Nuke vs. Solar: The Carbon Calculus
How life-cycle emissions stack up for various fuels—plus, the nuclear breakdown
Lifetime carbon emissions by source (g/kwh)
Coal: 1,006
Oil: 742
Natural gas: 466
Solar: 17 to 39
Nuclear: 16 to 55
Hydro: 18
Geothermal: 15
Wind: 14
The U.S. Nuclear Breakdown
Mining and milling: 1.7 (g/kwh)
Includes unearthing and transportation of uranium to refining and enrichment facilities
Enrichment: 13
By far the most carbon-intensive part of the fuel cycle, enrichment is needed to concentrate uranium isotope U-235 from its natural level of 0.7 percent to the 4 percent required for reactor fuel. The United States uses a gaseous-diffusion enrichment method that gobbles 40 times more energy than the gas-centrifuge process used in Europe, but a planned switch to centrifuge enrichment will shrink nuclear's domestic carbon footprint significantly. Once enriched, the uranium is shaped into small pellets and inserted into fuel rods.
Construction: 1.5
Building a nuclear power plant takes time, hundreds of thousands of metric tons of steel and concrete, and billions of dollars. It also requires lots of diesel trucks and industrial machinery, which translates into greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, a nuclear plant should last 40 years or more, which helps reduce its overall emissions per kilowatt-hour.
Plant operation: 3.9
Fission doesn't produce CO2, but replacement of spent fuel rods, plant heating, and other routine procedures do put a small load on the environment.
Temporary storage: ~1
Nuclear plants must store their own waste on-site or at an approved temporary site until Yucca Mountain is allowed to receive it. Transporting and storing the waste creates its own minor carbon footprint.
Nuclear total: ~21 g/kwh
If the industry switches entirely to centrifuge enrichment, the total will fall to around 12 g/kwh.
Page 1 of 1 
As a NH resident, I had an opportunity to meet John McCain and to ask a question regarding his position on Nuclear Power. He is pro nuclear power and will use a "cookie cutter" approach, similar to the Europeans. All future nuclear power plants will be built in a single style approved by the federal government. This will significantly reduce "red tape" and cost and will allow a utility to build a plant quickly and at less cost.
A study published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology suggests that significant problems that cannot be overcome prevent nuclear power from being used to reduce climate change emissions. According to physicist Joshua Pearce, each step in the current process contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and unless production increases by more than 10% per year by 2050, an unsustainable prospect, new nuclear power plants will feed off of existing plants rather than actually generating energy.
http://www.energynews.co.za/web_main/article.php?story=20080311120936953
If you are going to post numbers like these, you need to give references.
Ike
I appreciate you asking for a source... that is always my first question, too.
Here is a source I found. The IAEA is a United Nations sponsored group that deals with all matters nuclear. Their researchers came up with the following which mirrors the info above somewhat. I have over many years reviewed IAEA's work and found it to be fairly objective.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
Dave: You posted this reference in another MJ forum. The link does not work and I asked that you look at this and re-post.
For others, energynews.com is South African "environmental" website that posts energy related articles/opinions.
I liked your article... I am trying to find the source of the figures. "Ike" posted the IAEA article but it has different figures. Where did you get the "Nuclear Breakdown" figures.
Thanks much,
Bruce
SolarEnurgy.net
SolarEnurgy
I posted the IAEA reference. Ike asked the same question you are from the opinion piece...where did the author get the numbers.
The major reason for nuclear coming out so well is the tremendous amount of electricity generated for the amount of GHGs created throughout the cycle. Likewise, solar and other options do poorly in this comparison due to the limited amount of electricity generated.
Howdy Barry,
Thanks for the reply. So who is the author of this piece and where is the source for the "Nuclear Breakdown"?
It would be helpful to know. Thanks.
All
Just announced: Shell pulling out of large UK wind project. For the details, see:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52368&src=rss
Here is what interests me...
The UK wind project will provide 1000 megawatts of electricity and cost around $4.75 Billion. If those costs are accurate (certainly they will inflate with the increased demand for wind turbines and labor costs), that comes to $4750 per kilowatt-hour. That is at least equal to if not more to a new nuclear power plant of the same size.
Here is the other subtle point people miss:
Wind power may generate electricity 30% of the time compared to a nuclear power plant that generates 100% of the time 24/7, except for a 30 day refueling outage every 18 months. So do the math:
Assume both wind and nuclear can be built for $4750 kw-hour.
