Nuclear power production leads to more CO2 production.
Nuclear power production leads to more CO2 production. Not only does it continually pollute our world with 'low level radiation'. It causes untold suffering, death and genetic diseases in future generations, when one melts down, and it's not even green enough to not produce greenhouse gasses.
"Isotopics' latest publication discusses nuclear energy and CO2 emission. They investigated key indicators of 139 countries, including the 29 nuclear power states and analyzed and evaluated the assumptions with which governmental authorities and industrial leaders wrongly argument that nuclear power should cause a decline in CO2 emission. Finally, the effect of new nuclear power in Europe on CO2 emissions is predicted.
The table clearly shows that more operational nuclear power always leads to more CO2 emission (see scenario 1 in link). In an absolute sense, fighting climate change by installing nuclear power therefore is fictional. The table also shows, that if national energy economies will not change drastically, installation of nuclear power leads to an increase in CO2 emission of 10 to 58 % (scenario 2 in link)."
See:
http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/isotopics-nuclear-power-and-co2-emissio...
STUPID
Probably the dumbest assertion of the Rabid Anti-Nukes
Almost as stupid as the Rabid Pro-Nuke denials
joey
test
Coincidence & causality
:(
Note to greenies ...
Coincidence is not causality ...
Logical Fallacies
Should the reader wish to review the faulty logic processes behind such flawed arguments:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
False Cause
Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another. The Fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa is another name for this fallacy. Its four principal kinds are the Post Hoc Fallacy, the Fallacy of Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, the Regression Fallacy, and the Fallacy of Reversing Causation.
The IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)purports to be a 'peer-reviewed academic resource' and appears to contain a relatively useful treatment of logical fallacies.
Research on the fallacies of informal logic is regularly published in the following journals: Argumentation, Argumentation and Advocacy, Informal Logic, Philosophy and Rhetoric, and Teaching Philosophy.
Author Information
Bradley Dowden
Email: dowden@csus.edu
California State University, Sacramento
U.S.A.
Note to reader:
Every resource has biases and flaws. This resource does not include the logical fallacy 'Bulverism' termed by C. S. Lewis. Thinking is seldom a 1-stop shopping trip.
Bump and thank you
bump
"The 29 nuclear power states
"The 29 nuclear power states emit 3.5 times more total CO2 than the 108 non-nuclear countries"
The problem I see with that is that nuclear states are basically developed nations, and developed nations emit more CO2 than agrarian societies. It's not a question of using nuclear energy or not.
Really, I don't consider nuclear energy viable, but this kind of primary school analyses are only going to make anti-nuclear advocates look bad.
Read before you start talking, please
Dear Anonymous,
In the first place I do not understand why you want to be anonymous and yet give your firm comments. Secondly, if you would have taken 5 minutes to read what has been written, you would have seen the following in the original article:
"The positive correlation between total CO2 emission and total primary energy supply for nuclear power states is not directly caused by nuclear energy itself. The average contribution of the nuclear fuel cycle can be calculated to be only 1.3 % of the total emission [8]. The explanation for the correlation lies in the fact that nuclear power states are industrialized countries. Such countries promote continuous economic growth and continue to require an increasing amount of all sorts of energy, including electricity, for all kinds of large scale industrial practices".
Maybe, just maybe, you could try to read what you oppose against, before you start to kick in doors that are already wide open. To follow your apparent way of expressing yourself: reading is a kindergarten skill.
Thanks,
Joost
Agreed!!!
Agreed! The cited analysis is sophomoric and not even worthy of primary school.
Nations, like the USA; that use nuclear power, also use a lot of power in general. Not all that power is provided by nuclear. In the case of the USA, about 70% of our electrical energy is derived from carbon-based fossil fuels. THAT is why the USA emits so much CO2.
However, I'm not surprised at all. The anti-nukes have always LIED, told half truths and have, in general, subjected the public to this type of blantat, misleading propaganda.
The anti-nukes are so self-righteous, they don't think they have to be honest.
With them, the end justifies the means.
