Re: [greenyes] GHG from Nuclear power and hydropower

[muna@no.address]

On 6 Mar 2003 at 15:31, Jeffrey Morris wrote:

> Thanks to Muna for pointing out my careless wording in that quick
> response on the Swedish study that purports to show it's better to
> burn than recycle. 

Dear Jeff...
You were not careless - not at all....

I should have said that the EPA models assume zero
> greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for hydropower and very low figures of
> .0166 pounds non-biomass CO2 and .0000367 pounds methane per kwh
> electricity for nuclear on the national grid; and .00943 pounds
> non-biomass CO2 and .000028 pounds methane for nuclear on the Western
> Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC)grid (includes Washington state). 

(and for some, this is too much *grin*)

> (The differences between national grid and WSCC grid are likely due in
> part to greater shipping distances for uranium for reactors in the
> east versus the west.  At least that's my guess.)

would this also apply to transport of fuel and other waste?
 
> Muna wisely notes that the more inclusive the processes, types of
> pollutants and types of ecological and human health impacts included
> in a life cycle analysis the greater the advantage that likely will be
> shown for waste reduction and recycling versus disposal.

It seems that a key to changing mindsets is to include financial motivation (although I 
am of the belief that people and all other life have a right to exist, and nto to have tio 
justify themselves in narrow, financial terms...) - with this in mind, we have been 
using that approach in campaigns and struggles here in SA; and (surprise, surprise) 
all cases that I have seen, show that the sustainable alternative is actually "cheaper"

> 
> John Reindl also notes the assumptions in a previous study that might
> also be in the new Swedish study: i.e., some sort of fairly outrageous
> assumptions about time and materials used by a household sorting
> recyclables and organics from garbage (to which I would counter why
> not look at it in reverse as the time spent sorting garbage from the
> good stuff?)  and then delivering them to drop off sites in dedicated
> trips of a car, SUV or pickup truck.  Another good example of not
> being able to judge what the results of a study really mean until we
> actually know the assumptions, data, and modeling structures used in
> the study.

perfectly true - and to those who make these assumptions - don't! The bias is 
obvious, yes? What about those of us who do not live in over-developed countries? 
there are people willing to collect recyclables at your door.... and that is almost always 
done using trolleys, so zero emissions, door to door service, and efficient removal of 
material - wonder how that compares with the presumed Swedish model...

for some reason, this discussion brings to mind the issue of how we calculate, and 
use, GDP as an economic indicator..... equally bizarre!

kind regards
Muna