I couldn't open your link to the Sovacool study, but found this reference, where the mean value of all studies is given with 66 g CO2 /kWhe. This may still me more than solar or wind, but these are not the alternatives to nuclear anyway. The alternative to nuclear is coal. Each additonal NPP could replace one coal power plant, and there are still much too many on the earth. Compared with CO2 emissions of coal, nuclear offers a phantastic advantage.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6...

To say this is not true and to give one source (Oko-Institut, of which I am very aware of) of over 100 on the subject is not really adequate. Take a look at the stormsmith report I cited above. Then you can look at the Sovacool study at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool...

Sovacool analyzed 103 studies covering these issues and featured the stormsmith report as one of the group of studies that made it through the screening.

While nuclear does not emit much carbon at the reactor (it does emit Carbon-14 for example, in small amounts), the reactors do take grid energy at times and have backup diesel units. However, these are relatively small carbon emissions. However, to say that the nuclear fuel cycle is not to be counted, as many seem to do, shows a lack of understanding of life cycle analysis.

Of nuclear energy's 20 steps, 18 produce CO2. Mining, milling, enrichment, building the plant, and running the waste steps all produce large amounts of CO2. Wind and solar emit greenhouse gas also, when you count mining and fabrication of steel,etc., but much less than nuclear energy.

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/318/2007-008-de.pdf

Furthermore, CO2 emissions related to nuclear power are all secondary in nature. The primary power generation process is CO2 free. This means, that all CO2 emissions from nuclear power could in principle be avoided by choosing CO2 free energy sources for the respective process (e.g. mining). France is quite successful in approaching a fully CO2 free fuel cycle.

Regarding waste storage, I don't see any relevant amount of energy consumption related to geological storage. This is well established practice for chemically hazardous waste for decades in Germany.

Regarding quantiy & quality of Uranium reserves, I don't see any reason why these should behave differently over time than other energy ressoures like mineral oil. Their reserve/production ratio is rather constant since 100 years. Also the quality has by far not deteriorated as expected.
Uranium resources have a much longer lifetime now than 10 years ago, thanks to successful exploration.

Already, the world's ore quality (the uranium in the average ore mined) has gone from 0.3% average in the 1980s to 0.15% today. It is projected to go down to 0.04% by about 2040 (http://www.stormsmith.nl), half-way through the lifespan of any reactor built in the near future. When that happens, the ore mining and milling will increase CO2 from the nuclear cycle to greater than the CO2 from natural gas electric stations.

And that does not count the energy and related CO2 emissions from the multi-million year waste management program. If you include that, nuclear energy becomes a net energy negative and the CO2 jumps through the roof.

Over the last 40 years nuclear power has developed into the largest low carbon energy source of the industrialized world – without support of any cap and trade system for CO2 emissions. Why shouldn’t nuclear grow further if such support would become available?
Today in Germany, the 17 nuclear power plants in operation are true cash cows, which stimulates public desire for financing renewable energy projects with part of this cash in exchange of extending their operating permit beyond the current legal limit of 32 years.

The German weekly Newspaper DER SPIEGEL recently published a comparison of CO2 avoidance costs for various low carbon energy sources. Nuclear energy came out as the lowest cost alternative by far (DER SPIEGEL, Nr. 50, page 56). DER SPIEGEL is normally not known for being nuclear enthusiatic.

My conclusion from these stories is, that the cost of nuclear-generated electricity cannot be that uncompetitive as Al Gore wants to make us believe.

Similarly misleading information is given in his new book “Our Choice”. Look to page 165: The graph on „Relative CO2 Footprints of Electricity Sources“ The „Nuclear“ bar shows a value of 288 g per kWh. This is apparently the value which the explanatory text makes reference to, by stating: „… the CO2 associated with nuclear plants is many times more than that associated with generating electricity from wind, solar, or hydroelectric power…“

But the numbers next to the bar tell a different story. 288 g/kWh is not meant to be the typical value of CO2 emissions from nuclear power, but rather the maximum. The values range between 1 – 288 g/kWh. I consulted the source of this information to get more clarity (B.K. Sovacool in Energy Policy 36, 2008) and learned that the author, who has screened many different studies even disputes this maximum value himself as being exaggerated. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6...

