Emissions:
It is true that the actual fission process whereby electricity is generated does not release greenhouse gases. However, in various stages of the nuclear process (e.g. mining, uranium enrichment, building and decommissioning of power plants, processing and storing radioactive waste) huge amounts of energy are needed, much more than for less complex forms of electricity production. Most of this energy comes in the form of fossil fuels, and therefore nuclear power indirectly generates a relatively high amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
If you think you've read about this claim before, you were right, because we dealt with the claims of Storm van Leeuwen & Smith a few weeks back. Click here for our original post:
To their credit, NIRS/WISE provide several different sources for their claim of emissions.The 2001 Storm van Leeuwen & Smith (SLS) paper dismisses arguments that nuclear energy is sustainable, either physically, environmentally or in terms of its energy costs, and this is repeated in the numerically-depleted May 2002 version. They purport to offer 'evidence' that building, operating and producing fuel for a nuclear plant produces as much carbon dioxide as a similar sized gas-fired plant. The foregoing WNA paper, quoting all the reputable studies we are aware of, shows that this is demonstrably wrong - there is a 20 to 50-fold difference in favour of nuclear. . .
Finally, it should be pointed out that, even on the basis of their erroneous assumptions and using their inaccurate figures, Storm van Leeuwen & Smith still are forced to conclude that nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than fossil-fuelled plants, although in their view "the difference is not large". Others might see a 20 to 50-fold difference (between nuclear and gas or coal) as significant.
A number of lifecycle assessments for various electricity production processes have been carried out in the past. One of the most comprehensive of these was by the Oko Institute in Germany. A number of the results are shown in the following table see page 9 of the study for the table.The table doesn't appear to show nuclear power as destructive as the study hints. However, I have found a flaw in data citation which was so apparent in the NEF's study. On the same page where the table above is found, they cite the Uranium Information Center (UIC).
However, when reviewing that document cited by NIRS, I found a chart on the greenhouse gas emissions of electricity production for each fuel -- one where the data says nuclear produces the least amount of greenhouse gases. Of course if you were to look at the source (International Atomic Energy Agency) you might say the data is biased. But the NIRS/WISE study doesn't seem to think so, because they site the same source.
More on emissions:
In 2003, France generated 75% of its electricity in nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry likes to use France as a shining example of the advantages of nuclear power. However, France's greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 were still increasing, largely because it has lost control of energy consumption in other sectors, e.g. transport. Furthermore, studies of future energy scenarios carried out by the French Government Central Planning Agency show no evident correlation between CO2 emissions and nuclear power.In other words, had emissions from the electric sector not been restrained by the use of nuclear energy, France's greenhouse gas emissions would have been far higher. And because greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, there would be that much more CO2 in the atmosphere.
In 2004, 2,500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide was emitted in the U.S. electric sector. Without nuclear energy it would be 28% greater. And if we begin to replace aging fossil-fuel fired electric generating capacity with nuclear energy, we can restrain those emissions even further.
Now to costs:
In the 1970s, nuclear power cost half as much as electricity from coal burning: by 1990 nuclear power cost twice as much as electricity from coal burning. Today the costs of nuclear power are estimated to be about $0.05-0.07/kWh making it, on average, between 2 and 4 times more expensive than electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.This is a great example of bad data. Not only does the study not reveal the source, but it doesn't show the calculations of how the numbers were derived.
I think they were referring to production costs. Here's a graph on how nuclear's production costs relate to other forms of baseload electricity. It doesn't look like nuclear is "2 and 4 times more expensive than electricity generated by burning fossil fuels."
On to sustainability:
According to the most recent figures of the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency on global uranium reserve, the total known recoverable reserves amount to 3.5 million tones: this refers to reasonably assured reserves and estimated additional reserves which can be extracted at a cost of less than $80/kg (NEA, IAEA, 2004). Given that the current use of uranium is in the order of 67,000 tonnes per year, this would give us enough uranium for about 50 years (WISE, 2003; NEA-IAEA, 2004; WNA, 2004c). Of course, the total reserves of uranium are much greater than this; NEA and IAEA estimate the total of all conventional reserves to be in the order of 14.4 million tonnes. But not only are these reserves very expensive to mine, and therefore not economically viable, the grades of usable uranium are too low for net electricity production.Here's a new equation for the economy: expensive = not economical. Funny how that calculus doesn't seem to apply to natural gas and crude oil. Both are incredibly expensive, yet we're still using them. We know that nuclear power plants are expensive to build yet they are economical, reliable and emission-free. Well here's a nuclear engineer's perspective on uranium reserves:
Long-term uranium supplies are simply not a real problem. Even if (in the distant future) uranium ore does get really expensive, market forces, and nuclear technology, are equipped to handle it. Advances in extraction technology, along with higher ore prices, will exponentiate the recoverable reserves. Breeder reactors, which will become more economical in 50-100 years, will eventually appear and eliminate all supply issues. All indications are that we will have plenty of time (50-100 years) to develop such breeder technology, before the cost of ore really starts to impact nuclear economics. This is true even under the highest nuclear power growth scenarios.Any good study should suggest solutions. Here's what NIRS/WISE proposes:
Numerous studies have shown that the single most effective way to reduce emissions is to reduce energy demand.Don't use energy, don't produce emissions. It might make sense, but it isn't exactly a great idea when you need to fuel prosperity and a growing economy.
Maybe, but check out what the DOE said a couple of years later:Despite the commonly heard arguments that alternative energy sources and energy saving technology are not economically viable, the majority of studies show that this is not actually the case. A 1997 report issued by the U.S. Department of Energy stated that CO2 emissions in the USA could be brought back to 1990 levels by 2010 at no added cost by increasing energy efficiency and decreasing demand.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration report Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 1997 (published June 1, 1999), the single most effective emission control strategy for utilities was to increase nuclear generation.Here's a graph on the U.S. Voluntary CO2 Reductions Program in 2003. Nuclear once again dominated the program.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy Environment Energy Politics Technology Economics
0 comments:
Post a Comment