San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies

[PamW]

101. Not 100% carbon free..

Not 100% carbon free; but orders of magnitude less than the alternatives.

The chief argument for nuclear not being carbon free is that the enrichment plant that provides ALL the enrichment for all the nuclear power plants in the USA and many other countries as well, uses about 2 Gw(e) of electric power. Even, if we supplied that energy with coal power plants, it would take about 2 large coal power plants; that is a small fraction of the approximately 2100 coal power plants in the USA. Of course, there's no reason to use coal to provide enrichment. The enrichment plant is in the TVA service area, so Uncle Sam could purchase power from himself. TVA has many nuclear power plants. Browns Ferry alone could totally power the enrichment plants.

Another carbon emission is from construction / dismantlement. However, the carbon emissions from diesel powered construction equipment is paltry compared to the emissions from coal power plants. We only use those diesel powered machines during construction, and then dismantlement. So if you amortize over the several decade life of a plant; it's paltry.

Then there is the use of diesel machines in mining fuel. However, nuclear fuel is pound for pound, MILLIONS of times more energetic than chemical fuels. That's why a chemical high explosive 1 ton bomb will destroy a building; but a nuclear explosive that weighs less than 1 ton; will wipe away the entire city. Pound for pound, you get MILLIONS of times more energy from nuclear reactions / nuclear fuel.

So for a given amount of energy; you have to mine MILLIONS of times LESS fuel to get a given amount of energy.

So although the carbon footprint of nuclear reactors is not a hard zero; it is orders of magnitude lower in life cycle carbon release than other power generators.

The carbon footprint of nuclear power is trivial.

Silly to claim that it isn't

PamW