My uncles used to work for the railroad, and the railroad they worked for carried huge amounts of coal to power a uranium enrichment plant. In fact, enriching uranium to the point that it can be used to generate electricity requires an enormous input of electricity, usually generated by hydroelectric or coal-fired generators.
Here's an example of a life-cycle analysis that talks about the life-cycle energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of nuclear power. http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publicat ... Report.pdf
Remember that the Manhattan Project, which led to the creation of the first atomic bombs, was at one point consuming about a sixth of US electricity output, mainly for uranium enrichment. That electricity supply came from the hydroelectric generators built by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Columbia Basin Project (i.e., by the federal government). The federal government also set up the Rural Electric Administration, which established rural electric cooperatives and encouraged private utilities to help electrify the countryside. So the federal government has played a useful role in developing the nation's energy infrastructure.
That you parrot the ancient and scientifically dead distortions put forth as talking points of those against nuclear power for decades shows how little you understand the modern fuel cycle, not to mention reprocessing as it is done in France.
If you believe producing the nuclear fuel uses HUGE amount of coal burning you are simply FUELISH....to the extreme.
Did it ever occur to you that the French, Japanese, and now Italians are not idiots? That they would not produce nuclear power if it used all the mountains of coal you suggest.
Are you really that gullible that you simply suck up such distortions.
Do you even know the difference between the old diffusion process and the modern centrifuge process of producing fuel.
For instance, to produce one kilogram of uranium enriched to 3% U-235 requires 3.8 SWU if the plant is operated at a tails assay 0.25%, or 5.0 SWU if the tails assay is 0.15% (thereby requiring only 5.1 kg instead of 6.0 kg of natural U feed).
About 100-120,000 SWU is required to enrich the annual fuel loading for a typical 1000 MWe light water reactor. Enrichment costs are substantially related to electrical energy used. The gaseous diffusion process consumes about 2500 kWh (9000 MJ) per SWU, while modern gas centrifuge plants require only about 50 kWh (180 MJ) per SWU.
Enrichment accounts for almost half of the cost of nuclear fuel and about 5% of the total cost of the electricity generated. It can also account for the main greenhouse gas impact from the nuclear fuel cycle if the electricity used for enrichment is generated from coal. However, it still only amounts to 0.1% of the carbon dioxide from equivalent coal-fired electricity generation if modern gas centrifuge plants are used, or up to 3% in a worst case situation.
The trend in enrichment technology is to retire obsolete diffusion plants:
Currently, only about 25% of nuclear fuel is made with the diffusion process. By 2017, that percent will be ZERO....
NOW.........did you read that? ONE TENTH of ONE PERCENT of the carbon dioxide as from coal.....
Even if you allow for some disagreement in the above data, it is far far to the side of the extremely low figures above. Meaning in the entire fuel cycle including mining, tranportation, enrichment, etc.... you still do not come close to 10% of the carbon output you find in coal, gas, or oil power production. The distortion myths are used to fool the well meaning but misinformed public minded enviromental community. They have been misled in the entire process........from mining, to processing to reprocessing to storage, and danger. They are using the ancient technology scares from Chernobyl to stop the use of nuclear power today.
At the same time, they scream about the dangers of global warming but are frozen to offer any viable solutions for the production of massive amounts of 24/7 power.
France sells its excess nuclear power to ultra Greenie Germany. How crazy is that ruse?
You have either accepted distortions or know them to be false and pass them on anyway.
How long do you think you can continue to distort the truth about this HUGE output of carbon in the production of nuclear fuel.
No rational scientist believes such drivel.
You may have other reasons, but stop distorting the truth about this all important aspect of global warming.
You foist the distortions upon the public while hidden from them is the fact that all over the world, dirty filthy coal plants are being built rapidly.
In China alone, more than 1 full sized coal burning power plant is being built each and every week.
Do you realize what that new carbon out put does relative to all your tiny projects you propose as an alternative. It buries them and the myth that other alternatives have even a prayer of slowing the acceleration in carbon output.
Not just the growth of greenhouse gases........which would be bad enough, but the "acceleration" in the production of such. More and more, faster and faster.......not some Polly Anna dreams about "reducing" greenhouse gases.
Now, please do come back and tell me how nuclear power is really putting out as much or close to as much CO2 as coal, natural gas, oil etc....
Or show me where any nation has made a sizeable dent in their 24/7 power needs with solar or wind power. Solar and wind are fine as a small addition to regular and reliable 24/7 power. Their scale is tiny and the power produced is expensive.
This is why nations such as Italy are finally giving into reality.
You are limited in your choices. Electric power consumption is growing every year at a rapid pace. That is reality. You cannot meet the needs over the next 15 to 30 years with solar or wind power. There are only a few hydro sites available. Reality suggests you are either going to produce a HUGE increase in CO2 production or you are going to have to incorporate nuclear power if you want large sources of power 24/7
Or do you want to run your refrigerator only when the sun shines and the wind blows?
GREENIE Northern California produces 22% of its electric power from one nuclear installation. Would you propose shutting down this "dangerous" plant?.......and replace it with what? Give me a alternative to produce 20% of our 24/7 needs?