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.
I have noted that the Chernobyl disaster has in fact not yet been resolved. It needs to be re-encapsulated but they don’t have the money for it. I would have thought that after the Japan disaster, which, in severity, is beginning to look as bad as the Chernobyl disaster, nobody in their right mind would still want to propogate nuclear energy. Rather stick to using natural gas. The extra carbon dioxide is just fine!
A bigger carbon footprint is better!
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Michael, I refer to your concluding statement.
“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.”
Oh Michael!
The economy is most effecient when power is prodcued most economically.
Coal fired power stations are more economical than necular.
And unfortunately you will not banish terorists by reducing the income of the countries in which some of them live.
Their ideology was developed hundreds of years ago, long before the Western nations came out of their long medieval sleep.
Many terorists come from very poor countries as it is.
You also have failed to realise the positive impact on food production caused by the increasing level of CO2 emissions.
Your “solution” would lead to starvation in the porest parts of the world.
That would only encourage extermism as people battle to survive.
Your “simple solution” is simply wrong.
Sometimes ignorance and superstition beats logic and reason. Good post.
The future of nuclear power is controlled entirely by politics, and the politics requires that all nuclear power be phased out. The economics are irrelevant. The technology is irrelevant. CO2 emissions are irrelevant. Nuclear power is perceived by both the public and politicians to be inherently unsafe, and no amount of “public education” will change that.
Unfortunately, the only alternative to nuclear power is fossil fuels. Wind, solar, bioethanol, biodiesel, et al are not alternatives, they are instances of large-scale criminal fraud.
Really no comparison here. CO2 is as risk-free as any substance can be, while nuclear power is demonstrably not so.
Stephen Brown says:
March 30, 2011 at 12:53 am
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow
I would rephrase as follows:
Rational mindsShort Term Thinking canunderstandrationalise easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is thesensibleexpedient path to followOr perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow if you wish to develop nuclear weapons and long term nuclear waste storage facilities while running the long term risks of nuclear accidents.
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is
the sensible path to followan accident waiting to happen.Is anyone who is pro-nuclear actually aware that accidents like the one in Fukishima are supposedly happening every 17000 years, according to Official Doctrine, and that we have already witnessed 4 (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Mayak, Fukushima) over the last 42 years, not to mention a far larger number of near-accidents?
That means that the statistics are wrong and misguiding. Let’s assume more realistically with a maximum likelihood approach on the basis of the empirical data we have now that roughly every 15 years (if we optimistially assume that 3 Mile Island wasn’t too bad in its consequences), we will render large areas of our planet uninhabitable, and then have to guard these areas for centuries, and they still cause nasty disease and genetic defects in the population. Every 15 years on average. Now, do you still like the nuclear option?
This analysis doesn’t even mention yet the invisible costs of safety management, and waste processing.
Cheers,
JP
This site has contributed more than any other to debunking the baseless notion that the CO2 we are emitting is some kind of universal evildoer that will bring the world to catastrophe if we don’t stop emitting it. It has been shown convincingly here, over and over, from all possible angles, that this notion is ridiculous, and that the effects, if any, of the CO2 concentration increase we may expect to achieve even after burning all remaining fossil fuels, will probably be positive on balance.
Concerns about the effects of nuclear accidents, and about the effects of a proliferation of nuclear plants that will very likely increase the frequency of such accidents, belong in a completely different category.
We have become so used to seeing one silly alarmist story after another regarding climate, that we now transfer our dismissive reflex to something that is genuinely serious and worrisome, such as the very real and very nasty effects of spilling radioactive materials in the air, the ground and the water.
I don’t know if the author of this post really believes in the official fairy tale of CO2 as a pollutant and ruthless ruler of temperatures, floods, droughts, quakes and whatnot — and that therefore it is an urgent matter to reduce emissions of this tyrant — or if he is just using this as a rhetorical device to promote the virtues of nuclear energy.
In any case, it’s very odd that an article on this site rests its entire argument on the very premise that this site has been justifiably demolishing since its inception, and that commenters who know full well how fake this premise is, pretend to go along with it for the ride.
CO2 induced “climate disruption” or whatever the latest name is, is a totally discredited pseudo-scientific bogeyman story, and this site has contributed greatly to the important task of exposing it for what it is.
The effects of liberating radioactive materials through nuclear plant accidents, the statistical probability of such accidents recurring periodically if nuclear energy is allowed to proliferate with current technology — that kind of discussion belongs in a totally different universe. It is dishonest to momentarily pretend to go along with the CO2 nonsense in order to promote nuclear energy. Unless of course you are George Monbiot, who sincerely believes in the nastiness of CO2 and the kindness of radioactive plutonium, cesium and the rest of the gang.
