Nuclear’s CO2 cost ‘will climb’
- I’m not a fan of nuclear power. Until we work out a good way to deal with the waste, we are just robbing Peter to pay Paul and pushing the whole mess caused by our irresponsibility onto future generations who will get to deal with it.
- In spite of that, I’ve invested some money in PKN an ETF which focuses on the nuclear industry. While I don’t like nuclear, I think it is pretty inevitable that we (mankind) will be going down that road because the oil’s running out and we don’t seem to be smart enough to accept that fact and implement viable alternatives now - while we still can.
So, in the end, we will leave ourselves no choice and nuclear power will be massively built out. What smart monkeys we are.
= = = = = = = = = = =
The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.
It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.
Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set to decline with time, it says, making the fuel less environmentally friendly and more costly to extract.
The findings appear in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
A significant proportion of greenhouse emissions from nuclear power stem from the fuel supply stage, which includes uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel manufacturing.
Others sources of carbon include construction of the plant - including the manufacturing of steel and concrete materials - and decomissioning.
The authors based their analysis on historical records, contemporary financial and technical reports, and analyses of CO2 emissions.
Experts say it is the first such report to draw together such detailed information on the environmental costs incurred at this point in the nuclear energy chain.
More… 
See also: and
