Difference between revisions of "Carbon intensity of nuclear energy"

From ScienceForSustainability
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
In a rebuttal of the "StormSmith" work, researchers from the Paul Scherrer Institute found that Storm van Leeuwen's estimate of the energy consumed by Uranium mining and milling in Namibia was higher than the energy consumption of the entire country.
 
In a rebuttal of the "StormSmith" work, researchers from the Paul Scherrer Institute found that Storm van Leeuwen's estimate of the energy consumed by Uranium mining and milling in Namibia was higher than the energy consumption of the entire country.
  
David MacKay, in the [http://beta.metafaq.com/faq/mackay/wha/?_mftvst:entryModule=%24wha&_mftvst:entryRef=%24http:%2f%2fapi.transversal.com%2fmfapi%2fobjectref%2fEntryStore%2fEntry%2fhttp:%2f%2fwww.metafaq.com%2fmfapi%2fMetafaq%2fClients%2fmackay%2fModules%2fwha:146221:1&id=KA2N237MD7SSGJUH70QB4HHUD2&page=answer "metafaq"] to his ''Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air'' tackles the question:
 
: Q: I heard it takes more energy to build a nuclear power plant than you ever get back from it... is that true?
 
  
: A: No, of course not! Why would France and Finland and Sweden build so many power plants if that were true? They could just use the energy directly. The energy cost of uranium enrichment is described in my book, along with figures for the amount of concrete and steel used in the materials of the power station. The exact figures vary from country to country, but as a ballpark figure the carbon footprint of enrichment, building, decommisioning, and waste management is about 20 grams CO2 per kWh (compare with coal power stations at 1000 g CO2 per kWh) and raw petrol and gas at about 250 grams per kWh. Nuclear power stations produce at least ten times as much energy as it takes to make them, make their fuel, and decommision them.
+
The Energy Reality Project website has a post by Luke Weston on the issue:  
 +
[http://energyrealityproject.com/point-refuted-a-thousand-times-nuclear-is-not-low-carbon/ Point Refuted a Thousand Times: “Nuclear is not low-carbon”]
  
The Energy Reality Project website has a post on the issue:  
+
''Note that this article is now (late 2019) suffering [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_rot link rot].''
[http://energyrealityproject.com/point-refuted-a-thousand-times-nuclear-is-not-low-carbon/ Point Refuted a Thousand Times: “Nuclear is not low-carbon”]
+
 
 +
: The image described as "Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, US NREL (Click to enlarge)" can now be found via the: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150911024626/https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/images/lca_harm_ng_fig_2.jpg Wayback Machine]
 +
 
 +
: The image described as "from “Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development”, in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Ch. 9" can be found via the: [https://web.archive.org/web/20170608032350/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/images/lca_harm_over_1.png Wayback Machine]
 +
 
 +
: The link http://en-russia.edf.com/…/carbon-footprint-ru-en-290450.ht… seems irrevocably broken.

Revision as of 12:59, 31 October 2019


Opponents of nuclear energy sometimes claim that it has high carbon emissions. What is the basis of such claims and are they accurate?

The IPCC finds emissions of nuclear energy to be generally amongst the lowest of any energy sources, comparable with those of wind energy and lower than hydro and solar (see e.g. this table of IPCC findings from Wikipedia).

Wikipedia discusses how many claims of high GHG emissions are based on a non-peer-reviewed study by Storm van Leewen and Philip Smith (sometimes referred to as "Stormsmith").

In a rebuttal of the "StormSmith" work, researchers from the Paul Scherrer Institute found that Storm van Leeuwen's estimate of the energy consumed by Uranium mining and milling in Namibia was higher than the energy consumption of the entire country.


The Energy Reality Project website has a post by Luke Weston on the issue: Point Refuted a Thousand Times: “Nuclear is not low-carbon”

Note that this article is now (late 2019) suffering link rot.

The image described as "Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, US NREL (Click to enlarge)" can now be found via the: Wayback Machine
The image described as "from “Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development”, in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Ch. 9" can be found via the: Wayback Machine
The link http://en-russia.edf.com/…/carbon-footprint-ru-en-290450.ht… seems irrevocably broken.