Guest post by Michael Dickey (cross posted from his website matus1976.com)
The decline of nuclear power has had a significant effect on global carbon emissions and subsequently any anthropogenic global warming effect. To see the extent of this influence, let us first take a look at total U.S. carbon emissions since 1900.
According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, from 1900 to 2006, US carbon emissions rose from 181 MMT (million metric tons) to 1,569 MMT.
Taking a look at US electricity generation by type, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. generates 51% of its power from coal, and cumulatively about 71% of its power from fossil fuel sources.
Comparing the energy source to Carbon emissions, the burning of coal to generate electricity alone emits more CO2 than any other single source, about one-third of the total.
As the US Electrical Generation by Type figure shows, about 20% of the U.S. electrical supply comes from nuclear power. Let us now imagine that the U.S. never built any nuclear power plants, but instead built more coal plants to generate the electricity those nuclear plants would have generated.
According to the Energy Information Administration, since 1971, 18.6 billion MW•h (Megawatt hour) of electrical power have been generated by nuclear sources (1). According to the US Department of Energy, every kW•h (kilowatt hour) of electricity generated by coal produces 2.095 lbs of CO2 (2).
As the calculations in the table above show, every MW•h of electricity generated by coal generates 2,095 pounds of carbon dioxide. For 18.6 billion MW•h at 2,095 pounds of CO2 per MW•h, this amounts to 39.0 trillion additional lbs of CO2, or 17.7 billion metric tons. Finally, converting the 17.7 billion metric tons of CO2 to carbon results in 4.842 billion, or 4,842 million metric tons of carbon.
What all this shows is that had this power been generated by coal plants, an additional 4,842 million metric tons of carbon would have been released into the atmosphere. Breaking this calculation down by year, what would this have made our carbon emissions record look like?
Again in blue we see the real world US carbon emissions, but in green we see what the carbon emissions would have been if all the electricity generated by our nuclear infrastructure had instead been generated by coal power plants.
In all, carbon emissions would have been 14.6% higher, with 1,782 MMT of carbon released without nuclear power plants, while only 1,552 MMT are released with our current nuclear infrastructure. This is why many leading environmentalists, such as James Lovelock (author of the Gaia Hypothesis) are vocal supporters of nuclear power.
But this chart is not entirely fair to nuclear power, because the growth of nuclear power was severely derailed by environmentalist hyperbole and outright scaremongering. Because of the attacks by environmentalists on nuclear power, many planned power plants were cancelled, and many existing plants licenses were not renewed. The result, according to Al Gore himself in “Our Choice” was:
“Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage…Thus, only about one-fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating.” (3)
Let us take a look then at U.S. carbon emissions if the U.S. had simply built and operated the power plants that were originally planned.
Yup, that’s right people: if the US had simply built and operated the nuclear power plants it had planned and licensed, it would today be producing not only less carbon emissions than it did in 1972, but would in fact be emitting almost half the carbon emissions it is now.
But let’s not forget that the very planning and licensing of nuclear power plants was drastically affected by the anti-scientific opposition. Looking again at the Energy Information Administrations figures, the average sustained growth for nuclear generating capacity was increasing by about 28.8 million Megawatt hours for a 20 year period from 1971 to 1989
Here we see a chart taken from the EIA data which shows the growth of real nuclear generating capacity in blue, and the projected growth in red, had the growth of the previous 20 year period been sustained (remember, this is still only about one-fourth of the intended capacity). In this graph, any year which produced less than the average of the previous 20 years was increased to that average of 28.8 million MW•h.
Now let’s take this projected growth and imagine the U.S. had actually built a nuclear infrastructure at this level. What would our carbon emissions look like?
Incredibly, U.S. carbon emissions today would be almost one-fourth of what they are currently. These numbers are estimated by taking the average yearly increase from 1971 to 1989 in nuclear generating capacity and projecting it to the current day, and since these numbers are only one-fourth of the original planned capacity, the result is multiplied by four. In case you think my numbers are fanciful, let’s see if there are any countries out there that did not get entirely persuaded by the anti-nuclear hysteria, and how that affected their carbon emissions.
