Parametrization for Life Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Power.

[NNadir]

I will briefly comment on a paper on the environmental impact of nuclear energy, which is all that is necessary, since it is open for anyone to read. The paper is this one: Parametric Life Cycle Assessment of Nuclear Power for Simplified Models, Thomas Gibon and Álvaro Hahn Menacho Environmental Science & Technology 2023 57 (38), 14194-14205.

I will preface my remarks by noting, as I always do, that nuclear power need not be risk free to be vastly superior to everything else; it only needs to be better than everything else.

I'll briefly excerpt some remarks from the conclusion; the reader is free to access the full article to obtain context:

Reported life cycle impact scores for nuclear power vary widely, especially regarding GHG emissions, with an overall range of 1.8–220 g CO2 equiv/kWh. The present parametric model shows a possible variation of 5.4–122 g CO2 equiv/kWh, therefore not covering the full range found from the literature survey but relatively close to the IPCC range of 3.7–110 g CO2 equiv/kWh. The global sensitivity analysis identifies enrichment method, the share of in situ leaching in the uranium extraction mix, as well as uranium ore grade as the three main parameters influencing the overall LCIA scores. Considering these results and the characteristics of the global uranium chain as of 2020 (more extraction via ISL, no more gaseous diffusion, relatively cleaner background electricity mix), it is highly unlikely that nuclear power display more than 20 g CO2 equiv/kWh, except for cases where uranium would be sourced from sub-100 ppm ore, which represents a small share of the global tonnage (see Figure 2 in the SI). When ionizing radiation is considered, radon-222 emissions and radiation integration time are highly significant (see note in the SI).

I added the bold.

I have argued, and can argue any time, that given the valuable components of used nuclear fuel it is possible, and sometimes, albeit too rarely, to do away with both uranium enrichment and uranium mining by putting neptunium, plutonium, and americium sources to use, and perhaps, recovering the dumped thorium from lanthanide mining carried out to benefit the useless wind industry.

The authors of this paper, in discussing the limitations of their work refer, somewhat obliquely, to this fact:

Future research should focus on detailing further the relationships between parameters, which can be done by collecting more data, especially at the uranium extraction phase. More parameters could clearly be added, such as water use (which could depend on the location of a power plant and the cooling source, either river or sea), electricity mix (which is here fixed to the specific global average for extraction, enrichment, and fuel fabrication), or land use of each life cycle phase, which has become the object of recent meta-analyses highlighting variations. (76,77) Other considerations should also be accounted for, as electricity generation technology and uranium supply chain evolve. As new reactor designs, such as small modular reactors, (78,79) become commercially available, the range of installed capacity will widen (e.g., 100–1600 MW) and become an interesting parameter to analyze. Similarly, the use of reprocessed spent fuel for new rod fabrication is already a mature solution; (80) a recycling rate parameter could be integrated in the present model. Last, immaterial inputs (financing, insurance···) have not been accounted for; inventories could be completed with input–output data.

Again, I added the bold.

The point is, since the carbon cost of nuclear power is mostly tied to the existing electric grid utilized in enrichment, we can reduce this cost to near zero by eliminating or minimizing the use of enrichment at all, and in fact eliminate mining (or obtain uranium by remediating ground water which naturally contains the element, as I may discuss in a future post).

Recently I attended a public discussion with the author, Ryo Morimoto, a Princeton University Anthropologist, of Nuclear Ghost Atomic Livelihoods in Fukushima's Gray Zone, who spent time among the inhabitants of the area surrounding the area destroyed by the Sendai Earthquake in 2011, which also destroyed three nuclear reactors and asked him whether radiation was the only thing that mattered in the event. Afterall, around 20,000 people died from seawater, and it's not clear that there will be a profound (or any) death toll from radiation. He thanked me for my question and in a measured response (he's a very soft spoken man) remarked, as is well known, that the fear of radiation which translated into evacuation, killed more people than radiation did or will.

Today, 19,000 people will die from air pollution, slightly less than the people killed, pretty much instantly, by seawater in the Sendai Earthquake in 2011. Despite the popularity of carrying on about Fukushima endlessly. To my mind, the deaths of those 19,000 today, and the equivalent deaths yesterday, and the day before that, and every day of the last month, the last year, amounting to roughly around 80 million deaths since the Sendai from air pollution, a death toll that will continue every single day until we do something other than caterwaul, chant, and engage in denial, including denial that consists of celebrating fossil fuel dependent things that don't work (i.e. solar and wind) to address climate change.

The question I really wanted to ask Dr. Morimoto is "Why are we always talking about the bogeyman Fukushima?" and not the people killed by antinuke fetishes, but I realized that his research is about social anthropology, and interesting even if it should be esoteric, and I demurred. I was especially appreciative when he used, without any prompting from anyone in the audience, myself included, the words "selective attention."

Anyway E&E, which has devolved into Ennui and Excuses, aside, we all do need to open our eyes to comparison as opposed to selective attention absolutes.

Have a pleasant Friday.

[sprinkleeninow]

1. Yes...I know. Yer that nukular energy proponent.

🤭

You are exceptionally learned.

Peace, safety and good health be unto you.