Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but… [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)44. What are you waiting for?
For me to say something like renewable sources have relatively little adverse ecological impact?
Apart from its obvious hazards, nuclear fission, is about the same as renewable sources in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Nuclear Power Results Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization[/font]
[font size=3]Over the last 30 years, analysts have conducted life cycle assessments on the environmental impacts associated with a variety of nuclear power technologies and systems. These life cycle assessments have had wide-ranging results.
To better understand greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from nuclear power systems, NREL completed a comprehensive review and analysis of life cycle assessments focused on light water reactors (LWRs)including both boiling water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs)published between 1980 and 2010. NREL developed and applied a systematic approach to review life cycle assessment literature, identify primary sources of variability and, where possible, reduce variability in GHG emissions estimates through a meta-analytical process called "harmonization."
Harmonization for LWR power technologies was performed by adjusting published GHG estimates to achieve:
Collectively, life cycle assessment literature shows that nuclear power is similar to other renewable and much lower than fossil fuel in total life cycle GHG emissions. In addition, the harmonization process increased the precision of life cycle GHG estimates in the literature while having little impact on the overall central tendency.[/font]
[/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x[font size=3]Over the last 30 years, analysts have conducted life cycle assessments on the environmental impacts associated with a variety of nuclear power technologies and systems. These life cycle assessments have had wide-ranging results.
To better understand greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from nuclear power systems, NREL completed a comprehensive review and analysis of life cycle assessments focused on light water reactors (LWRs)including both boiling water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs)published between 1980 and 2010. NREL developed and applied a systematic approach to review life cycle assessment literature, identify primary sources of variability and, where possible, reduce variability in GHG emissions estimates through a meta-analytical process called "harmonization."
Harmonization for LWR power technologies was performed by adjusting published GHG estimates to achieve:
- Consistent values of three nuclear power system performance parameters: capacity factor, thermal efficiency, and operating lifetime,
- A consistent system boundary, through addition or subtraction of major life cycle stage, and
- Consistent global warming potentials (GWP) (based on IPCC 2007).
Collectively, life cycle assessment literature shows that nuclear power is similar to other renewable and much lower than fossil fuel in total life cycle GHG emissions. In addition, the harmonization process increased the precision of life cycle GHG estimates in the literature while having little impact on the overall central tendency.[/font]
Published and harmonized life cycle GHG emission distribution plots. Whiskers represent minimums and maximums. Boxes represent 25th percentile, median estimate, and 75th percentile.
[/font]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
people of chernobyl are anxiously awaiting the arrival of "cheap, low cost" nuclear nt
msongs
Jun 2013
#1
Kiev, Ukraine, 20 April 2011 - Secretary-General's remarks at "25 Years after Chernobyl Catastrophe:
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2013
#23
Non sequitur - I thought the topic was the safety of nuclear fission plants
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2013
#57
Nuclear never cheaper once total life cycle including waste & decommission included
on point
Jul 2013
#39