Read before you start talking, please
Dear anonymous,
Could you please be kind and polite enough to sign your comments with your name, so we know who is talking?
Of course CO2 is mainly emitted by combustion of carbon-based fuels. Nobody denoes that. The point is that (at least European) governments say that "nuclear helps fighting CO2 emission". In the paper, it was demonstrated that there is no evidence for that. On the contrary. Why do you qualify that as a lie or half truth? The data are from the International Energy Agency, a very respected international institution. In the paper, nuclear itself is held responsible for only 1.3 % of the total emission. What is not honest about that?
The paper says, it is not fair to formally state that more nuclear will help fight the CO2 problem without a drastic change in the total energy economy. I cannot see why that would be a lie. Please elucidate my pre-primary school mind on this.
Thanks,
Joost
Laughable
:(
Dear Juiced,
More than one 'Anonymous' has commented in this forum. To suggest that the referenced article is sophomoric, would be an insult to most college sophomores and a fair percentage of high school sophomores.
No 'smart-points' are awarded for debunking arguments which are unworthy of grade school children. Somebody, somewhere casually hammered the most blatant logical fallacy in the article. This was a public service announcement ... akin to 'bridge out ahead'.
It is NOT an argument. There is no debate. It is over. It is laughable.
Fine
Sir,
You are quite strong in your disqualifications. So be it. The reality comes from the IEA: and emission of 0.18 +/- 0.04 Mton CO2/TWh energy supply in nuclear power states, regardless the amount of operational nuclear power. The point of the Note is the "regardless" part. That does not go away because you think it is laughable.
Joost
I repeat myself - SLC/MT
The OP, Joost Woittiez, appears to suffer under the illusion that this is a high-school debate or a court proceeding.
Certainly, that is not the case. This is a discussion on an engineering webpage. A certain degree of technical 'savvy' and critical thinking is presumed. Non-engineers are welcome, fuzzy thinking and all.
All opinions are decidedly NOT equal, among engineers. Some such as the drivel of Joost Woittiez is quite laughable. Certainly such specious thinking will not be taken seriously.
Perhaps he would be more at home among liberal arts majors, high school dropouts, carnival hucksters and/or members of the U. S. Congress. (But perhaps "I repeat myself".)
AMEN to that!!!
All opinions are decidedly NOT equal, among engineers. Some such as the drivel of Joost Woittiez is quite laughable. Certainly such specious thinking will not be taken seriously.
=========================
AMEN to that!!!
A certain technical accumen is assumed here.
Now somebody please clean-up after Joost Woittiez; he's left quite a mess.
Then the paper is WRONG
The paper says, it is not fair to formally state that more nuclear will help fight the CO2 problem without a drastic change in the total energy economy.
==============================
Then the paper is wrong. The CO2 emission from nuclear is due to the need to burn fossil fuels in the mining of the fuel. However, pound for pound nuclear fuel contain much more energy than the equivalent amount of fossil fuel, which must also be mined. Since nuclear has more energy per unit mass, then less of it needs to be mined. Therefore, the CO2 emissions during mining for nuclear are less than fossil fuels.
Nuclear fuel needs to be enriched, which takes energy. However, that energy can be provided by nuclear power itself.
During power production, nuclear doesn't emit CO2. Fossil fuels, by definition, release huge quantities of CO2 when they are burned.
Therefore, nuclear power releases less CO2 than a fossil plant of the same power.
If one displaces fossil fuel generation with nuclear; one is displacing the large CO2 emissions of fossil fuel. Hence, nuclear power does reduce CO2 emissions.
The paper uses sophomoric, and faulty logic. As another poster stated, coincidence is not causality; a glaring error of logic in the paper.
Paper wrong?
