Is Nuclear Power Zero Emissions and Carbon Neutral

NO.

OVER THE PAGES OF THIS BLOG I HAVE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF BOTH THE EMERGENCY (FUKUSHIMA) AND NORMAL EMISSIONS OF RADIO NUCLIDES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS.

THE MINING, MILLING, TRANSPORT, VERY OPERATION, WASTE STORAGE AND WASTE DISPOSAL OF SPENT FUEL ALL INVOLVE CARBON INTENSIVE SOURCES OF POWER.

THE DIESEL SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY URANIUM SUPPLIES IS HUGE AND COSTLY, AND DIESEL IS NOT CARBON NEUTRAL. THE TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IS NOT CARBON NEUTRAL.

RATHER THAN REDUCE EMISSIONS NUCLEAR POWER CREATES BOTH RADIO CHEMICAL AND CARBON EMISSIONS.

NUCLEAR POWER HAS A CARBON FOOTPRINT THROUGHOUT THE FUEL CYCLE.

I WOULD URGE READERS TO CONTEMPLATE THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR AS A RADIO CHEMICAL AND CARBON EMITTER OVER OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY WHICH EMIT NEITHER.

I QUESTION ANY STATEMENT BY ANY LEARNED INSTITUTION WHICH CLAIMS NUCLEAR POWER IS CARBON NEUTRAL, FOR IT IS NOT.

ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY, SINCE THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT CONTRACT TO THAT ORG TO FIND CAUSES FOR THE CANCER CASES SUFFERED BY AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR VETERANS OTHER THAN THE BOMB TESTS (THE DRAFT ALTERNATIVE WAS GIVEN AS PETROL FUMES IN THE DESERT), HAS COME ON BOARD AS PART OF THE PUSH TO ESTABLISH NUCLEAR POWER IN AUSTRALIA.

THE CARBON CLAIM IS A FORCE ONE. ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS REALISE THAT THE SUPPLY OF URANIUM TO NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS DIESEL INTENSIVE. THE PERPETUAL STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTE INVOLVES DIESEL FUELLED TRANSPORT OF HIGH AND LOW LEVEL WASTE. THIS IS NOT CARBON NEUTRAL.

FURTHER, NO MATTER HOW MANY NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE BUILT, SEA LEVEL RISE WILL NOT DROP 1 MM.

ADDED TO THIS IS THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE ROUTINE AND REGULAR (ONCE EVERY 30 YEARS) NUCLEAR DISASTERS WHICH ARE IN TURN DIESEL AND PETROL CHEMICAL DEPENDENT. HOW MAY TRUCKS AND HOW MUCH CARBON HAVE BEEN RELEASED BY THESE TRUCKS IN RESPONSE TO THE CHERNOBYL AND FUKUSHIMA DISASTERS.

DR JIM GREEN HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON THE CARBON CONTRIBUTION OF NUCLEAR POWER AND OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL KRYPTON AND EXENON RELEASES ESPECIALLY DURING REFUELLING.

IS CARBON PLUS FISSION PRODUCTS BETTER THAN CARBON FREE ALTERNATIVES?

IF YOU ANSWER YES WELL YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR BELIEF, BUT YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST OF NOTE IN MY OPINION.

ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY MUST QUALIFY ITS NUKE – CARBON STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CARBON CONTRIBUTION OF ALL FACETS OF THE FUEL CYCLE AND PLANT DE COMMISSIONING AND WASTE TRANSPORT AND STORAGE. AT PRESENT THE AUSTRALIAN LOW LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE RESPOSITORY IS LOCATED AT WOOMERA MISSILE RANGE, IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE LINE OF THE INSTRUMENTED FIRING RANGE.

THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF THE TRANSPORT OF NUCLEAR WASTE TO THIS DISTANT MISSILE LAUNCH SITE/NUCLEAR WASTE SITE IS HIGH AND THE SITING OF DUBIOUS WISDOM. THE SITE WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMONWEALTH OWNS THE SITE. PREVIOUS SUGGESTED WASTE SITES INCLUDING OXLEY IN QUEENSLAND, A SITE FLOODED IN THE RECENT FLOODS, AND VARIOUS MILITARY FIRING RANGES IN NSW AND VIC. THE MILITARY CRACKED UP AT THE SITING OF a NUCLEAR WASTE RESPOSITORY ON A MILITARY FIRING RANGE. SO THE MISSILE LAUNCH SITE WAS CHOSEN INSTEAD.

THE WASTE STORED THERE INCLUDES 4O DRUMS OF SOIL WHICH HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM DOMESTIC BACK YARDS FROM HOMES NEAR LUCAS HEIGHTS REACTOR WHICH HAD BEEN CONTAMINATED BY FALLOUT FROM THE REACTOR.

