Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy and Total Lifecycle Emissions. Again.

Once again, the global anti-nuclear lobby has found a reporter willing to parrot its lies and distortions regarding nuclear energy and CO2 emissions. Stepping to the plate this time is Reuters reporter Nick Trevethan:

Nuclear power's claim to be the answer to global warming is being questioned by reports suggesting mining and processing of uranium is carbon intensive.
While nuclear power produces only one 50th of the carbon produced by many fossil fuels, its carbon footprint is rising, making wind power and other renewable energies increasingly attractive, according to environmental groups and some official reports.

[...]

"Nuclear is a climate change red herring," said Ben Ayliffe, Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace. "There are safer, more reliable alternatives, like energy efficiency and renewables as part of a super-efficient decentralised energy system."

What an utter hunk of baloney. Rather than explain things in detail again, here are the links to some previous posts and other relevant information:

The total life-cycle emissions of nuclear energy are comparable to renewables.

Setting the Record Straight on Nuclear Energy and Total Life-Cycle Emissions. Again.

Is Nuclear Too Hot to Handle?

Why Oxford Research is Wrong on Nuclear Energy and Total Lifecycle Emissions