Comments on: Nuclear’s CO2 Cost “Will Climb” http://priceofoil.org/2008/05/01/nuclears-co2-cost-%e2%80%9cwill-climb%e2%80%9d/ Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political barriers to that transition. Thu, 22 May 2008 19:48:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Red Craug http://priceofoil.org/2008/05/01/nuclears-co2-cost-%e2%80%9cwill-climb%e2%80%9d/#comment-342987 Red Craug Thu, 01 May 2008 17:41:37 +0000 http://priceofoil.org/?p=2677#comment-342987 This is the kind of problem that arises from using secondary or even tertiary sources. If you read Dr. Mudd's report, what you'd see is that it shows uranium supplies and ore quality are holding even. You'd also see that the report is a summary of recent history, not a prediction of the future. As such, it takes no account of advanced fuel cycles. Here's what Dr. Mudd actually says: "In summary, the extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology, and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and broader social issues. These crucial environmental aspects of resource extraction are only just beginning to be understood in the context of more complete life cycle analyses of the nuclear chain and other energy options. There still remains incomplete reporting however, especially in terms of data consistency among mines and site-specific data for numerous individual mines and mills, as well as the underlying factors controlling differences and variability. It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of energy and water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term. These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium mining and milling." This is the kind of problem that arises from using secondary or even tertiary sources. If you read Dr. Mudd’s report, what you’d see is that it shows uranium supplies and ore quality are holding even. You’d also see that the report is a summary of recent history, not a prediction of the future. As such, it takes no account of advanced fuel cycles.

Here’s what Dr. Mudd actually says:

“In summary, the extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology, and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and broader social issues. These crucial environmental aspects of resource extraction are only just beginning to be understood in the context of more complete life cycle analyses of the nuclear chain and other energy options. There still remains incomplete reporting however, especially in terms of data consistency among mines and site-specific data for numerous individual mines and mills, as well as the underlying factors controlling differences and variability. It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of energy and water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term. These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium mining and milling.”

]]>