Michael Krancer reports that if we want to arrest climate change, all we need are more renewables like wind and solar, right. Not exactly, according to a newly published Canadian report on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions - GHG. In fact, the report, which is based on 246 studies covering various power generation scenarios and constraints, concluded that nuclear power beats wind and natural gas on an -apples-to-apples- basis for battling climate change.
Full disclosure - The report, from Hatch Ltd., a Toronto-based consultant, was commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association. It compares lifecycle GHG emissions from nuclear power, natural gas-fired power, and wind power, all the way from fuel extraction through to plant construction, operation, and decommissioning. How is it possible that nukes have a smaller carbon footprint than the wind-natural gas duet ....Well, wind power is intermittent and needs back-up from natural gas-fired electricity. Nuclear is a 24-7-365 power generation with zero carbon emissions. This is no back-of-the-envelope calculation. The methodology used by Hatch was in conformance with ISO 14040, the international standard governing life-cycle assessments. You can read more about the methodology on pages 2 and 3 of the report.
Below is some meat from the report itself .......
On average, emissions from wind and nuclear are similar within the accuracy of the study for all emissions except GHG emissions, where wind produces distinctly less GHG emissions on average than the combination of nuclear technologies considered.
No surprise there. But let us dig a little deeper. Nobody disputes that wind is an intermittent power source. Hatch says that in a typical wind-natural gas hybrid, wind makes up 20 per cent of the generation mix, with natural gas shouldering the other 80 per cent.
Resource Portal for I2M Clients, Associates, and Geoscientists
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-