Sir,
The CO2 emission by the subsequent parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, together 0.06 MTon/TWh-e, are the starting point of the Note. It is not disputed. The problem is, that the CO2 emission in nuclear power states appears to be constant, 0.18 +/- 0.04 MTon/TWh energy supply, regardless the amount of operational nuclear power. The point is the "regardless" part. Obviously, the advantageous CO2 characteristics of nuclear are completely masked in nuclear power states. That is what the Note is about. It is not right or wrong, it is simply reality, based on IEA data. If you don't like reality, that is fine, but you cannot say that therefore the paper is wrong. Moreover, the authors explicitely mention, that nuclear is not the cause of the total CO2 emission; it only contributes 1.3%. Your "glaring error of logic" remark thus does not contribute much. Maybe you could be a little less disqualifying.
Joost
Then the paper is WRONG
That is what the Note is about. It is not right or wrong, it is simply reality, based on IEA data. If you don't like reality, that is fine, but you cannot say that therefore the paper is wrong.
==========================================
What kind of nutty claim is this. Of course I can say the paper is WRONG, when I point out the fallacy. Just because the paper got published doesn't mean it is correct.
The data in the paper may be correct, but the interpretation is WRONG.
As you point out, the authors say that nuclear is not responsible for the CO2 emission. That is EXACTLY my point; it is not the use of nuclear power that contributes to CO2, but the fact that the states that use nuclear power are also highly industrial, and thus are adding CO2 via burning coal, gas, and other fossil fuels.
If those states supplant the burning of fossil fuels with nuclear, with its lower CO2 emissions, then that will reduce CO2 emission.
The paper does what a lot of papers written by anti-nukes does. It presents true data, but then the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument and data that they present. That's because the final conclusion was decided on as an anti-nuclear conclusion even before they wrote the paper.
As an academic, I believe such intellectual dishonesty deserves the highest degree of condemnation and opprobrium. If we can't police the quality of academic papers and recognize and condemn bad scholarship, as demonstrated in that paper; then where is our credibility?
- True enough ... The
-
True enough ...
The pro-nuclear groups are much more skilled at presenting pseudo-scientific fraud, than are the anti-nuclear groups.
Critical thinking skills and a technical fund of knowledge are often required to pierce the nuclear industry 'party line'.
Neither group is particularly noted for candor. This behavior pattern is expected of the 'greenies'. It is however considered counter-productive for the nuclear industry. This pattern of misbehavior was set by GE with the introduction of the design defective Mark-1 containment system. The behavior pattern and the public perception of the industry has been solidified over time. This is to the detriment of the industry and hobbles the future economic potential of the industry.
It is a very unhealthy state of affairs. A credible USA nuclear industry would likely have three times as many operational reactors.
Shill stupidity & lies
:(
The recently increased push for MOX fuel up-rates on superannuated, corroded GE Mark-1 reactor containment systems; has damaged what little remained of public trust in the presently constituted US nuclear industry.
The ongoing pattern of lying, fraud and obfuscation by these industry shills does not help matters much.
I remain a tepid supporter for continued use of nuclear technology for electrical power generation, medicine, space exploration and national defense. This support requires a significant amount of discipline, given the absolute reprobate behavior of the present major corporate industry leaders. But, I have long familiarity with the subject.
Shill stupidity has as little influence on my long-term views; as shill lies. However, this is not a widely held approach to the important questions at hand.
lack of understanding
The ongoing pattern of lying, fraud and obfuscation by these industry shills does not help matters much.
=====================
Lack of understanding on the part of the anti-nukes does not constitute lying, fraud, and obfuscation on the part of the industry.
Plop Plop Fizz Fizz
CO2 is the fizzie in our soft drink, Alka-Selzer and sparking wines.
Plants and animals need CO2.
The 'global warming' hoax is over, due to massive academic frauds; committed by East Anglia University and the NASA Climate Unit.
The 'global warming' hoax was funded by Al Gore and his fellow travelers.
Move it along, greenie, there is no global warming evidence; only pseudo-scientific fraud, for profit.
Your High
on a methane geyser.... look out the supertanker does not see you in the newly ice free northwest passage.... oh well climate chaos and global heating claims another faux news viewer...
Its A O K though. There will soon be enough ambient gamma radiation so that bacteria will be slow to break down the corpse.... no rush to bury or push it out into the rising radioactive seas....
Enjoy ur seltzer water and free methane while u can.