Nuclear and carbon: what releases in CO2 / kWh? Figures PWC, EdF, ADEME, Stanford ...

[izentrop]

I prefer recent information

The balance sheet of the EDF nuclear industry is 4 g eq.CO2 / kWh, of which the ¾ related to the upstream fuel cycle. In itself, nuclear power generation does not emit CO2 https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/producteu ... -sub-2-sub

In France CO2 emissions per inhabitant were 7,14 and CO2 per year, which placed France in ninth place among the lowest emitting countries of CO2 thanks in particular to its nuclear sector. https://www.planetoscope.com/co2/821-em ... rance.html

Edit moderation: topic divided since energies-fossil-nuclear / fessenheim-the-central-nuclear-a-30-year-t5027.html

[Christophe]

4 gr / kWh ahhahaha she is good !! The notion of judge and party does that speak to you?

I bet the CO2 depreciation of the construction of the plants already exceeds this value ... and I'm not talking about dismantling!

There are really hucksters in the press or public relations department at EdF ... but at 200 000 € a year, I could also tell such enormities without being ashamed!

But what sadness !!

So recent and fake you mean?

[Gébé]

I bet the CO2 depreciation of the construction of the plants already exceeds this value ...

400 TWh / year × 30 years = 48 million Tons of CO2
emitted by the nuclear industry according to figures EDF (4g / KWh), the equivalent of nearly 200 million m3 concrete. Very approximately and if I did not make a miscalculation ....
http://www.construction-carbone.fr/lebe ... rtcarbone/

[Christophe]

It is not only the concrete in the construction of a power station ... and the treatment of the fuel (amon / downstream) how is it done?

In short 4 gr / kWh is a joke ... why we talked about 60 gr / kWh a few years ago in France?

All this is crazy about shuffling to avoid paying CO2 quotas ...

Areva and EdF are already bankrupt enough like that! It's sad, but sad ...

[izentrop]

why were we talking about 60 gr / kWh a few years ago all over France?

On what basis of calculation?

A reactor producing 7 Twh / year is considered. The amount of natural uranium needed to produce these 7 TWh is approximately 200 tonnes. By taking a uranium concentration of 0,1% (this concentration corresponds to a lower limit for open pit mining) we see that we have to extract 200.000 tonnes of ore.

The amount of energy required for this operation can be estimated from that observed for the exploitation of open-cast coal mines. In this case it was calculated that the extraction energy was 0,045 toe / ton. For 200.000 tonnes of ore, you must consume 9000 tep. At such energy corresponds a CO2 emission of about 30.000 tons. Reporting this quantity to the electricity production by the nuclear reactor, an emission of about 4 g / CO2 / kWh is obtained. Of course this value is sensitive to the richness of deposits and extraction techniques. It can be considered under current conditions as a maximum value.

Enrichment of uranium

In the case of gas diffusion enrichment, the Eurodif plant consumes the electricity produced by two nuclear power plants, ie 3,5% of that produced by the French fleet. If this electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants, a contribution of 30 gCO2 / kWh can be achieved. If electricity is supplied by a nuclear power station, the corresponding emissions are negligible. This is even more true if the enrichment technique is gaseous centrifugation, the formula for the future.

Reactor construction

It takes about 500.000 m3 concrete for EPR protections. The production of CO2 by m3 of concrete being of the order of 60kg / m3, there is production of 30.000 tons of CO2. In addition, the amount of steel required is about 330.000 tons. The manufacture of steel results in the emission of 1,5 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel. It can be seen that the construction of the EPR will result in the emission of 530.000 tons of CO2.

The EPR will produce annually 12 billion kWh for 60 years, ie 720 billion kWh. We then obtain an emission of 0,7 g of CO2 per kWh http://energie.lexpansion.com/energie-n ... -5396.html

If we consider that only nuclear power plants contribute to the enrichment of the uranium they use, the calculation of emissions from the global nuclear fleet becomes: (2 + 1) 1,1 = 3,3 gCO2 / kWh https://www.energie-crise.fr/Benjamin-S ... de-moyenne

[Christophe]

for which basis of calculation?

The DUNOD editions, I do not think that these are biased information such as that issued by EdF's press service: https://www.econologie.com/europe-emiss ... lectrique/

Sorry it was 90 gr / kWh not 60 gr / kWh ... ok ca date a little but I do not see any technological revolution that could have made a radical change in these figures ...

94% of "decarbonized kWh" in France according to: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lec ... _en_Europe

But it's not just CO2 in life !! There is also radium, polonium, iodine ...

ps: the author of the "method" Herve Nifenecker seems to be a pro nuclear lobbyist ex CEA https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauvons_le_climat
This can already be seen in the title "Nuclear emits less CO2 than solar and wind" ...

I'm not rigged enough in nuclear physics to verify its calculations (but we could do a research), but I read that it was the order of a nuclear reactor 24 / 24 to enrich all the fuel French...

[Christophe]

All is not surrendered ... the real debate on the nuclear shutdown is this one: is it "worth it" to take the nuclear risk for a financial cost, in fine, similar ...

http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/ ... 92971.html

Study casts doubt on financial opportunity for nuclear extension

The Vif 01 / 02 / 18 to 07: 58 - Updated to 07: 57

A new study carried out by the Energyville research center questions the financial advisability of further extending the two nuclear power stations, "Le Soir" and "De Standaard" reported on Thursday.

The study is actually an update of a report made last year at the request of Febeliec, the federation of large electricity consumers. Greenpeace asked the research center that associates KULeuven and UHasselt to change two initial parameters: the price of gas, lower than expected, and the availability of nuclear reactors.

If, as expected, the nuclear power plant closes in 2025, the annual cost of the Belgian electricity system will be 5,415 billion euros in 2030, which is three times more than the current cost. If the two most recent reactors are extended to 2035, the cost will fall to 5,130 billion euros. On the other hand in 2040, the two scenarios are worth to two million, ie 7,19 billions of euros.

"An extension of nuclear power therefore only postpones the necessary investments in replacement capacities," said Jan Vande Putte, energy expert at Greenpeace.

[sen-no-sen]

the real debate about nuclear shutdown is this: is it "worth it" to take the nuclear risk for a financial cost, in fine, similar ...

Except that high debate is rather: is it worth it to spend 10 times more for renewable for similar production.

[Bardal]

60 g / kWh (others say 80g / kWh), this is what, on average, a French kWh produced, taking into account the coal, oil and gas power stations running for around 10% of annual production. Today, it is a little less, coal and oil having almost disappeared in favor of gas, a little less emitting. This is therefore not the production of CO2 from nuclear power, but that of all French means of electricity production. It should be noted that the construction of fossil fuel power plants also includes embodied energy, roughly equal to that of nuclear power plants, but whose "amortization" is negligible compared to the emissions of the fuel used.

It should also be noted that the breeder sectors, which value 100% of uranium or thorium extracted from the soil, and which do not need to be enriched, will reduce by 100 factor upstream GHG emissions. from the plant. Better still, they will burn the existing (very important) stock of available U238, already counted for CO2, and transuranic nuclear waste (the most toxic). Which means that we will get closer to the 0 shows ...

Currently, one nuclear kWh emits approximately between 3 and 4 grams of CO2 ...

[Christophe]

Except that high debate is rather: is it worth it to spend 10 times more for renewable for similar production.

Didn't the "kommandantur" ask itself these kinds of questions?

The Germans spend without counting: it is well known that they are much more generous than the French misers ...