Thank you Janine!

I find the topics of energy, electricity, and nuclear power to be very complicated overall! Due to that, it is easy that conversations get hard to follow and lost if multiple aspects are discussed at the same time.

I hope you don't mind me focusing in on one aspect before continuing to another. I hope you find it okay that I start out by focusing on point 1 and 2.

About greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power (1 and 2)

It is my understanding that there is a scientific consensus on nuclear power to have very low emissions (low as wind or lower). But since I've seen conflicting information about this, I think its important that I clarify the sources I consider and why I've dismissed a few sources that contradicts whats said.

## Resource: IPCC 2014 - Assessment Report 5 (AR5)

UN's IPCC provided the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) at 2014. It consists of three parts from three separate working groups (WG1, WG2, WG3). The AR6 is partially released, where we are still waiting for WG2 and WG3. For now, IPCC 2014 WG3 is the latest summary from IPCC about lifecycle emissions.

On [page 539](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf) and [page 1335](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf) we find Figure 7.6 and Table A.III.2 which I include as pictures below. Each data point represent a study, so this is a study of studies.

_Reduced version of Figure 7.6 from page 539, IPCC 2014 AR5, where [the original](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/energy-systems/06_figure_7-6/) lists an additional older data set._

_Table A.III.2 from page 1335, IPCC 2014 AR5_

IPCC references other metastudies about specific ways of generating electricity here, and for the one about nuclear power, they reference [Heath and Warner 2012](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x).

Looking into Heath and Warner 2012, one can see they screened the studies to meet various criteria. These criteria for example ruled out [Jacobson 2009, also known as the Stanford study](https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf) as it wasn't a lifecycle analysis but instead and estimate of the consequences of building nuclear power (See Table 3, page 154).

_Table 3 from Jacobson 2009, also known as the Stanford study, on page 154_

While IPCC screened away Jacobson 2009 for not being an actual LCA but rather a consequence analysis with questionable assumptions, [some poleticians confused it to be an LCA](https://twitter.com/ParHolmgren/status/1126800418099560448).

I want to highlight how also Heath and Warner 2012's study itself (or IPCC 2014 about nuclear) can be misunderstood by an example. Heath and Warner 2012 is a study of other LCA studies and each contributes with an estimated lifecycle emission for nuclear power. In this situation, it is a common practice to report statistical measures such as the [median value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median), and the median value is often relied on as the best guess. Other statistical measures (mean, min/max, variation) are often also provided. In the picture below with a red line, you can see the statistical measures represented as lines and individual data points from the studies the was considered in Heath and Warner 2012 (also known as the Yale meta-analysis). The reason this picture was made was because someone [incorrectly claimed the mean value of this study was 59.5](https://twitter.com/whatisnuclear/status/1449512467076247553), while it was actually quite close (17.8) to the median value (12).

_A bar chart showing all the estimated LCA values for nuclear from Heath and Warner 2012 (aka. the Yale study) together with horisontal lines showing various statistical measures. The red line represent the mean value of the min and the max value, which is a very bad statistical representation of the dataset, used by a confirmed anti-nuclear lobbyist._

## Resource: Vattenfall 2019

IPCC 2014 / Heath and Warner 2012 included Vattenfall's previous lifecycle analysis published 2007. They one they ordered 2019 is more detailed and follows a lot of regulation with regards to how it is made to ensure its not misleading.

Vattenfall has made more than a LCA for the greenhouse gas emissions, but all kinds of environmental impact. Due to that, they refer to this as a Environmental Product Declaration (EPD). They have made reports for [nuclear](https://portal.environdec.com/api/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/edd6ae95-c679-42c1-98c7-b5818d841c5b/Data), [wind](https://portal.environdec.com/api/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/644762eb-c06e-433f-a6e8-a695e54f72fe/Data), and [hydro](https://portal.environdec.com/api/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/733208a4-7d7e-4452-5608-08d9149663be/Data) and conclude that among these, the greenhouse gas emissions are lowest for nuclear power. But, the LCA values are all minuscule compared to fossil fuels and we should not worry about these small differences in my mind.

Wind at 13, Hydro at 4.3, Nuclear at 2.5. The unit is grams of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas per kWh of electrical energy produced, or gCO2eq/kWh.

The Vattenfall EPD describes what is included in its LCA for nuclear power, and they seem to include the emissions you considered Janine. To see that, first inspect the fourth image (bar chart with low bars) which is from [a summary from Vattenfall](https://portal.environdec.com/api/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/8371d0c5-faa0-47e9-aafd-61fdd1b0dc81/Data) about their EPD.

_A breakdown of the lifecycle emissions associated with Vattenfall's nuclear power. NOTE: The construction and decomissioning is ~0.4gCO2eq/kWh during the ~50 years I think they calculate this LCA based on. I estimate about 100 000 tonnes of CO2 is to be emitted due to this. If the nuclear power plant operates for five days, this is saved assuming it offset coal..._

Now these bars doesn't clarify if transport is included, but looking at page" from [Page 19](https://portal.environdec.com/api/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/edd6ae95-c679-42c1-98c7-b5818d841c5b/Data) it becomes clear it is included under each of these bars.

_Table 4 from Vattenfall 2019 describing the phases summarized in the bar chart above_

## Resource: UNECE 2021 (The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)

The [report in its entirety](https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf) includes LCA for a lot more than greenhouse gas emissions, such as use of metals, health impact, and more. Nuclear scores well overall, but now that we focus on greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gas emission related data is presented in Figure 35 on page 45 and Figure 37 on page 49.



## Answers to raised questions with regards to the greenhouse gas emissions

> 1. if the reactor exists, are we counting the cost of CO2 emissions for digging up and transporting the uranium?

My understanding is that yes: extraction of uranium from the earth and transportation has been considered.

> 2. If the reactor does not exist, the CO2 calculations are normally very poor time, cost and emission wise compared with wind, solar or wave.

My understanding from IPCC 2014, Vattenfall 2019, and UNECE 2021, is that nuclear power's lifecycle emissions - including emissions from its full lifecycle - is performing equally good if not slightly better than solar/wind/hydro. My understanding is that the statement with regards to emissions of greenhouse gases isn't correct.

## Conclusion

Nuclear powers lifecycle emissions, including everything, even the construction and operation of a final repository for spent nuclear fuel, are minuscule just like solar/wind/hydro/geothermal compared to when we are burning carbon as we do for gas/coal/oil/biomass.

Doubt about the science is far easier to spread than listening to the science, but I hope I've made the science about the emissions of greenhouse gases accessible enough to dismiss doubt about nuclear power having anything but low lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases.

If you come this far, thank you for your time to read this @janine! Having spoken with you personally before I invested a lot more time than I do with my responses, but it also means its more effort for you to read and consider my response. I hope you understand why I wanted to not discuss also additional points directly, but focus on one topic to start with.

Please let me know if or if not this response was helpful, I invested about three hours writing it.