Skip to main content

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: , , , , , , ,

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!

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…