THE CONTAMINATION COULD NOT REMAIN IN DOMESTIC BACKYARDS AND WAS STORED FOR YEARS AT THE REACTOR.

IT WAS TOO UNSAFE EVEN IN THE REACTOR’S BACKYARD, SO IT WAS MOVED TO THE MISSILE LAUNCH SITE.

NOTE IN MY BACKYARD -NIMBY – WAS ORIGINATED BY THE NUKERS THEMSELVES AND INVOLVES BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS BY MANY MANY GALLONS AS NUKERS MOVE VAST AMOUNTS OF NUCLEAR WASTE ACCORDING TO THE KNOWN LAWS OF GEOMETRY. THAT IS, FURTHER FROM ONE PLACE, AND THEREFORE CLOSER TO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

THIS IS THE LOGIC OF NUCLEAR POWER.

MAY THE VC OF ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY MODIFY HIS ENDORSEMENT OF THE ZERO EMISSION STATEMENT HIS INSTITUTION PUBLISHES. IT IS IN ERROR.

IN 2006 SHORTLY AFTER ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY FOUND THAT NUCLEAR VETERANS SUFFERED A FAR HIGHER CANCER RISK THAN NON VETERANS, BLAMING THIS INCREASE NOT ON THE BOMB TESTS BUT ON PETROL FUMES IN THE DESERT (IN ITS DRAFT REPORT) AND BY COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF ANY POSSIBLE CAUSE, DISMISSING THE BOMBS COMPLETELY, THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PROPOSED THE BUILDING OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NORTH. CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED BY THE BOMB FALLOUT (IN THE OPINION OF THE VICTIMS) OR PETROL FUMES (ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY DRAFT REPORT INTO CANCER IN NUCLEAR VETERANS. ) GIVEN THAT DIESEL AND PETROL ARE, IN THE OPINION OF ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY 2006 (DRAFDT REPORT) FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN BOMB FALLOUT AND REACTOR EMISSIONS, THERE IS THE OPTION OF STORING THE WASTE ON THE GROUNDS OF THE ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY.

THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF THE RADIO CHEMICAL EMISSIONS FROM SUCH STORAGE WOULD ATTRACT A STUDENT BASE OF A CERTAIN TYPE.

THE VATICAN WAS WRONG IN 1560 . ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY IS WRONG IN 2013. IT SHOULD CORRECT ITS ERRORS IN THE SAME MANNER OF INTEGRITY IT IS SUPPOSED TO CORRECT ANY LEARNED PAPER.
IMO.

THEY ACTUALLY WOULD NOT WANT IT IN THEIR BACKYARD ANY MORE THAN THE PEOPLE WHO DETERMINED HOUSE SOIL IN SYDNEY WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO REMAIN IN PLACE. WHILE THE GENERAL PUBLIC MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE TRUE MEANING OF NIMBY, – THAT THE SOIL IN ACTUAL BACKYARDS WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO REMAIN IN PLACE – THE FACT IS NUCLEAR IS NOT ZERO EMISSIONS AND THE TOTAL FUEL CYCLE CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL CARBON DIOXIDE RELEASE. AND NUKE INDUSTRY GETS HUGE DIESEL SUBSIDY FROM TAXPAYERS FOR THIS, WHICH WILL IN THE LONG RUN CREATE CONSTANT RELEASES OF RADIO CHEMICAL RELEASES – KRYPTON AND XENON AND THEIR DECAY PRODUCTS. WA RECEIVES THESE EMISSIONS AS CREATED AND RELEASED BY REACTORS IN BRAZIL. IN ADDITION TO THE CARBON RELEASED IN THE FUEL CYCLE PROCESS.

HOW MANY TONS OF CARBON HAS BEEN RELEASED BY THE RESPONSE TO FUKUSHIMA? HAS THE INDUSTRY SAID?

THE CHERNOBYL VEHICLE GRAVE YARD – RADIOACTIVE VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT USED IN THE DISASTER AND FORVER OFF LIMITS. THE CARBON FOOT PRINT? NOT STATED:

READERS SHOULD CONTACT DR JIM BREEN AND BRETT STOKES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE ACTUAL CARBON FOOT PRINT OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE.

ONE OF MANY URANIM MINE TRUCKS AS USED IN AUSTRALIA. CONTRARY TO THE PROMISE OF EDWARD TELLER AND POF. TITTERTON, THESE TRUCKS ARE NOT PLUTONIUM POWERED, BUT DIESEL POWERED.

hmm not one of the little plastic bags in sight site in this photo which Adelaide University and its resident arithmetic expert claim to keep the shit safe.

