Tuesday, September 12, 2006

More On Lifecycle Emissions

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: , , , , , , ,

2 comments:

Ruth Sponsler 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!

Kirk Sorensen said...

This is very good data. I am so sick of hearing the "anti-nukes" parrot their mistaken belief that somehow the fuel cycle of nuclear produces more CO2 than it saves by avoiding combustion.

I guess if they hear each other say it enough they think it's true. They probably won't pay attention to data or logic but it sure is good to have facts to point them to. This kind of data should be front-and-center on the NEI site!