Skip to main content

How Green is Nuclear Power?

That's what the Christian Science Monitor is asking:
"Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch."
Well it's good to see they are not spouting the anti's claims on CO2 emissions. They appear to do some homework on the issue. NEI's Paul Genoa is there to represent:
"Yes, absolutely there's carbon," says Paul Genoa, director of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry in the US. "Most studies have found life-cycle emissions of nuclear to be comparable with renewable. Some show nuclear to be extremely high, but we do not find those credible."
Stewart Peterson has a different view on the whole life cycle analysis issue here. And be sure to check out the Wall Street Journal's blog on the CSM article.

Comments

Doug said…
Anti-nuke activists love to calculate every last emission for a nuclear construction project, but never seem to subject renewables to the same analysis. You think there might be some energy used to make all the aluminum in a wind or solar project? Perhaps some concrete used to build a solar thermal plant? Uh-huh.

Probably the biggest gotcha is their method of calculating the emissions for enrichment. First they use obsolete enrichment technologies as the basis for the calculation, then they assume that all the electric power required comes from the existing mix of sources, which are, of course, dominated by fossil fuels. With this sort of circular ill-logic, doubtless their 19th century counterparts could have proven that coal/steam power was impractical because of the amount of animal muscle power needed to mine the coal. Since the product of nuclear power is electricty, a much better emissions analysis would be "CO2 per net kwh" from a project, i.e. simply deduct enrichment electrical needs directly from the plant's output.

Powered by electricity
Paul Wilson said…
This article seemed to be fairly balanced, other than an over reliance on this German study. I am amazed by the natural gas numbers produced by the German group for both emissions and cost. Where do they get such cheap methane that doesn't emit CO2 when it burns?

That said, I did some quick math on the numbers offered by the German study. By my reckoning, this study results in the following costs for CO2 emission avoidance relative to coal:
nuke: $18.60/tonne
wind: $58.50/tonne
CC biogas: $17.70/tonne
Solar: $664/tonne

Again, the NG numbers seem completely out of touch with reality. See Meier analysis referenced in article at: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/pmeier_energy.pdf

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …