CO2 Emissions Will be Higher for Nuclear Power than for Coal

By Russell Lowes of Safe Energy Analyst

It is Just a Matter of Time. . . and It is Just a Matter of Counting the Whole Nuclear Cycle

In one of the comments on my last blog, Tasha Nelson speculates, "I would imagine nuclear power still emits far fewer
greenhouse gases overall." This is the conventional thinking. . .
thinking that will hit a hard wall of thought revolution. Over the next
decade or so, reassessment of economically mined uranium reserves will
come into clearer focus.

Learn more about the full cost of nuclear power after the click…

By then there will be a small number of reactors being built around
the globe, as the industry tries to keep pace with the number of
reactors that are being retired, UNLESS the industry gets the full
support of the U.S. and world governments, with additional massive
subsidy, on the order of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of
dollars.

If complete socialization for nuclear power happens, no one knows
how many reactors will be built. If this happens, while we will have a
socialistic system for nuclear energy, we will not be able to afford it
for any other energy industry, such as solar. We would have a system
where the cost of money would be hidden from sight, causing all sorts
of irrational decisions to come into play. The general public would pay
the cost of this irrationality in the long run.

In either event, the nuclear industry will be trying to play
catch-up. Reactors have already started to drop off. Of the 439
reactors we currently have, globally, they will be retiring quicker
than they are being built (without a massive global subsidization). In
fact, a leveling off of the number of reactors worldwide is already
starting. See the graph below:

But, back to the question at-hand:

In a nutshell, won’t nuclear energy generate less CO2 than coal and
other sources? There has been some serious work on this issue. On the
other hand, there has been some self-serving nuclear industry work on
this issue. With much of the industry’s estimates, there is a circular
logic where the reports cite each other, with information generated by
the industry that is, at best, an optimistic interpretation of the
data. In the realm of independent studies, the most detailed and
documented work I have obtained is at www.stormsmith.nl

This
work, done by two analysts named Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and
Phillip Smith, has been peer-reviewed. It is collaborated by other
works. From what I can tell, it is only disagreed with to any
significant degree by nuclear industry-affiliated entities. For
example, there is the nuclear trade group, the World Nuclear
Association, which ironically gives itself the byline, Clean Air
Energy. Their study is very brief, and has nowhere near the quality
level of documentation. The legitimate independent studies that review
Storm and Smith only tend to agree on the major points, with less
significant points of disagreements here and there.

Storm & Smith conclude:
– In the short term, nuclear power is
much cleaner than all fossil fuels, if you don’t count the energy
required over the next million years (the EPA required waste management
period), However,
– In the long term, nuclear power will become
dirtier and dirtier, emitting more and more  greenhouse gas emissions,
as we quickly deplete our uranium reserves.
– The U.S. currently imports over 90% of its uranium, and only has 7% of the world’s diminishing reserves.
–
Going down to lower-grade ores will deplete the short-term net energy
gain of nuclear power, and at some point push this short-term gain into
the negative realm, with greenhouse gas (GHG) production going through
the roof. To give you a graphic illustration, uranium mining of granite
would require about 50 times the weight of coal that is mined per
kilowatt-hour produced.
– After about 70 years, the ore that can
be economically mined (using short-term thinking) will run out – and
this is on the basis of current capacity, not expanded levels of world
nuclear capacity.

The above second point gets to the last
point that Tasha made in her post. She asks, "Also-hasn’t there been an
underinvestment in uranium mine development the past 20 years or so,
leading to some of the shortfalls we are seeing now?" The answer to
that depends on perspective. The industry has numerous mines that were
supposed to be in operation by now. This includes the largest planned
new mine, under preliminary development in Canada. It just flooded with
water last year, putting off its opening for years. The easiest mining
has already occurred. From one perspective, the industry is feeling the
reduction of higher grade ores and cannot easily keep up with the
demand.

When I first started writing on nuclear power and
alternatives, back in the late 1970s, the typical quality of ore was
higher than that mined today. Back then, it was common to mine ore that
was 2500-3000 parts per million. Today the average is around 1500. To
further compound the problems, back then, there was a lot of soft rock
ore being mined. Soft rock is easier to mine than hard rock for the
obvious reason that it is easier to crush. It takes less energy. Today,
more and more hard rock is being mined. The twin problems are decreases
in ore grade plus the harder-to-process rock.

Then, there is a
third problem, and that is access to the ore itself. About 50% of the
current mined uranium comes from below surface mining, going deeper and
deeper. The lowest apples have been picked.

It is also true, as
Tasha suggests, that there hasn’t been enough investment in mining. One
question comes to mind: who is responsible for that? However, this
question is irrelevant in a way. What is the current shortfall in
mining? The current mining levels are at about 50 kilo-tonnes (kt) of
ore per year. The current usage of ore by nuclear reactors is about 67
kt per year. Over recent years, the industry has augmented this
shortage of production with ore reserves and other smaller sources like
mixed oxide fuels and conversion of weapons stocks to commercial
stocks, particularly from Russia. At the rate we are using up these
stocks, if mining does not jump significantly, complete depletion of
stocks will occur by 2015 at the latest. The price of uranium will
skyrocket. So much for "cheap" nuclear fuel of days gone by.

There
is a final thing to add to this. Nobody wants to hear this. It is
avoided like the proverbial elephant in the room, avoided like the
plague. The nature of nuclear waste is that it is transgenic. It is
changing its own state through irradiation of all the ingredients of
the waste. It is creating gases. It is creating liquids. It is also
irradiating its container, changing the properties of whatever the
container is made out of (with few exceptions).

What you might
store as a near perfect rectangle today, could be quite a different
shape in thousands of years. What this means is that it will off-gas,
migrate, and as it is well known, go through periods of increased and
decreased beta, gamma and alpha radiation over many centuries. Over
many millennia. Someone is required by U.S. law to safeguard this waste
for one million years. "Someone" is the word because no one knows who
will be around for that long.

I will soon be writing a report on
the cost of a million years of nuclear waste. To make a long story
short, to guard that waste will clearly cost more energy input and
create more greenhouse gases than any other current energy option under
serious consideration.

In the long run, because of its waste,
and because of its depletion of resources, nuclear energy creates more
greenhouse gas than any other option. Remember these words in a few
hundred thousand years, while you are just beginning to understand how
to manage all this junk.