After the energy crisis of the 70s, France, which was highly dependent on imported oil for electricity production, decided to divest themselves of Middle Eastern oil dependence. Lacking significant fossil fuel deposits, they opted for a nuclear infrastructure. Today nuclear power generates about 78% of France’s electrical power supply, and it is today the world’s largest exporter of electrical energy. France alone accounts for 47% of Western Europe’s nuclear generated electricity (3).
While we do not see the production in France dropping to half of its 1970s levels as we would have in the U.S. had it continued the transition to a nuclear infrastructure, nevertheless the 40% reductions are close and tremendously significant.
Consider from the presented information what the total potential nuclear generating capacity for the US would be if it sustained the high level growth and achieved its planned capacity.
By the year 2000, the US nuclear infrastructure could have been generating 100% of the domestic electrical supply. This is not an extraordinary claim considering, again, that France generates 78% of electrical energy from nuclear power.
Extrapolating this to the global climate, let’s take a look at the global carbon emissions levels and compare them against a world where the U.S. sustained the first two decades of its nuclear infrastructure growth perpetually and ultimately achieved the original planned capacity.
In green, we see the existing global carbon emissions levels and in purple is the U.S. carbon emission levels if it continued to adopt a nuclear infrastructure. In red then, as a result, we see the global carbon levels would have been almost 15% lower than current levels.
I invite readers to extrapolate then where the total global carbon emissions would be if all the post-industrialized nations had adopted nuclear power – as their natural technological progressions would have dictated – if it were not for the hijacking of this process by anti-scientific hyperbole by scaremongering environmental activists. Many organizations – such as Green Peace, still ardently oppose nuclear power. And these levels, mind you, are only about one-tenth of what the Atomic Energy Commission was projecting based on demand during the 60s, where at its height 25 new nuclear power plants were being built every year, and the AEC anticipated that by the year 2000 over 1,000 nuclear power plants would be in operation in the U.S.. Today only 104 operate.
Let us project an educated guess as to what the resulting reduction in carbon emissions would have been had the European Union (which in 2005 generated 15% of their electricity with nuclear) Japan (34.5% nuclear) and finally, going into the future China and India as they fully industrialize.
All of these facts lead to one conclusion: if manmade global warming is a real problem, then it was in fact caused by environmental alarmism. That is not to say that some environmentalism has not been good, but this atrocious abandonment of reason hangs as an ominous cloud over everything environmentalists advocate. Rational environmentalists, such as James Lovelock, who want a high standard of living for humans and a clean planet are quick to change their minds about nuclear power. Irrational environmentalists who actually do not desire wealthy, comfortable lives for all people on the planet–as well as a clean planet–actively oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is a litmus test for integrity within the environmentalist community.
If you want to spur the economy, stop global warming, and undermine the oil-fueled, terrorist-breeding, murderous theocracies of the world, the solution is simple: build nuclear power plants.
– Sources –
Energy Information Administration – http://www.eia.doe.gov/
US Electrical Generation Sources by Type – http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/node/164
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
CDIAC US Carbon Emissions – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/usa.dat
CDIAC France Carbon Emissions – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/fra.html
(1) – “18.6 billion MW•h (Megawatt hours) of electrical power have been generated by nuclear sources” – Energy Information Administration – http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf
(2) – “every kW•h of electricity generated by coal produces 2.095 lbs of CO2” – US Department of Energy “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electrical Power in the United States” – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/co2emiss00.pdf
(3) – Al Gore (2009). Our Choice, Bloomsbury, p. 157.
(4) – “France alone accounts for 47% of western Europe’s nuclear generated electricity” – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2008 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/reports/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-report/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-re-1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“[…] Amid increasing fears of workers being exposed to high levels of radiation at the plant, hospitals in Tokyo called on the workers to provide samples of their blood-forming hematopoietic stem cells ahead of possible massive exposure.
