Carbon intensity of nuclear energy

From ScienceForSustainability
Revision as of 13:45, 29 October 2019 by Sisussman (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

David MacKay, in the "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 on the issue: Point Refuted a Thousand Times: “Nuclear is not low-carbon”