3 ms·

So what is the current state of affairs with nuclear on CO2 neutrality? Last I heard, in its life time it is not CO2 neutral due to mining and storing the fuel.

by myspy 5y ago

So what is the current state of affairs with nuclear on CO2 neutrality? Last I heard, in its life time it is not CO2 neutral due to mining and storing the fuel. Are these solved problems?

caoilte 5y ago
It's negligable at current levels, but at some point in the next 40 years we will start to run short of easily mineable uranium. Some of the other ways we might have to mine uranium then are carbon intensive. But research is being done. So it depends.
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
Consider this: Hambacher Forst and return to brown coal in Germany is a direct effect of moving away from nuclear. That would be a great background to the total CO2 math.
usrbinbash 5y ago
Almost nothing human technology does is "CO2 Neutral". The question isn't CO2 neutrality, but "How much worse is the alternative". And when the alternative is to burn Coal, Oil and Gas, Nuclear power wins by a landslide. Secondly: Fossil Fuels have to be mined, transported and stored as well. The components of Wind and Solar energy farms have to be constructed from resources which have to be mined and processed. Power plants, be they coal, nuclear, solar, whatever, need to be constructed and maintained.
rory 5y ago
By that standard, no energy source is carbon neutral since wind and solar also require mining and construction. To our best estimate, the footprint of nuclear is a bit higher than solar and wind, but much closer to them than fossil fuels. e.g.: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low... Edit: see page 539 here for a better comparison https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It really is all relative, it can essentially be carbon negative in a sense if you use coal as a baseline for damage and ability to reverse global warming.

by myspy 5y ago

So what is the current state of affairs with nuclear on CO2 neutrality? Last I heard, in its life time it is not CO2 neutral due to mining and storing the fuel. Are these solved problems?

caoilte 5y ago

It's negligable at current levels, but at some point in the next 40 years we will start to run short of easily mineable uranium. Some of the other ways we might have to mine uranium then are carbon intensive. But research is being done. So it depends.

rad_gruchalski 5y ago

Consider this: Hambacher Forst and return to brown coal in Germany is a direct effect of moving away from nuclear. That would be a great background to the total CO2 math.

usrbinbash 5y ago

Almost nothing human technology does is "CO2 Neutral". The question isn't CO2 neutrality, but "How much worse is the alternative". And when the alternative is to burn Coal, Oil and Gas, Nuclear power wins by a landslide. Secondly: Fossil Fuels have to be mined, transported and stored as well. The components of Wind and Solar energy farms have to be constructed from resources which have to be mined and processed. Power plants, be they coal, nuclear, solar, whatever, need to be constructed and maintained.

rory 5y ago

By that standard, no energy source is carbon neutral since wind and solar also require mining and construction. To our best estimate, the footprint of nuclear is a bit higher than solar and wind, but much closer to them than fossil fuels. e.g.: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low... Edit: see page 539 here for a better comparison https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

stjohnswarts 5y ago

It really is all relative, it can essentially be carbon negative in a sense if you use coal as a baseline for damage and ability to reverse global warming.