“Incredibly, U.S. carbon emissions today would be almost one-fourth of what they are currently.”
Impossible. The first figure shows surface transportation accounts for 30% of emissions and I don’t see how any number of nuclear stations are going to reduce the total emissions to 25% of present levels.
Nuclear energy costs 20% more to generate than coal. Coal has increased atomospheric CO2 which in turn has boosted agricultural output by an estimated 15%.
Figure out the cumulative effect on global economy which would happen if agricultural output had not grown by 15% while at the same time energy cost had grown by 20%.
Unless one accepts the hysterical fantasy that increasing atmospheric CO2 is bad then nuclear power has no redeeming virtues at all. I fail to see why any global warming skeptic would be a nuclear power proponent. Non sequitur!
C777 says:
March 30, 2011 at 1:38 am
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 ?
====================
This attitude is discouraging. There is no such thing as”irrationally high safety standards” when the objective is trying to ensure that someting as uniquely nasty as a major nuclear plant accident occurs. If you are going to have nuclear plants, the standards have to be high, sky high, to ensure at all costs that these messes cannot happen. If our current technology does not allow us to ensure this, then we wait until it does.
The 40-year old bit and the 9.0 earthquake bit don’t make sense either. There are many old nuclear plants in the world. And as for big earthquakes, they are also part of our world — we cannot legislate them out of existence.
This kind of stuff needs to be prevented at all costs:
http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/elephants-foot.html
And until someone demonstrates that CO2 can accomplish anything remotely similar, carbon emissions should be left out of the discussion.
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow if you wish to manufacture depleted uranium munitions
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow provided you don’t disclose the true costs
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow provided future generations keep paying your nuclear waste disposal bills
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow provided you can afford the insurance premiums
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow if you don’t pay the insurance premiums
Great graphs!
Another factor that happened at roughly the same time for roughly the same reason: we stopped building hydroelectric dams around 1970. Part of the reason at that point was just good old NIMBY. Later the Greens enforced the ban with the anti-scientific and anti-Darwinian Endangered Species Act. But more dams wouldn’t help nearly as much as more nukes, because (as Patrick Moore points out) the biggest and best hydro rivers in North America are already dammed.
I am reminded, from time to time, of a quote from “Independence Day”. Select groups of environmentalists sound like the alien when the president asks it what we can do to get along… the alien answers: “Die!”
Jer0me says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:38 am
“How many nuclear power workers have died from their job, and how many coal miners?”
The salient question would be how many uranium miners have died from their jobs.
You people seem to think uranium fuel rods grow in trees. One might also inquire about how many nuclear weapons there would be on this planet if there weren’t any nuclear power plants churning out the fissionable materials required to make them.
Once one rightly eliminates lower carbon emission as a virture then nuclear power is all downside and no upside.
I see a lot of commenters on this thread are in agreement with me. Please excuse my insinuation that most are not. It appears that the authors writing pro-nuclear articles for this blog are the ones with their heads positioned where the sun don’t shine and there is no representative for the con-nuclear side except amongst the commenters. Nuclear energy has no redeeming virtues unless one is an AGW alarmist so either the authors are:
1) AGW appeasers, or
2) so knee-jerk anti-green they’re willing to embrace any energy source the greens oppose, or
3) are closet AGW believers that oppose it only because amelioration is expensive, or
4) aren’t playing with a full deck
One way to destroy a modern civilization economically is to eliminate the ability to produce adequate and reliable electricity. To accomplish such a suicidal task there must be a reason that the very power that has brought success and a better life must be abandoned. That reason does not have to be true, just that people believe it. Unfortunately there are politicians and scientists willing to promote disaster.
And while the power generating capacity is being destroyed the demand for power can be reduced by moving power consuming industry out of the countries of the West to the third world that will use the technology, equipment and procedures developed in the West to grow their economy and improve their way of life at the expense of the West. The reason for such a transfer of wealth is we will have customers for the products we no longer produce. Maybe two ways among others.
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow until nuclear fallout / emissions raise the level of background radiation to dangerous levels
Or perhaps:
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow provided you are willing to accept that some land will be permanently uninhabitable
Don’t me wrong though. If nuclear power were cheaper than coal I’d be singing a different tune. I’m all for cheap, renewable, abundant, clean energy with my priorities in that order. If it isn’t first and foremost less expensive than extant sources then I’m not going to get very excited about it. Energy cost is a major component in just about everything that raises living standards. Higher cost means lowered living standards and vice versa. My interest is in continued rise of living standards i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number. Increasing the cost of energy and lowering the amount of atmospheric CO2 are both counter-productive to rising standard of living.