Much carbon:

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20Reference/Freight%20Railroads/2009/05/Union%20Pacific%20begins%20uranium%20tailings%20move%20in%20Utah.aspx

Union Pacific begins uranium tailings move in Utah
Working on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, trains will move 10 million tons of ore over 10 years
By Sandy Lonsdale
Published: May 22, 2009

After nearly 60 years resting beside the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, the nation’s largest uranium tailings pile began moving by rail in April to a permanent storage site 30 miles away at Crescent Junction. At least 16 million tons of uranium mine tailings were produced by the Atlas Uranium Mine from the richest vein ever discovered at the time in the nearby La Sal Mountains.

The mine produced more than 10 million tons of uranium ore worth more than $1 billion between 1956 and 1988 to help fuel nuclear power plants and fill nuclear munitions. The federal government will spend $300-$400 million to remove and remediate the giant tailings mound adjacent to the former mill site.

The U.S. Department of Energy project, called the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action, was to be completed in 2028, but new legislation funds enable the DOE to be finished by 2019. By overwhelming public support, most of the material will be transported by rail on Union Pacific’s Cane Creek Subdivision.

Two processes will work simultaneously at the Moab site: a container filling process and a rail load-out process. First, empty containers will be loaded onto trucks in the contamination area and filled with roughly 40 tons of tailings material. The containers will then be sealed and placed on a survey rack where they are checked for radioactivity and decontaminated as necessary. Clean containers are then loaded onto trucks outside the contamination area for transport to the rail load area.

A 50-ton gantry crane will place the filled containers onto railcars and take emptied containers off the inbound train onto waiting trucks to return to the support area to be transferred across the contamination area boundary, de-lidded, and prepared for refilling. The truck will then be loaded with another full clean container and return to the rail load area. This way, trucks won’t have to be decontaminated with each load. The gantry crane will move along the siding from one end of the train to the other, replacing empty containers with loaded ones.

Once the railcars arrive at the new siding just east of the existing Brendel siding at Crescent Junction, the containers will be off-loaded onto off-road trucks for movement to an open area of the engineered disposal cell. The storage area is near a mile long and 2,400 feet wide; it was designed to isolate the tailings for a period of up to 1,000 years, and for at least 200 years.

Utilizing 89-foot articulated railcars and with 10,000 feet of new continuous welded rail and two new sidings, there will generally be one train per day moving between Moab and Crescent Junction. Working six days a week, starting with 22 railcars then adding 12 more by the end of the year, with each car hauling four containers, 312 trains will carry 42,432 containers each year (5,440 tons of material/day) for 10 years to move the entire pile.

The big unknown is what workers will find as they dig down. The material will have to be dried prior to transport and it is described as “pudding-like,” with various layers.

The rail line north of Moab passes beside Arches National Park through some of the most stunningly colored and carved sandstone on earth.

SANDY LONSDALE is a freelance writer and photographer who lives in Moab, Utah.

Zero carbon my left foot.

the military imperative over rides the reality of renewables. And any propaganda excuse will apparently do in the service of the corporations who fund and profit from the prestige and status resultant from the hiring of university hacks in the service of the dual use nuclear tech. To the cost of cleaner alternatives.

while people point out that the amount of coal hauled per kilowatt is greater than the same amount of kilowatts provided by uranium, the longer nuclear industry continues, the greater the tonnage of uranium mine tailings and waste transport becomes. The idea that the carbon footprint of uranium can be measured only on the haulage of uranium and spent fuel is false for as the US experience shows, the haulage of the mine tailings, far more dangerous than the uranium itself, increases yearly with increasing carbon release and reliance upon government subsidy. More on that later. While carbon release pollutes air and sea, uranium and its tailings must be measured together as the the longer a uranium operates the more dangerous it becomes as tailings including the uranium decay chain including radium and polonium increases to build up to transport through the biosphere.

Renewables have none of these problems. Our ancient power grid, now owned by overseas interests who are pro nuclear, have little interest in construction of a power system in Australia which is designed from the ground up for the requirements of renewables such as solar, wind, tide and other as yet still secret means of tapping the sun earth circuit on a wide band basis.

Those who say uranium tailings at SA’s uranium mines will not have to be carted and stored as dangerous waste are kidding themselves and the amount of such tailings already in SA from Run Jungle to Roxby Downs WILL NOT FILL A LAPTOP BAG as some pro nukers claim. The Congo mines which provided the uranium stored on Staten Island and used by the Manhattan Project still poses a problem to health in both the Congo and Staten Island.

Decarbonsie SA by all means except nuclear. And tell the whole truth Adelaide University.

9 Responses to “Is Nuclear Power Zero Emissions and Carbon Neutral”

  1. Brett Burnard Stokes Says:

    Paul, thanks for this timely review of the issue of the greenhouse gas impacts of the nuclear business.

    Perhaps you missed the use of CFCs in the fuel enrichment process – as I understand it, CFCs are otherwise banned because of their effect on the ozone layer – CFCs are also a seriously bad greenhouse gas. Can you find any hard data on CFC emissions by the nuclear business?

