Skip to main content

More On Lifecycle Emissions

By Eric McErlain
Thanks to my NEI colleague Adrian Heymer for passing along some interesting information on total lifecycle emissions, a topic we referred to in the post on James Lovelock earlier today. The following table comes from the recently completed U.K. Energy Review. Click here (p. 116) for the specific section. GC is grams of carbon and GCO2 is grams of carbon dioxide. You can find the following chart on page 15 of the report:

The figures quoted above come from the OECD. The following links were supplied in a note to me by my colleague David Bradish:
First link is from the IAEA (pdf). If you go to the third page you can find a graph that visually explains the results.

Here's a link to the WNA and if you scroll down two thirds of the way you can find a Supplement critiquing the source [Helen] Caldicott uses.

Here's another link from a non-nuclear source on the lifecycle emissions of all fuels. If you go to page 37 you can find a bar chart displaying the results.

Here's another link to a University of Wisconsin-Madison study. If you go to the top of page 92 you can find a paragraph of their conclusions.
The point here is pretty clear: Always check your sources.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Excellent post! The new results regarding CO2 and hurricane formation give credence and support to this data and to Dr. Lovelock's work.

There may come a time when the anti-nuclear organizations and individuals in the "environmental movement" will lose all credibility among conservationists, climate scientists, ecologists, and biologists because of the CO2-fossil fuel-climate situation.

I currently view the anti-nuclear organizations as anti-environmental organizations because the net effect of their actions over 30 or more years has been to increase dependence on fossil fuels.

In the meanwhile, I hope that more people like Dr. Patrick Moore will have the intellectual honesty and courage to step forward and admit that the greatest mistake the "environmental movement" has made has been their actions against nuclear energy.

Best wishes!
September 12, 2006 at 7:12 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more