things running in those enviroments, this form of generation can become very expensive and unreliable if care is not given in operations, design and maintence..... been there done that!!!!!!!
Just the thought of having a little mini nuclear power plant at some of the sites I have worked on has me ROTHLMAO!!!!! Are you fucken out of your mind!!!!! My best operators were guys that I hired that came out of the Navy, off of nuclear subs. Most industial power generation (maintence standards etc...) are whore houses compared to a Nuclear Sub.....
I have never heard on anyone building a coal plant for a remote industrial application aka oil platform, artic, etc.. how are you going to get the fuel to the location????? THINK.... Bituminous coal typically has a gross heating value of 30,600,000 BTU per ton compared to No 2 Diesel 1 gallon #2 oil = 138,500 BTU,
How many coal fired Ships, TRAINS, cars or trucks do you see in operations (there is a reason for this)....... lol
(deep sigh, sadly shaking head.....)
You guys are right! Nuclear is perfect.
Just look at fukashima. No problems there!
That is exactly the problem with radiation: You cannot see it.
Another argument that I hear to keep nuclear: coal alternative, many more people killed in the mining process and the pollution generated from burning coal.
And then of course that the problem plants are old, newer ones are safer.
It hard to buy the global warming movement while they push mass immigration, which obliterates whatever reductions we mandate.
...or fly around the world for climate events (114 came just from Australia to COP15, Copenhagen) - or drive around i limoes:
"Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517...
Its a dirty job to be an environmentalist..
"Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges"
Today is a good day to fly.
The quasi-environmentalist GW's carbon footprint is probably on par with Al Bore's.
Nuclear Is NOT a Low-Carbon Source of Energy? "According to Sovacool’s analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO e/kWh."
Article title fail. Ignoring its other downsides for a moment, conventional nuclear may not be the lowest carbon emitting source in terms of grams per joule, however it is practically 90% lower than the installed base.
You should count in the emissions from mining, and, in the case of uranium, enrichment, which is very energy consuming. They count for much more than the power-plant at the end of this line.
Yes ignore all the mining, refining, and transport needed for your renewables-in-name-only, and the vastly lower EROEI, to make them seem vaguely comparable to nuclear.
None of it matters. None. It's a giant joke. The low-cost high-EROEI days are gone and nothing that currently exists can bring them back.
According to the article, both are included in his estimate:
"The largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for 38 per cent of the average total, is the “frontend” of the fuel cycle, which includes mining and milling uranium ore, and the relatively energy-intensive conversion and enrichment process, which boosts the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to useable levels. Construction (12 per cent), operation (17 per cent largely because of backup generators using fossil fuels during downtime), fuel processing and waste disposal (14 per cent) and decommissioning (18 per cent) make up the total mean emissions."
You can use gaseous diffusion to refine uranium or use more up to date gaseous centrifuges, which use 1/50 of the energy as the gaseous diffusion.
This is a process that the US now apparently lags behind Iran. Might take that 14% due to fuel processing down to more like 1%.
Japan and the USA save lots of money on that 'processing' step by not doing it.
It's extremely good for the carbon footprint. Right off the bat, you save that 14%. And then later on (cough, Fukushima) you kill off half your population with cancer over 5 or 10 years, and that's good for the carbon footprint too!
/sarc off
I guess ultimately it comes down to Nuclear power is the solution to the overpopulation of unmutated humans! ;) Of course, contamination shouldn't be a problem if any chemists out there are working on the formula for Rad-X or Rad-Away (for the Fallout game fans).
So there lies the flaw: Waste disposal 14 per cent ...
Buhahahaha!
Where do you get "disposed" of nuclear waste for such diddly-squat?
Sounds highly suspicious to me. May you could post a link, so I can pull that article to pieces ...
That is suspicious ... since it's likely dumped in the ocean trench which means transportation costs only so maybe 1%.
If that's how you get your jollies, go find it yourself.
This rabbithole goes much deeper. I strongly prefer my doubts to any assuredness. But you as may rest assured, that such a report can be trusted without question, as you like.
edit: I just found it. Could've saved me quite a time, had I known ....
Lol my point was about this author quoting all sorts of shit taking it at face value and then having a contradictory title. Don't know what your agenda is nor do I really care.
And that is exactly your problem: That you don't care. As if it wasn't your environment.
Blogged about Lovins a little while back http://addins.waow.com/blogs/weather/2008/07/and-the-rain-came About half way down the page
Aside from this article accepting this lie of AGW and photosynthesis fuel being poison for a planet of plants...
they lost me when comparing investment in nuclear power vs. "renewable" energy. Government subsidy accounts for nearly all watermelon energy investments. The only private capital attached to such projects is to mask the Facist structure of them, and get in on the garunteed government largess--no matter when the project inevitably fails.
You were lost long before you got to 'comparing investment .....
Nothing more fascist than the Nuke and Oil Industries.
Let's stick you in a plastic bag - that friendly gas you are talking about will kill you in a very unpleasant manner fairly quickly.