Interesting analysis.
Certainly nuclear safety concerns are now paramount. We also know the newest plants are much safer with their passive cooling systems.
However, the largest barrier to nuclear power expansion is cost. Cheap power = prosperity. The latest designs (like the Westinghouse AP1000, know as gen III+) are simpler designs that can be approved once and then replicated. In 2005, Westinghouse touted $2000/kw construction costs for the first reactor and then falling to $1000/kw in volume.
If $1000/kw and the promised 3 year construction cycles can be achieved these plants will be cheaper than coal. Unfortunately, now the first plants are coming in at least $3500/kw. At that price they are no longer competitive (about $.08/kwh).
I’ve seen no analysis in the press why the price has changed or if there is any hope in eventually hitting the $1000/kw target. This is the key question for nuclear growth.
Carbon is not Carbon Dioxide. I wish the experts would get that straight.
Excellent post. But I have one quibble with the statement at the end about undermining “the oil-fueled, terrorist-breeding, murderous theocracies of the world.” More nukes would have little effect on oil imports. Nuclear power plants produce electricity. Electricity is not produced by burning oil except in negligible amounts by diesel generators, residual oil burned in boilers, etc. We make electricity from coal, nukes, natural gas, hydro – and in minute amounts from wind and solar. We import oil primarily for transportation fuels – gasoline, diesel and jet fuel – and secondarily for heating oil. And as long as batteries have far less energy density and cost far more than petroleum based fuels, we will continue to do so. Unfortunately this is a misconception shared by politicians on both sides of the aisle – dems want to reduce oil imports with more windmills and solar panels, repubs with more nukes. Both approaches produce electricity; neither does anything about oil imports.
I am generally pro-nuclear power. I took physics classes in a lecture hall on top of one. However, I have always found it odd that the right was pro-nuclear as nuclear power involves big government subsides and protections. Ironic? It is indeed tragic that the left became so invested in being anti-nuclear power. Of course, there are real risks and legitimate fears and I am leery that a right leaning administration would be negligent in enforcing safety. I’d prefer the approval process was easier but the inspection and enforcement was very tough.
Today many environmental activists are pro-nuclear power but many are not. It seems the current administration will continue to push for nuclear with Republican support. For a pro-nuclear power pro-climate change mitigation site see: http://bravenewclimate.com/
This entire post is irritating, because so very much in it is wrong. If one wanted to stop warming the planet, as if that were a good thing, one would shut down immediately every nuclear power plant and replace it with a natural-gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine plant. The thermal emissions are less by about 2 to 1. Secondly, if one wanted to be a responsible steward of the Earth’s limited fresh water resources, one would shut down every nuclear power plant that is cooled by a river – such as the South Texas Nuclear Power plant near Houston, Texas. The water required for cooling the nuke is not available for farming or domestic purposes.
But most importantly, if one wanted to provide affordable, reliable power to the people of this world, one cannot do that by building nuclear power plants. They simply cost far too much to build, and must charge at least 30 cents per kWh to recover those costs. Perhaps that is the reason that Warren Buffet, a well-known billionaire, has not invested in a new nuclear power plant venture. He has the money, he could easily write a check.
Today’s grim news from Japan is that plutonium is leaking from at least one of the reactors, indicating a meltdown of some degree has occurred. This is in Japan, one of the most technologically advanced nations on Earth. One shudders to think of how a less-advanced nation would (and someday will) cope with a similar or even worse nuclear disaster.
For more on why nuclear power is not safe, not clean, not affordable, see my entry at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/reconsider-nuclear-power-is-it-ever.html
Forget the CO2-climate-is-warming scaremongering.
Chris Wright says:
March 30, 2011 at 3:31 am
“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.”
Right on.
“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.”
Fusion isn’t going to be viable until materials are invented that can withstand for long the intense environment of the reaction chamber. So far there is nothing conceivable that can do it. And that’s just one hurdle albeit the worst one IMO – a real show stopper. “Abundant source of cheap and clean energy”… where I have I heard that before? Oh yeah, back in the 1960’s they were saying that about nuclear power. That didn’t pan out either due to the same class of problems – initial capital cost and ongoing maintenance expense. At least nuclear fission reactors were known to be possible and practical at the time which is more than you can say for fusion even after 50 years of R&D.
Synthetic biology is the next revolutionary technology. It’s imminent. Mark my words.