According to the German Oeko-Insitut, which has a clear anti-nuclear reputation, the CO2 footprint on a full life cycle basis of German nuclear power is only 32 g/kWh. For nuclear power in France the Oeko-Institut calculates 8 g/kWh (http://www.oeko.de, March 2007). By powering their Uranium enrichment facilities with nuclear energy France is capable of reducing their CO2 footprint to a level similar to that of wind and solar . These numbers are clearly not many times more than those associated with generating electricity from wind and solar.

My question to Mr. Gore is: why are you downplaying the benefits of nuclear power for a low carbon energy supply and why are you exaggerating the cost issue with misleading information? Isn’t this in conflict with your goal to help us all make the right choices for our future ?

Already, the world's ore quality (the uranium in the average ore mined) has gone from 0.3% average in the 1980s to 0.15% today. It is projected to go down to 0.04% by about 2040 (http://www.stormsmith.nl), half-way through the lifespan of any reactor built in the near future. When that happens, the ore mining and milling will increase CO2 from the nuclear cycle to greater than the CO2 from natural gas electric stations.

And that does not count the energy and related CO2 emissions from the multi-million year waste management program. If you include that, nuclear energy becomes a net energy negative and the CO2 jumps through the roof.

Over the last 40 years nuclear power has developed into the largest low carbon energy source of the industrialized world – without support of any cap and trade system for CO2 emissions. Why shouldn’t nuclear grow further if such support would become available?
Today in Germany, the 17 nuclear power plants in operation are true cash cows, which stimulates public desire for financing renewable energy projects with part of this cash in exchange of extending their operating permit beyond the current legal limit of 32 years.

The German weekly Newspaper DER SPIEGEL recently published a comparison of CO2 avoidance costs for various low carbon energy sources. Nuclear energy came out as the lowest cost alternative by far (DER SPIEGEL, Nr. 50, page 56). DER SPIEGEL is normally not known for being nuclear enthusiatic.

My conclusion from these stories is, that the cost of nuclear-generated electricity cannot be that uncompetitive as Al Gore wants to make us believe.

Similarly misleading information is given in his new book “Our Choice”. Look to page 165: The graph on „Relative CO2 Footprints of Electricity Sources“ The „Nuclear“ bar shows a value of 288 g per kWh. This is apparently the value which the explanatory text makes reference to, by stating: „… the CO2 associated with nuclear plants is many times more than that associated with generating electricity from wind, solar, or hydroelectric power…“

But the numbers next to the bar tell a different story. 288 g/kWh is not meant to be the typical value of CO2 emissions from nuclear power, but rather the maximum. The values range between 1 – 288 g/kWh. I consulted the source of this information to get more clarity (B.K. Sovacool in Energy Policy 36, 2008) and learned that the author, who has screened many different studies even disputes this maximum value himself as being exaggerated. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6...

According to the German Oeko-Insitut, which has a clear anti-nuclear reputation, the CO2 footprint on a full life cycle basis of German nuclear power is only 32 g/kWh. For nuclear power in France the Oeko-Institut calculates 8 g/kWh (http://www.oeko.de, March 2007). By powering their Uranium enrichment facilities with nuclear energy France is capable of reducing their CO2 footprint to a level similar to that of wind and solar . These numbers are clearly not many times more than those associated with generating electricity from wind and solar.

My question to Mr. Gore is: why are you downplaying the benefits of nuclear power for a low carbon energy supply and why are you exaggerating the cost issue with misleading information? Isn’t this in conflict with your goal to help us all make the right choices for our future ?

Bathmate