Nuclear energy now has larger carbon footprint??

Question

I've actually been a big supporter of nuclear energy because of it's low carbon emissions when used in a reactor. I know that spent nuclear waste takes some effort to store, but I was always on the side it could play a major role in our reduction of fossil fuels. However, this article says nuclear power has a bigger carbon footprint than most realize, from all the effort it takes to mine uranium:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45989/story.htm

Mr. Jello, what do you make of this??

Answer 1

Not a very good article. They compare the CO2 output of mining uranium and converting it to electricity to the CO2 output of wind power.

Nowhere (in the article) do they compare this to traditional fossil fuel generation.

Answer 2

just try to come up with the amount of carbon that is generated making 1000s of sq miles of solar panels that would be needed without nuke power.
or the carbon foot print of the components of the large amount of wind turbines.

if we build new nuke power plants most of the spent nuclear fuel we have now will be recycled. and will not have to be buried.
http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepProliferationResistantRecycling.html

we will even be able to convert depleted uranium to fuel in some types of reactors by mixing it with the pits from decommissioned nuclear weapons (no more Depleted uranium bullets as it will be too expensive to use as bullets plus we put to use the old nuke bomb material)

ps Greenpeace has been VERY anti nuke and still is.
but to get away from oil we must use nukes.
Greenpeace like all environmental groups will use green lies when ever it helps the cause.

Answer 3

It's a propaganda piece aimed to spread doubt about nuclear. Clearly it takes the side of those that are afraid of modern technology.

Carbon is going to be generated regardless of the product mined, be it coal, oil, copper, iron, lithium, hydrogen, silicon, or lead. (lithium and lead are used in batteries, hydrogen for fuel cells, silicon for solar panels)

Carbon is generated when the ore is refined.

Carbon is also generated in the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar cells. It is also generated in transporting wind towers and the turbine heads.

After the uranium is mined and refined it produced no more carbon while generating enough power for major cities.

Sure we should also use wind power, and wind farms are going up every day and will continue going up for some time. But why ignore nuclear because most people can't understand technology?

Nuclear power also generates very little waste. The waste from operating a nuclear power plant for a year will fit under your desk. That's less waste than the ash from coal generators.

Every life form generates carbon. It's a part of the natural cycle of life and we shouldn't feel guilty for living. There are thousands of billions of trees that use our co2 for their life. Granted we should work to reduce our emissions of ghg's along with all other pollution, and we are. We voluntary spend billions ourselves and in our factories because it's the right thing to do. We don't need laws or treaties to tell us to do the right thing. And because of our actions, no longer is the USA the leading contributer of ghg's in the world.

It's time to move past the fear of nuclear power. Simply put, it's nothing more then heating water with a hot rock.