    Meanwhile I persist with my challenge to Adelaide University over the ongoing Nuclear Advocacy Fraud.

    I am currently fighting against pro nuclear (and anti renewables) lies being told by Adelaide University.

    See the Notice of Demand 121212 at

    I plan to make a lot of noise in the days and weeks ahead.

    My primary target is Warren Bebbington, the Vice Chancellor of The University of Adelaide.

    The Vice Chancellor is a newcomer to the scene and can claim “no blame” while cutting the fraudsters away from the Uni.

    But to do so, the VC needs to act within the next few weeks, or he will be seen by history to be part of the problem.

    Please feel free to offer advice and support and to spread the word.

    I hope you can lend me a hand by:

    Please comment on the The Environment Institute FaceBook page
    https://www.facebook.com/TheEnvironmentInstitute

    Please comment on the 6th December post on The Environment Institute FaceBook page

    Please email to the Vice Chancellor of The University of Adelaide
    vice-chancellor@adelaide.edu.au

    Please post public advice and expressions of support on my FaceBook pages, including the Notice of Demand 121212

    Please email me with private advice and expressions of support
    brettstokesadelaide-byebyebarrybrook@yahoo.com

    Best wishes and many thanks
    from
    Brett Burnard Stokes

  2. CaptD Says:

    This article should be required reading and I hope every reader will tweet and/or post this article everywhere because the Pro Nuclear posters (pun intended) have had it far to easy and have been getting away with murder saying that Nuclear is the Green and zero carbon way to go…

    The COST both in human suffereing and in damage to the Planet being done by Nuclear is T☢☢ much and that does not even include the ongoing damage from nuclear accidents and weapons testing.
    Liked

  3. Christina MacPherson Says:

    Great to see an article refuting the nuclear lobby’s false claim that the nuke industry is “carbon free”.
    Adelaide University should get its act together and stop pandering to corporate power, and to South Australia’s nuclear-illiterate Liberal and labor politicians.
    May I just point out that for information, I am sure that you mean to seek out Dr Jim Green (not Breen)

  4. Brett Burnard Stokes Says:

    I found what looks like a good analysis of CFCs and Nuclear Power:

    http://alicious.com/cfcs-and-nuclear-power/

    QUOTE:
    Indeed given the US figures from Coolreferat.com and from Stuckle (of USEC) it seems that Freon released during uranium enrichment amounts to a large proportion of all Freon release in the US and thus that it is likely to contribute significantly to global warming both in the US and in other countries involved in uranium enrichment whether by gaseous diffusion, centrifugal separation or aerodynamic separation or other means requiring Freon for cooling. Freon use in uranium enrichment appears likely not to reduce for at least 10 years at which point current supplies are set to run out.
    END QUOTE

    • nuclearhistory Says:

      hmm. I’ll do a Philips on that.

      Take a closer look.

    • Christina MacPherson Says:

      Good sleuthing, Mr BBS. The Adelaide University’s nest of nuclear lobbyists is working up to its big conference in July – for a nuclear Australia.
      They have 2 themes – that (a) nuclear power is carbon/greenhouse emissions free and (b) low level radiation is not harmful, probably beneficial
      There is plenty of time now to blow their fraudulent case right out of the water. All it takes is for a few people to do this kind of sleuthing, and publcise the results in various sites on the Internet..
      The mainstream media is looking increasingly sillier, until it picks up on these realities – however unpalatable the realities might be, to Australia’s uranium industry, Liberal/Labor politicians, and nuclear lobby.

      • nuclearhistory Says:

        Ms MacPherson you do realize that the nukers deliberately exclude you from Friday arvo cheese and green cocktail sessions because of our opinions. But don’t don’t get depressed. A room full of deluded experts out of their field led by share price manipulators in training mingled with geologists who think they can ignore the imperatives of medical ethics in their statements led by foreign corps such as Bechtel and DOE might be interesting for five minutes, Cheap Wine and a 3 decade attempt at nuclear growth would make for a yucky afternoon. Xenon from Brazil’s reactors is arriving in Perth as I type. Probably krypton to, but they dont mention that.

      • Christina MacPherson Says:

        Darn!
        I was really looking forward to that cocktail session
        Anyway, if they aren’t providing caviar and the best champagne,why should I change my views?

  5. Call to Adelaide University to stop endorsing nuclear energy as “zero emissions” « Antinuclear Says:

    […] THE CHERNOBYL VEHICLE GRAVE YARD – RADIOACTIVE VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT USED IN THE DISASTER AND FOREVER OFF LIMITS. THE CARBON FOOT PRINT? NOT STATED…….: https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/is-nuclear-power-zero-emissions-and-carbon-neutral/ […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: