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.
@Jer0me on March 30, 2011 at 2:38 am,
Re how many people died from hydroelectric dams.
One might consider how many people’s lives were saved over the centuries from well-built, long-lasting dams that prevented catastrophic flooding. Then, consider how many people’s lives were prolonged, made better, by having steady, reliable access to life-giving fresh water for farming and domestic use because the water was stored behind a dam, and did not run destructively down a river valley into the sea in a very short time.
Most dams were built to stop the flooding and horrible loss of life that occurred, and the hydro-electric systems were installed because they could be and should be, so as not to waste a valuable resource.
@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 ?”
As foolish as you might expect from the Coalition (or the Tories, or the Dims, or Labour, or the Greens).
Don’t forget that the LibDem Election 2010 manifesto promised 100% carbon emission cuts by 2050 without nuclear.
Don’t forget both Clegg & Cameron have direct personal financial interests (through spouse / spouse’s father) in BigWind.
From the Telegraph piece you quote:-
“They [the next generation power stations] have to be safe, and we cannot let the taxpayer be ripped off, which is what they always have been in the past.”
Which is why they like BigWind? No rip-off there, surely?
Lastly, a superb piece from The Register:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/osbourne_new_green_elite/
Truly, we are governed by a bunch of greedy, dogmatic incompetents.
And as Roy Spencer has pointed out, the war on Global Warming is, in reality, a war on the poor.
“I will take 100 trillion tons of co2 instead of one ton of plutonium over me thank you”
Why would the plutonium be “over” you?
As medieval peasants feared witches and demons, the modern peasant fears “nuclear”.
Highly interersting reading about electrical energy basics here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
Brgds/TJ
Can you be against nuclear power and it not be hysteria? Or if you think nuclear power is bad that means you are hysterical? You must like nuclear power or you are hysterical? Or are unintelligent?
“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.”
———-
Building nuclear plants will have no effect on despots and terrorist theocracies—oil is used primarily for transportation not electrical generation. Only increasing domestic production will put the squeeze on the Middle East, Venezuela et al.
So in the last 100 years the global climate has warmed a few tenths, maybe. Nobody yet knows why or even if it is a good or bad thing. There’s also nothing new about this as the temperature has been rising for thousands of years. CO2 has gone up but is creating no obvious problems. What, exactly, is the measured contribution of the missing nuclear energy to the temperature rise, and how much nuclear energy would be required to reverse the rise caused by the lack of nuclear energy and over what time frame? How cold would it be today if we had brought nuclear onto the grid 500 years ago?
RobB says:
March 30, 2011 at 12:44 am
The solution: http://pesn.com/2011/02/28/9501774_Future_Impact_of_Rossis_Cold_Fusion/
Bull Cr**.
That only works if the government mandates Nuclear power exclusively. CO2 isn’t evil and coal is cheaper. If you power the grid with Nuke power by stifling competition through government mandates, I will heat my home with coal that is so cheap transporting it will be 90% of the cost. Every industrial application that requires heat or steam would still be coal powered unless there was some sort of ban on it.
Only government anti-competition laws like Nuke plant subsidies could force us to buy m0re expensive energy. When the coal runs out, you can build all the nuke plants you want.
By the way, I love technology and have no fear of nuclear power. I work in a coal fired plant and would love to work at a nuke plant.
While this article is bright and well-written, it misses the point trying to show reason to the econuts. Their real objective is to take us back to preindustrial times. Coal is evil, so is nuclear, and comparing them is irrelevant for them, except as the argument of the moment. Imagine you managed to switch from coal to nuclear, decreasing CO2 emissions by 50%. The econuts would at once start attacking nuclear plants for being extremely dangerous. And so on and on. To the paleolithic and far beyond.
First of all, coal is carbon. When burned, the result is carbon dioxide, not more ‘carbon’. If we could get plain carbon from burning coal, we could feed it right back into the fire and get close to perpetual motion—or perpetual fire, anyway!
Second, there is no evidence that mankind’s contribution of carbon dioxide to the terrestrial environment (atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere) has any measurable effect on weather, climate, or anything else except perhaps a bit of enhanced plant growth.
Third, as we repeat ad infinitum here, if we could somehow warm up the Earth’s many climates and stave off the next Ice Age, by generating more CO2 or by any other means, that would be a Good Thing. How is it that a guest author doesn’t know this?
But fourth, yes, more nuclear power would be dandy, especially the new technologies which recycle and re-use nuclear waste, and small, modular nuclear units that are much safer than giant plants that depend on complex cooling systems. And yes, the whacko enviro-nazis have stymied nuclear power development in the USA with the same irrational fervor that they insist we stop burning anything.
But let’s not base our pro-nuclear argument on the false premise that CO2 (not to mention ‘carbon’) is somehow bad for us.
/Mr Lynn
Nuclear is only our best route IF the effects of more CO2 emissions are as risky as the inevitable occasional releases of radioactive material.
It seems increasingly likely that the effects of CO2 emissions have been grossly overstated.
So the Law of Unintended Consequences applies. In an effort to avoid unproven risks we are now being pushed in a demonstrably riskier direction by many of those who profess to be supporting risk reduction.
In the meantime there are new technologies being researched that could greatly help to reduce reliance both on fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
We should stick with fossil fuels and use them freely but invest heavily in research into sensible non nuclear alternatives. Solar and windpower are NOT sensible alternatives.
On the basis that CO2 is not as problematic as first thought we should be looking at timescales of a century or two to stabilise global population and find more sustainable energy production systems.
Time for all policy makers to take a deep breath and to take stock.
My personal take:
CO2 has little to do with “global warming”.
Nuclear power is generally safe, and makes sense.
Nuclear power can be even safer (Thorium reactors for example).
Diversifying energy sources is usually a good idea (although diversifying into things that are expensive and terribly inefficient (read “windmills”) is pretty nonsensical).
Cheap and abundant energy is what causes prosperity. Expensive and insufficient energy causes poverty.
I work at a nuclear plant. Carbon/CO2 emissions are irrelevent other pollutants from fossil fuels are relevent but should not turn us completely away from fossel fuels. The legitimate economic benefit of nuclear is it provides some price stability to changing fossil fuel prices. If you believe nat gas will stay cheap for at least the next 60 years then we should build NOTHING but combined cycle nat gas plants. If you would like to buy some of tomorrow’s electricity generation with today’s dollars then nuclear has some merit. Existing nuclear plants are some of the cheapest generation on the grid because they have low O&M costs. The only source that is consistently cheaper is hydro when available.
Steveta_uk says:
“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.”
Whilst mostly true regarding the U cycle cf Th, you are wrong about the greens’ objections, which were more about radiophobia than proliferation. Just refer to the Neville Shute’s book : “On the Beach” which greatly influenced successful anti-nuke campaigner Helen Caldecott. I have always believed proliferation to be the greater problem – though the U cycle has, thus far, has evidently been prolifiation resistant.
Well Patrick You are making a bad choice. I will take Nuclear over absolutely any other source for long term safety and environmental impact. Even the primitive plants affected by the earthquake in Japan are hugely safer and cleaner than any possible alternative.
Think about it, If they had been top of the line coal plants wouldn’t the ground water be permanently polluted for many miles around? Wouldn’t everyone working at the plant be dead already? In fact wouldn’t the radiation released into the environment be higher? The answer is, of course, yes to all of these questions.
Here are some of the things I’ve read or seen today. I need to stay away from the news.
From a CNN video a few days ago, a Japanese-American theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, is urging the Japanese government to start entombing the reactors immediately, saying the politicians are in a fantasy land abut the seriousness of the problem, and that it will not go away.
From The Guardian today:
Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at Fukushima, told the Guardian workers at the site appeared to have “lost the race” to save the reactor, but said there was no danger of a Chernobyl-style catastrophe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor
From Bloomberg today, reporting the Japanese are now considering entombing the site.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-30/record-high-levels-of-radiation-found-in-sea-near-crippled-nuclear-reactor.html
Finally, a certain Dr. Tom Burnett writing at the HawaiiD aily News wears that this will “dwarf Chernobyl” when the mass of molten nuclear material reaches the water table under the site. I assume and hope he is only babbling or describing a nightmare he has had.
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/03/when-the-fukushima-meltdown-hits-groundwater/
Dave Springer says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:36 am
I would suggest that were nuclear power generation more widely accepted and used the cost would naturally be significantly lower. That’s just how economics works. Add an hysterical fear of radiation, and various “social” priorities to the mix, then it starts getting expensive.
Radiophobia — or an irrational fear of radiation — is, in my half-wit opinion, the sole reason for the ridiculous cost of nuclear power generation. Far, far more people die from skin cancer caused by the sun, yet there is no rush to ban daylight.
I totally agree with JP … if you play with fire you will eventually be burned!
Supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO2) is, I believe, used as an extraction solvent for decaffeinating coffee, dry cleaning, extracting hash oil ( from cannabis), determining PAH levels and, by drug companies, in the production of nano particles .
Now researchers at Sandia National Laboratories are shortly hoping to be able to demonstrate vastly improved power generation using S-CO2 Brayton-cycle turbines.
They hope to demonstrate that thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency will be increased by 50 percent for nuclear power stations equipped with steam turbines, or 40 percent for gas turbines.
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/brayton-cycle-turbines/
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.
There will be lessons learned from Japan. Most of it will involve relatively inexpensive safety upgrades. Even if an additional $100 million were spent on safety upgrades it doesn’t impact the overall cost that much.
Given the current cost of coal in Europe, $130/tonne as of yesterday, keeping a coal fired plant running 24/7 fed with coal for a year costs $520 million.
I note that virtually none of the advocates of increased
use of fission reactors will discuss accelerated
additional research funding for fusion reactors.
Fusion reactions don’t require uranium or plutonium for
fuel. They don’t generate the cesium, iodine, strontium
or other isotopes that come with fission reactions.
If you advocate nuclear and mean fusion for power
generation in the future, I’m right there with you.
Otherwise, I’ll go with “clean coal” technologies.
Increased CO2 = increased atmospheric warming is merely a hypothesis right now – Increased CO2 from coal-fired electrical generators = increased plant growth + electricity supply is a fact – the real risk to human life lies in be mining safety and ‘dirty’ stack emissions. I am sure that by the use of appropriate engineering standards, risks can be minimised from coal mining, just as the risks from nuclear electricity generation can be minimised. In my view, the use of both seems sensible.
OT but WUWT might want to “nail” this webpage for posterity just in case they remove it (which will of course happen soon)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm
Henry@Francisco
I also heard some of those stories.
Like I said before: I don’t know how anyone in their right minds can still believe nuclear energy is safe. I knew from the beginning it was not safe when I asked about the waste.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/30/anti-nuclear-power-hysteria-and-it%e2%80%99s-significant-contribution-to-global-warming/#comment-632351