Re: Nuclear Power vs CO2

["Zack Clayton" <zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us>]

I think this is only part of the original question.  It is correct as far as it went, but I think the question involved total cycle emissions.  
"Weiner, Ruth" wrote:

 The amount of CO2 produced by burning coal or oil is
> directly proportional to the amount (weight or number of carbon atoms) in
> the fuel, and  that varies somewhat from coal to coal and a little from oil
> to oil.  By contrast, the only CO2 produced in a nuclear power plant would
> be if there were ancillary power (or heat) produced by burning a
> carbonaceous fuel and maybe a little bit from oxidation of C-14 produced by
> fission.  .  . .    . . . . So there is no way a nuke could even come close.
> In sum: CO2 production is an integral product of fossil fuel power
> generation but only a very small incidental by-product of nuclear power
> generation.

So a comparison of energy used for resource extraction, benefaction, transport, refining, fabrication and transport to point of use.  Some of these will be purely electric and the power consumption should be able to be back calculated for the average US fossil mix or the use in the particular region of processing.  the transportation costs would be diesel and I think there nuclear will win hands down comparing one shipment of fuel rods every 18 - 24 months to daily unit trains for a dirt burner.  

 Speaking of which -  Why isn't coal ash regulated as a benefaction product if, as Alex Glabbard says,  it contains more energy in fissionables than burning the coal produced in the first place?
(My own personal Rant.    ;-)



Zack Clayton
Ohio EPA - DERR
email:  zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us
voice:  614-644-3066
fax:        614-460-8249

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html