Assume 95% capacity factor for nuclear (18 months/19 months) and 30% capacity factor for wind.
Now the cost per kw-hour is $5000 per kw-hour for nuclear and $15,833 per kw-hour for wind.
The 70% of the time the wind does not blow must be made up how? Build more NG or coal plants. That not only increases GHG emissions, but adds to the overall cost per kw-hr.
How long are we going to misuse capitol and facts? How long before we establish a rational national energy policy?
Now...if you are reading my forum posts you are scratching your head on the previous posting and thinking "This is a SOLAR vs. nuclear power discussion, not WIND!"
Now that I have your attention... apply the same thought process to Solar power.
Arizona Public Service is looking at a 280 megawatt solar project that they say will cost $1 Billion.
http://www.aps.com/main/green/Solana/FAQ.html
This project will cost $3571 per kw-hour...if it were making electricity 24/7.
Assume APS gets 12 hours per day of full power...which is very much an overestimation even with the molten salt bed backup they plan to employ.
Now the real cost is $7142 per kw-hr. And this is IF they build it. See the fine print in their FAQs...
"Like all renewable projects currently under development, successful completion is contingent upon a number of factors, including the extension of the federal renewable energy tax credit..."
The only way APS (and other companies)can make a solar or wind project even close to profitable is if they get a huge federal and state tax credit to offset the exhorbitant construction costs.
In fairness, this is the same credit given to other "green" generators, including nuclear.
Solar Energy is the Future
-
tagged as:
- solution
Most awesome is it that you don't understand the peak usage is during the day, thus making solar a particularly good application for energy generation, not to mention the fact that the legacy cost of nuclear is astronomical at best, which is why no one wants to insure the god- damned things. God gave us the SUN, a gift to light the way, would you say no thank you to a gift from god.
Think about it Solar has its highest output when it is needed the most, Solar Doesn't require the massive subsidies that nuclear requires to be workable, you say Solar has huge subsidies take a look at the Nuclear Subsidies.. then count in the fact that Yucca mountain is being built at a cost of billions and isn't even considered a safe place to hide the stuff.
According to my calculations The Risk of Nuclear Vs the Risk of Solar are not even comparable.
Ooo and off topic, Mutant Mushrooms found in chernobyl are converting radiation into sugar using ..... melanin... that stuff in human skin.
Do the solar cost estimates use current silicon technology or the new thin-film technologies in their calculations?
It seems Barry has given us nothing but good reasons to go nuclear. Unfortunately people are human...capable of making mistakes when designing, building, operating, fuel enrichment and waste handling--not to mention capable of greed (cutting quality of materials that compromise structural integrity or the many measuring and safeguard devices used to keep the plant safe. There's also the high water consumption used in cooling, as well as increasing water temperatures in the surrounding area. This is a problem also for fossil fuel plants using steam driven turbines...compared with wind, solar, and hydrogen fed fuel cells (such as the tennis court size type by Fuel Cell Energy). Dropping the H out of hydrocarbon fuels via cryogenics is one way to produce hydrogen for fuel cells while minimizing CO2 emissions. Fuel cell plants are more efficient when turning the power output down at night (unlike nuclear and fossil fuel, which require days to start up and must keep on producing...reason for the abundance of cheap electricity burning spot lights at car lots in the evening.
Barry, I'd say look at the full picture and consider a mix of what you say is more costly (though ONLY if we can manage to avoid accidents at nuclear facilties...or major hits by terrorists.) Consider the thousands of years areas like those surrounding Chernobyl will continue to cause negative effects on living creatures.
Why not go with low heat Geothermal (heat pumps), solar PV, wind, hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels or other efficient extraction methods, tidal, wave, thermal gradient, and more. Decommissioning nuclear plants always costs far more than estimated. As long as no private firm insures the Nuclear establishment against accidents, leaving the US Govt. (us) to fill this void...this is what's telling.
Sam I appreciate your comments as you have obviously done your research. How you can use design flaws, corruption and greed only against nuclear and fossil fuels, however, is beyond me. What needs to be understood is that in order for people to continue to develop and stay at their current standard of living renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. cannot be the only source. I agree that a diversified power portfolio is required. Nuclear power is, in my opinion, the best source for baseline power. LNG along with the various "green" sources help as power demands peak during a typical day (usually when these sources have the highest output).
What happens though when you have an unusually calm day and the stifling heat causes an increased load on the grid?
