Yes, that's the a common talking point that is false, "Nuclear energy does not produce CO2, or almost none". But you only see that it is false if you look at complete lifecycle analysis of building the plants, running the plants, mining and transporting the uranium, transportintg the waste, dismantling the plant etc.
You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today - but in no way would it be zero.
It's my understanding that these numbers are not undisputed. Even https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290... lets enough opportunity to have that calculation be changed, though there does not seem to be any doubt that the emissions are minimal compared to fossil fuels. But that's not a point I made.
But you are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if no one produced such numbers.
Right, that's part of what I was citing. But the people vehemently opposing nuclear power plants, like me, are generally also opposing fossil fuels. So that doesn't change anything.
Maybe you do, but most people "vehemently opposing nuclear power plants" only pay some lip service to fossil fuels. I've yet to see an anti-nuclear activist declaring that Germany and Japan have nothing to be proud of, considering their carbon footprint. Granted I didn't search very hard, but every anti-nuclear opinion piece I've come across praises how "Germany and Japan showed" that it's possible to shut down nuclear power. The staggering environmental cost of fossil fuels is at best left in a footnote.
Nevertheless, Germany's per capita CO2 emission per year is 9.44 tons [1], Japan's is 9.70 tons [2] and the US's is 15.52 tons [3] in 2016. Sorry, I couldn't find a more recent source. All that despite, Germany is shutting down nuclear and it has already reduced its usage of brown coal (Braunkohle) and stone coal (Steinkohle) in the last 10 years [4]. So, please explain how the US with higher relience on nuclear is faring better?
The valid criticism from many including the green party in Germany is, the shutdown of coal plant could go faster. But it already started.
This criticism of the Energiewende is a core point of the program of the german green party, combined with the plan to end coal power as soon as possible.
This was done, the whole calculation, again and again, again and again, like this was done for solar pannels and wind turbine.
All the data is there, the IPCC even took the time to vulgarize this part because people don't seems to understand, took the highest evaluation wiht post-70s tech (12gCO2/MWh) and there is STILL people that talk about climate and don't even READ the IPCC document. I don't understand why you would talk about something this important and dont read the BASICS.
Like those climate denialist who "prove" that low atmosphere CO2 will make everything greener. WE KNOW! At least climate denialist have the excuse that this information is not easily accessible [0][1]. Everything else is written in the vulgarized papers, it a two hour-long read top, just take some time to inform yourself!
This is why nothing will never be done and we are hoping for a technological silver bullet, because people rather act like they care about climate than care about climate.
Even counting for the whole life cycle, nuclear is a very small greenhouse gas emitter. One plant lasts decades and a very small amount of ore needs to be mined, because uranium is very energy-dense.
I think your point is valid, but lacks generality. Almost nothing we do is carbon neutral. Our energy production certainly isn't.
Playing devil's advocate, PV and wind turbines also need to be built, transported, installed, disassembled, and disposed of, all of which emits greenhouse gases.
Seems to be begging the question a bit. If 100% of energy came from nuclear, then maintaining it (and all other activities) would be 0-emissions. Construction work and transportation can surely be done electrically.
True. But in the long term, beyond the course of the cement's lifespan, that carbon will eventually be re-absorbed. Strictly speaking, therefore, cement is carbon-neutral.
At any rate - it's a truly miniscule amount of carbon anyway, when amortized over the plant's lifespan. If all of our power came from nuclear, we would not be worrying about greenhouse emissions from the concrete in their construction.
You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today - but in no way would it be zero.