San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies

[PamW]

113. You have a reading comprehension problem?

AtheistCrusader,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? In the post that you are responding to, I characterized nuclear power as quote:

Not 100% carbon free;...

So who is claiming that nuclear power is truly "carbon free"; certainly NOT I. Yet you "Disagree" and claim that someone is parading nuclear power as carbon free. You might want to seek remedial help for that reading comprehension problem by retaking one of the lower grades of elementary school.

As you correctly point out, no electrical energy source is truly "carbon free"; not even hydro-power. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided the following table of lifecycle greenhouse gas emission by electric generation type for this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Technology 50th Percentile Greenhouse emission (gCO2 / kwh(e))
Hydroelectric 4
Wind 12
Nuclear 16
Biomass 18
Solar thermal 22
Geothermal 45
Solar PV 46
Natural Gas 469
Coal 1001

So in terms of lifecycle CO2 emission, nuclear power is marginally worse than wind and marginally better than biomass. Nuclear power beats photovoltaic solar power by nearly a factor of 3.

So although no power source is truly "carbon free", and I don't see many making the claim that nuclear power is "100% carbon free"; nuclear power is as "carbon free" as most of the proposed low carbon footprint electric energy generation technologies.

Surely, many here strongly favor photovoltaic solar as the low carbon footprint electric energy generation technology of the future, and may even refer to it as "carbon free". However, the IPCC tells us that nuclear power beats photovoltaic solar power by nearly a factor of 3. So clearly nuclear power is a "low carbon footprint" technology for both present and future generation.

PamW