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/28/no-breeze-the-day-t...
Our sources of hydroelectric are currently for the most part tapped out. There are no more locations, unless you want to continue to divert water supplies with the current problems of droughts and floods.
I'll avoid going into big oil's attempt to fatten their pocketbooks with the ethanol movement driving up food prices, not to mention the wonderful efficiency associated with it.
Nuclear power has had a few problems in the past. One is Chernobyl, another TMI, and there has been only 3 fatalities in the U.S. (SL-1 incident 1961, not radiation related). Those fatalities like Chernobyl were largely due to safety systems turned off and standard operating procedures ignored. My large problem is the immediate write off of people to nuclear power when they don't understand the technology. The overall safety of the nuclear industry is so pristine compared to the oil welling and refining industry, the paper industry, any chemical manufacturing industry, etc. I am beginning to get disheartened that few people can still analyze and process all sides of an issue as opposed to latching on to whatever they currently read in a headline or saw on a blog. I do not want to sound preachy but it takes more than reading a brochure from Greenpeace to understand the full situation. Let's stop looking only at trees and worry about the forest.
Sam
Thanks for your measured response and thought-based questions.
I support a blend of electrical generation sources... but for baseload, 24/7 power, nuclear is the best option.
Current government data at www.eia.doe.gov, shows that in 2007 installed wind generators provided power to their customers by state anywhere from 3% to a max of 38% of the time...for a national average of 25%. So which six hour period of the day do you want your power? btw... solar is even less available.
You and many others talk about the taxpayer support of nuclear power. That is a misperception. The customers that enjoy nuclear power, which is produced at a cost per kilowatt-hour equal to or less than coal-fired plants, pay for decomissioning costs and high level waste disposal in their electric rates. Currently $7B sits in a government trust fund to pay for high level waste storage. The Price-Waterhouse Act provides an insurance cushion, not full coverage... and it only pays out IF there was an accident. So it really costs us nothing. Even the NRC, our regulator, is paid for by the nuclear owners through annual fees and hourly rates of over $240/hr, which again, is passed on to the rate payers, who are indeed tax payers, but not as a tax but more as a user fee.
Regarding construction costs... look again to the eia website for their objective analysis of contruction costs on a per kilowatt-hour basis. Then consider the sources availability and operating costs. Based upon wind's 25% availability, you have to build 4 times the number of windmills to equal one 24/7 available nuke. In addition, those wind mills and other alternative energy sources would not be built if not for a direct state and federal tax credit...that's right... a huge tax credit that if not there... construction would cease. I can provide you a host of sources on this... including many Mother Jones wind advocates who are crying about the expiration of the current tax credit legislation that expires at the end of this year.
Also...the long lasting effects around Chernobyl... ask the people living in two very large rebuilt Japanese cities about the long lasting effects of radiation. Sure...it's above normal levels but so is taking a high altitude cross-country airline trip at 40K feet.
After reading this forum, I am surprised to find the fact that nuclear waste is deady almost comepletely ignored. It will remain lethal longer than there has been people on this planet. And we do not have a clue about what to do about it. IF Yucca Mountain works, it is aready past fall with the waste that is presently being stored on site. Then what, ship it some poor country like Europe does. I asked John MaCain about his energy policies and the answer came back loud and clear. He does not have a clue! Until we have a REAL plan about what to do with nuclear waste we should stop all production. I can hear all the nay sayers It can't be done. I say it can, it must! We have the knowledge today to cut our energy use it half and live comfortably doing so. Most of the people don't know the difference between solar thermal and solar electric.
Thanks Elliot for noticing this "small" detail. There's a couple of problems with this percentage comparison as well. If we're looking for one primary saviour, energy wise, to take over from oil/gas/coal then I think we're asking too much of wind/solar. Surely the solution is to combine the renewable technologies at hand and marry this to LESS DEMAND. There's huge areas we can improve how much we get out of each kilowatt.
About burying nuclear wastes.
Either nuclear wastes and dangerous, either they're not.
If they are not, there is no need to bury them: why to pay so much for nothing?
If they are, to bury them would be the worst solution. We can hope that Science would one day discover a way to neutralize them, it would be so silly to have sent them underground definitively...
www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
Does anyone has a more recent publication?
The facts for nuclear is completely non-sense. Moreover, taking into account only CO2 emissions for evaluating nuclear industry is also non-sense.