Even plants can only cope with so much.
I hope you never extract your head from your asshole - the shock will be too much.
I never claimed nuclear or oil were free of government meddling.
You, however, don't seem to understand the biological function of CO2 with organisms. Asphixiation by CO2 would actually be a very tranquil death for a human. Are you even aware that respiration rate is controlled not through oxygen saturation, but CO2 saturation in humans? You should read about the citric acid cycle and photosynthesis (I & II) before you take perogative about what plants can "handle". I'd further suggest you study the absorption spectra of water, ozone, and CO2, then observe solar activity within the last 30 years, but....somehow I imagine that might be herretical to your collectivist religion of anti-human self-loathing.
Actually, I saw or read somewhere that while Nitrogen and Helium are the best gasses to use for tranquil asphyxiation, that pure CO2 will react with the moisture and possibly other things inside the lungs and thus create a Carbonic acid which will burn your lungs and thus not be so tranquil but either way, I guess you wouldn't suffer very long.
FYI: I was looking into a peaceful way to dispatch raised food animals that eliminates the mental trauma of physical violence and possibly pain upon the animals that I usually tend to grow attached to even though I accept the idea (as everyone must) of the food chain. I grew up on a farm so I've seen a lot of less than pleasant ways to go for the animal and my psyche and I thought this would be one of my preferred methods if I was inline to be someone's dinner. I was only researching as I currently live in an HOA so I can't confirm the success or failure in application or economics of such a method in case anyone else was curious.
Of course no government ever subsidized any of the corporations involved in nuclear power, let alone reactors themselves.
/sarc off
What.. what a bunch of bs. Perhaps if the greenies like the author would get the fuck out of the way nuclear plants would not take decades to license and build. As to accounting for all enviro damages that go into a product - 1) the amount of uranium mined is tiny.. about 60,000 tonnes. 2) please tell us about the nasty chemicals used in making solar panels. 3) What goes into making a windmill? And the whole renewable/cogeneration thing is a red herring. If it is so great, fine do more. WIthout tax credits. And maybe direct your hostility at coal burning in China instead.
While solar panel manufacturing plants use gases and chmicals, they do not tend to leech them out, since they are costly and better re-used.
As to rare earth mining, that really is more a matter of the company and jurisdiction; sure, the chinese mine rare earths in a very polluting way, but they do pretty much everything in a very polluting way, and short of a pre-empetive nuclear strike, there isn't much we can do to stop them.
Great example of statist logic: to de-nuclearize the world, we had to nuke it!
The article is garbage.
What fucking global warming?
I doubt anyone would argue with the fact that the inuit in the arctic have a more intimate connection with the environment than most.
They can SEE global warming happening.
http://www.iisd.org/casl/projects/inuitobs.htm
THAT fucking global warming.
"They can SEE global warming happening"
So could Erik the Red in year 982
"THAT fucking global warming"
Yes, I guess he said something like that
Who the fuck cares if it's 'carbon free'?????????
Those people, who would like to reduce carbondioxide emissions by building more nukes. Which means, they want more nukes anyways.
Anyone taking notice of weather trends for the last 25 years here?
One of the predictions of global warming early on was cooling in the North Atlantic due to the breakdown of the Gulf Stream as fresh water from melting ice reduces the salinity, and hence, density, ceases to push cold water south as it sinks, driving warmer surface waters (Aforementioned Gulf Stream) north.
This leaves heat at the equator and a colder north atlantic.
Global warming is only a small part of the damage that's been done to the earth by the mad, greedy scramble for 'more' - more rather than better.
Can anyone here name a part of the planet where humans have changed things for the long-term better?
We are approaching events that will be totally catastrophic - The world's ecosystems are breaking down, I thnk it's undeniable and all because of human greed.
A species ending process has begun and global warming is only a part of it.
TEOTWAWKI is almost upon us, both financially and environmentally.
Plan accordingly.
Its man caused desertification of the planet that is the heart of the problem. We interfered with mob grazing by the herbivores, which has destroyed millions of acres of grassland. Want to feed the planet and bring Co2 levels back to preindustrial levels?
Bring back the herbivores , which will bring back the grasslands.
For more detail on this, Allan Savory is a must watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Or ironically in your point, turning Amazon rainforest into grassland which not only destroys carbon ingesters but adds back a ton of previously sequestered carbon.
Thank you so much Hulk for posting this!! I first saw this on Mercola and was astonished what could be accomplished with simple use of livestock. This is being mimicked by Joe Salatin as well. Mr miffed and I are so excited about this since we live in an arid area. We thought had no options dealing with our environment. We are planning to try this on a small scale with sheep and our chickens. Funny how real answers to problems facing us globally can be so simple.
Miffed ;-)
Dude you are nuts. There's no global warming.
I don't know where you get your data, but you should double check the veracity of your source.
97% agree that Global Warming is Mann-made! ;-)
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1517949/index
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/09/1072828/-Michael-Mann-is-a-Mode...