From the 19 most reliable assessments, Sovacool found that estimates of total lifecycle carbon emissions ranged from 1.4 grammes of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (gCO2e/kWh) of electricity produced up to 288 gCO2e/kWh. Sovacool believes the mean of 66 gCO2e/kWh to be a reasonable approximation.
The largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for 38 per cent of the average total, is the “frontend” of the fuel cycle, which includes mining and milling uranium ore, and the relatively energy-intensive conversion and enrichment process, which boosts the level of uranium-235 in the fuel to useable levels. Construction (12 per cent), operation (17 per cent largely because of backup generators using fossil fuels during downtime), fuel processing and waste disposal (14 per cent) and decommissioning (18 per cent) make up the total mean emissions.
According to Sovacool’s analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960  gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html

The fuel rods are used for 3-6 years and then they have to cooled for about 10 years in pools of water, and that water has to be pumped continuously. Then huge dry casks have to be constructed (taking more steel and concrete) and then the fuel rods have to be stored for many centuries — or many millenniums until they are safe.

This process takes far more carbon overhead than building ind turbines, or even solar photovoltaic panels. And uranium is a finite resource — we will run out of it at some point.

Nuclear power is a carbon intensive energy source, and it is a very silly way to boil water. Surely we can switch over to solar heat with molten salt storage and avoid the radiation and this stupid and short-sighted temporary energy source?

Renewable energy is in sustainable abundance. The next generation of wind turbines, PV panels, wave power systems, tidal power systems, and biomass systems can be built using energy fro today’s renewable energy.

Neil

And the supply depends on the cost. Currently uranium costs ~0.3¢/kW-h. Double or triple the price, and the supply goes up exponentially.

Nuclear power actually has a pretty big carbon footprint — about 2/3’s to 3/4’s of coal. You have to count ALL the energy required to mine uranium, transport it, refine it, process it into fuel rods, and building the plant itself, servicing and maintaining the plant, storing the spent fuel rods, building the VERY long term storage, etc. etc.

Uranium is quite limited in supply — if we used nuclear power for all our electricity, the uranium supply would run out in a decade or so.

Renewable energy is the only way we can go. And we have a sustainable abundance of renewable energy.

Neil

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/13/4177824/warm-seawater-forces-conn-nuclear.html

One of the great advantages of nuclear (>90% capacity factor) will be gone and nuclear power plants will essentially become intermittent (when heat waves occur) as we go ahead with global warming.

Either this, or significant new investment will be needed to keep those nuclear plants in operation (e.g.: extending that artificial pond or build a new pond).

Even in medium term (~10 years) it may become cheaper to develop storage and deploy renewable generation.