What is infinite is human capabilities to invent and adapt. Nuclear is definitively to banish, just as Austrian Constitution says it.
Otto
If you believe the research done by an international scientific agency is inaccurate, provide a better source of peer evaluated and validated research for us to review. Otherwise, your opinions are just that...yours.
Regarding constitutions, several European nations (and states in the US) are now re-visiting their rash reaction to left wing wingnuts in the 70s and 80s, including revising their constitutions to promote nuclear power.
Nuclear waste is deadly if not handled properly. At this point, there are no documented deaths from nuclear waste. Can you say the same be said for the thousands of deaths/year attributed to fossil plant emissions?
Nuclear waste disposal is a political issue, not a technical one.
Keep opposing nuclear power and you delay the replacement of green house generators. You are contributing to the very boogey man you fear most... global warming.
So your saying without heavy govenrment subsidies Nuclear dosn't
-
tagged as:
- solution
Nuclear dosn't work without heavy government subsidies. If solar had the subsidies that Nuclear has had, we would all be paying nothing for electricity. 7.1 billion a year spent on nuclear, which doesn't even count some of the contruction costs, doesn't sound like chump change, and isn't often thought about in peoples nuclear calculations.
When the winds are blowing the sun is shining, when the suns not shining the rivers are flowing.... Go Blow your Nuke
Off Topic: Wind can be backed up using magnetic levitation flywheels, which are a standard in some countries. No joke, they spin like a top, and when you need energy take a little bit off the rotational velocity. A fairly simple process.
If we as a country could mandate all new homes and initiate a retrofit of existing homes with solar thermal on their roofs, we could probably eliminate 30-40% of our carbon emissions. This would reduce demand for oil, propane and natural gas. It would cost up front, but the roi is 5 years with tax credits. Instead of $700BLN for these jokers in the banking industry, why don't we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
Glenn, I agree with you about the solar thermal idea. These technologies are always overshadowed by PV and now the emerging CPV. Solar Thermal is much more efficient and very inexpensive to manufacture. I found some good companies on the internet. I think the technology will take off. Here is a company I found that uses a technology that has been around for 30 years. These solar evacuated tubes are much more forgiving in terms of direct sunlight and produce temperature of 150-200 even in the winter. check out www.nysunheat.com and sunmaxxsolar.com, they both sell these tehnologies rather cheaply. regarding the nuclear issue, ask these guys if they would like to live near one? I do and so do 20 million scared New Yorkers...
Glenn: thanks for bringing this up... interesting ideas.
Dave: Dave
I believe your 20M number of "scared New Yorkers" might be overstated. However, remember that no on has ever died as the result of commercial nuclear power in this or any other Western country....ever. Perhaps New Yorkers should spend their "scared" efforts on real threats such as terrorists, chlorine gas tank ruptures, glass falling from high rises, cranes falling on high rises, muggers, and oh...and riding in cars with politicians. These have in fact caused great harm to New Yorkers.
As far as living near one... I live nine miles from one of the largest and I feel very safe. My biggest threat is driving home tonight and hitting one of the many white tail deer that seem to have a death wish.
Did the author OR source of this article ever get identified?
I revisited this wondering if anyone ever found either the name of the writer, or the source the writer used for the numbers.
tiffany jewelry
of tiffany jewelry on ebay are cheaper than tiffany jewellery outlet store, why is that?
You will find the newest tiffany jewelry on sale fashion release on their official website.
I am planning to give my wife a big surprise with tiffany and co as a birthday gift, but I don’t know which one to choose, any ideas?
We are providing all kinds
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
Welcome to our company, our
Welcome to our company, our company Huayi Trade Co.,LTD are good at selling the top quality designer bags (Balenciaga ,Chanel , Chloe' ,Christian Dior ,Dolce&Gabbana , Fendi , Gucci , Hermes , Galliera GM ,Miu Miu , Prada ), they are mirror image bags which are identical to the real onesLouis Vuitton Galliera GM . Our company locates inthe leather town in China, Speedy 25since 2003 we did this business we have won great trust and popularity from our customers from all over the world. We areexpanding our business, any inquiry for wholesale business is warmly welcome, Louis Vuitton Speedy 25just contact us, you can get our prompt reply.We have enlish speaking representative to answer phone call, or we can call you if convenient for you.
Good article
I find the calculation to be interesting. How accurate is this conversation? We don't want the wrong stats to guide our decision making.