”Anything could happen at the nuclear plant, so preparation is important,” said Shuichi Taniguchi, head of the hematology department at Toranomon Hospital.
A person’s ability to form blood, when lost through radiation exposure, can be restored by transplanting his or her hematopoietic stem cells. Such a procedure is better than receiving a bone marrow transplant from another person as it avoids the risk of rejection.
Toranomon Hospital in Tokyo’s Minato Ward said it is making preparations to take samples of the stem cells of around 50 to 100 workers on the front line at the plant. The cells will be preserved in a frozen state.
The National Cancer Center in Tokyo’s Chuo Ward is also recommending that workers provide samples of their stem cells.”
Source: Kyodo News
Godzilla smash you!
Unfortunately projections and predictions aren’t all that accurate. But I do agree that energy security is being hijacked by the opponents of all forms of power production. The anti-nuclear campaigners protest new nuke stations. Global warming scaremongers protest fossil fuel stations. Other self-interest groups protest hydro.
Buy stock in candles.
So now we have come full circle for Marget Thatcher’s “CO2 is bad” science funding.
Couldn’t agree more. Question is, how do we change attitudes now?
Dang good post. Even though I do not agree with the CO2 hysteria, I hold that we should proceed with an accelerated nuclear power programme. Diversity makes sound sense.
In the long run, there may be some advantage to the delay, as any nuclear plant constructed from today will be safe, even in a disaster. That is not true of some of the earlier designs.
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow. Unfortunately rationality is all too scarce amongst our so-called leaders. The example of Fukushima is being used as an excuse to abandon the nuclear route to energy security.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8415028/Nick-Clegg-Britains-proposed-nuclear-plants-may-not-be-built.html
This is an excellent analysis showing just how much anti-nuke hysteria, often by the very same Greens who hyperventilate on global warming, has created the very “crisis” that the same anti-nuker, anti-fossil alarmists now are complaining about.
Are picture links correct? All others on the site appear but not this post.
[They show up fine on Firefox 4.0, try refreshing. Note if you are using Chrome, there is a good chance that Google is messing with rendering of stuff from our site . – MikeL]
I did a different write up about the cost difference if we dropped nuclear for green alternatives.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/nuclear-power-if-you-really-care-about-co2/
The result is the same. As long as people want electricity without CO2 emissions, then nuclear is the only answer.
Nuclear power is not secure.
Most scientists are wrong about global warming.
This proofs: Science is not secure.
If science is not secure, nuclear power is not secure.
At the moment the terminally stupid UK government are to demand safety standards on new Nuclear plants in the UK to adhear to irrationally high safety standards thus making them uneconomical to build and run.
It’s obviously just a knee jerk reaction to a forty year old power plant in 9.0 earthquake !
How foolish is that ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/8415028/Nick-Clegg-Britains-proposed-nuclear-plants-may-not-be-built.html
Alarmist reporting!
Why do people still talk in terms of mass of CO2, I repeat CO2 not carbon, instead the proportion of the total annual global CO2 budget?
The importance is the proportion not the mass because natures input is many times ours. In fact it has now been discovered that the global tectonic ridge system, which is the most volcanic system on the planet albeit below 2.5km of sea water, produces many more times the volume of CO2 than was previously thought. This will reduce the proportion of our CO2 input to that produced naturally.
But anyway CO2 does not drive climate so why worry.
No mention of the fact the the military demands for plutonium steered the technology in the 50’s and 60’s away from much safer nuclear power generation methods, such as thorium-based reactors.
So while it may be true that the greens prevented nuclear growth, it is equally true that the military prevented safe nuclear in the first place – without that the greens would have had little grounds to object.
I will take 100 trillion tons of co2 instead of one ton of plutonium over me thank you
Fail. When the author has graphs that purportedly represent carbon dioxide but have titles saying “carbon emissions,” I get the impression the author is ignorant (at best) or deliberately deceptive (at worst). Anyway, since any warming signal from CO2 is drowned out by the noise from natural variation, the article fails in its premise. How can a colorless gas that is food for plants be considered a pollutant that dirties the planet? Unless a barren world bereft of flora is the author’s ideal planet?
