Found this clip on YouTube today that gives a nice overview of the decision by the U.K. government to approve a new generation of nuclear power plants.
As for the Greenpeace spokesman who claimed that replacing gas-fired generation with nuclear-generated electricity wouldn't make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions, how in the world does he explain why France, which generates about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, has one of the smallest carbon footprints in the world?
For more on total lifecycle emissions, click here.
As for the Greenpeace spokesman who claimed that replacing gas-fired generation with nuclear-generated electricity wouldn't make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions, how in the world does he explain why France, which generates about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, has one of the smallest carbon footprints in the world?
For more on total lifecycle emissions, click here.
Comments
To me, that actually sounds like a damn lot. I can't even think of any single action that could reduce emissions of a country by that much. Now you consider that gas is about 1/4 the co2 of coal and if you replace 10 coal plants with 10 nuclear plants then you figure that you could reduce emissions by 16%?
That's quite a lot. Electrical generation is actually the single largest co2 producer in most countries, in the US it's about three times light trucks and cars. That's a place you can make a HUGE dent!