No FT, no comment.
We have already seen how the push for biofuels has helped to push food prices up and increased deforestation [e.g. Indonesia palm oil / deforestation]. Are we seeing the same thing with the push to abandon nuclear energy? Are we seeing the law of unintended consequences unfolding?
Ursula von den Laien says:
March 30, 2011 at 12:26 am
Seems like a pretty sensible risk mitigation strategy to me. I would want some kind of insurance if there was even a slight risk of harm from radiation. could you tell us what you point actually was?
If it was that there are risks in nuclear power, you miss the point that the fears appear to be unfounded, and the mitigation is a cheap and effective one that will allay fears in the main. If we did the same for every coal miner, what would we have to do?
How many nuclear power workers have died from their job, and how many coal miners? How many people have died because of hydro-electric dams? Get some perspective!
Dr. James Lovelock – [Gaia hypothesis] 2004
‘Only nuclear power can now halt global warming’
Lovelock is a supporter of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy
Though I disagree with his hypothesis about burning carbon fuels would lead to global destruction via tiny warmth. Cold is the real killer. The tropics flourish! Co2 and warmth is good.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574
“Finally, converting the 17.7 billion metric tons of CO2 to carbon results in 4.842 billion, or 4,842 million metric tons of carbon.”
That may be true, but carbon emission isn’t carbon, it’s carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
So the 17.7 billion metric tons should applied to graph not 4.842 billion metric tons
Not only is AGW Theory unsound, but the so-called ‘environmentalism’ that drives it is so illogical that it rejects the very power source that would have solved the imaginary problem. Coal mines, coal and gas fired power-stations, windmills, and even hydro-power kill more people than the nuclear power industry has managed and the statistics are easy to find. However people would rather believe in their nightmares.
For the record, my opinion on Global Warming can be found here
http://matus1976.blogsome.com/2008/10/24/global-warming-primer-solutions-and-complications-and-my-position/
In short it is that while AGW might plausible it is unproven and is being used by power mongers tapping into our collective remnant of original sin to concentrate even more power into wannabe tyrants while curtailing industrial growth and putting us at a dangerous risk to the numerous other REAL threats to human life, civilization, and all life that only rapid and extensive industrialization can combat.
In the UK, over the last 24 hours the power generation mix was coal 38%, nuclear 22% and wind a miserable 0.7%.
Although coal is our biggest power source, our air had probably never been cleaner. Ironically, much of the warming in the UK over recent decades may be due to the cleaner air. We should be planning on building more coal-fired plants, but that’s effectively been cut off by the global warming delusion.
Wind power is a complete joke, so naturally that’s what our government is going for.
So that leaves nuclear. Despite recent events in Japan, nuclear is extremely safe. It’s bizarre to see the Germans abandoning nuclear in almost unseemly haste. When was there last a huge earthquake followed by a huge tsunami in Germany?
Yes, quite possibly widespread use of nuclear would cut CO2 emissions.
“If you want to spur the economy, stop global warming….”
This is where I part company with the author. Almost certainly the mild global warming we experienced in the last century was of vast benefit for the world. History shows that the world is stormier when it’s cold (during the Little Ice Age there were storms in Europe that individually killed around 100,000 people), and that mankind has prospered when the world was warmer.
Almost certainly AGW is wrong and CO2 has very little effect on the climate, as demonstrated by the ice cores.
Over the next few decades nuclear and coal are the best options. Hopefully by around 2050 fusion will become viable. It promises an abundant source of cheap and clean energy. Hopefully also by then the global warming hysteria that today threatens mankind’s future well-being will be just a bad dream….
Chris
—Oh goody! More carbon, more plants growing!
Of course, we have to remember that, with cooling ahead, we will need the advantages of all of this additional realized CO2 to augment and maximize our food supply. This lack of nuclear a may be for the good in the end.