
Rolls-Royce Touts Nuclear Reactors as Key to Clean Jet Fuel - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/rolls-royce-pitches-nuclear-reactors-as-key-to-clean-jet-fuel
======
nradov
In the long run this will also be the future of merchant shipping. We can't
generally install nuclear reactors in civilian vessels due to high costs and
security concerns. But we can use nuclear power on shore to produce carbon
neutral synthetic fuel, then run ships on that.

~~~
trenchgun
It would in the long run be a lot better solution to run container ships with
nuclear reactors directly though.

But probably not going to happen because of public opinion.

~~~
kylehotchkiss
There's some issues with pirates in many parts of the world though (source:
Captain Phillips movie). It's just not practical to really secure container
ships from every feasible sea and air attack surface, unless there was a big
red button that just drops the reactor into the depths of the ocean.

~~~
DuskStar
And even without pirates, merchant vessels have incidents with disturbing
frequency. A lot of these incidents never have a cause firmly attached to
them, because the crew's all dead, the ship is somewhere in a 10,000 square
kilometer stretch of ocean, and that ocean is 1km+ deep. Not that the wreck
being known and (relatively) shallow is a panacea either, as the variety [0]
of hypotheses concerning the cause of the Edmund Fitzgerald wreck should
demonstrate.

I trust the US Navy to operate reactors at sea - they've done a damn good job
of it over the years, with no losses since 1968. And even those losses (USS
Thresher, SSN-593 [1] and USS Scorpion, SSN-589 [2]) haven't caused radiation
leaks. Merchant shippers? Yeahhhhh.... No.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#Hypothese...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#Hypotheses_on_the_cause_of_sinking)

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_\(SSN-593\))

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_\(SSN-589\))

~~~
sterlind
Maybe you could get the US Navy to crew a few container mega-ships in the
national interest of international commerce? Reducing climate change and
political concern over the carbon involved is arguably a better use of the
Navy's time than fleet exercises, and it wouldn't take that many people.

~~~
simonh
There are over 9,000 fully cellular container ships operational right now, and
container ships are only 13% of global merchant shipping capacity. The roughly
70 ~20k TEU megaships all together are only 10% of total container ship
capacity. A few megaships is insignificant in overall economic terms.

~~~
jiofih
What is the other 87%? How is that possible if 90% of goods are transported by
sea?

~~~
maxerickson
The majority of goods are on bulk carriers and tankers. Grain, coal, oil, etc.

~~~
jiofih
The parent said “container ships are only 13% of global merchant shipping
capacity”. I’m wondering how else goods are being transported...

~~~
maxerickson
Indeed, bulk carriers and tankers are ships that aren't container ships.

------
erentz
It seems to be around the wrong way. We need the nuclear reactors providing
constant reliable power day and night to the grid, whereas variable renewables
such as solar are better for creating synthetic fuels since to be viable on a
large scale they need to be combined with a form of storage anyway, which is
what the synthetic fuels would be.

~~~
Aloha
Clean energy seems wildly impractical for airplanes. There is no battery tech
approaching kerosene for power density, and unlike fuel, the battery doesn't
get lighter as it's used up.

~~~
loeg
The article suggests compressed hydrogen. Although that has obvious problems
(at some point there is probably a tradeoff between increased density and the
weight of the storage tank required to safely hold that density, which
directly related to energy density) and probably more subtle problems, it
would be clean-burning.

Edit: Random wikipedia page[1] gives energy density of "jet fuel" as 35 MJ/L
and liquid (i.e., about as compressed as you're going to get) hydrogen as ...
8.5 MJ/L. Yeah, that's not even close, nevermind. LNG gets you to 22 MJ/L,
which is still 2/3 of the density and requires storage at -160°C, which costs
more energy, etc, and isn't clean-burning (but maybe slightly better than
kerosene).

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density)

~~~
jemfinch
But a liter of compressed hydrogen weighs 38 grams, while a liter of kerosene
weighs 810 grams. So the energy density by _gram_ , rather than liter, is in
favor of compressed hydrogen by a factor of more than 5x.

I don't know what the tradeoff is between volume and weight in aviation, but
it's worth noting that we can measure density by both volume and weight, and
by weight compressed hydrogen defeats kerosene.

~~~
evgen
If you are going to compare hydrogen and kerosene by weight you need to
include the weight of the containment vessel. For kerosene that is a thin
piece of aluminum. For hydrogen it is...not.

------
wahern
If they were serious about this I would think they make an effort to start
building such a project in a country where the chance of regulatory approval
is better than a snowball's chance in hell. Like maybe somewhere in the Middle
East, near several mega airport hubs, existing shipping routes for fossil fuel
shipments (e.g. natural gas), and a political environment eager to establish
an industry on the upswing that complements existing competitive
advantages.[1]

[1] I know the Middle East isn't very strong in the high-end, value-add part
of the energy supply chain--refining, etc. But this would be a perfect way to
rectify that.

~~~
godelski
Middle east doesn't work, there is a connection to nuclear weapons. I honestly
can't think of a country that fits your criteria. China? Maybe? But that's
iffy and comes with other issues. NK? But working with NK or any country that
is going to violate nuclear arms treaties ( _cough_ Middle East _cough_ )
you're going to have a hard time doing business with the first world. Which
means that if you're a business trying to do this that you have to be
completely funded by said country that will violate those treaties because you
are giving up your other revenue streams. I don't imagine Rolls-Royce wants to
give up their current revenue streams and work with dictators for this high
risk endeavor.

~~~
buzzkillington
Singapore probably. They already have a hugely cancerous, in the traditional
sense, chemical industry within a stones throw away from major population
zones. Throwing some nuclear into the mix will be a step up in terms of
environmental damage.

~~~
tim333
The 'hugely cancerous' industry doesn't seem to be cancering it up very hugely
given this recent headline:

"Singaporeans have world's longest life expectancy at 84.8 years"

~~~
buzzkillington
Yes, they are smart enough to have the Malays and Indians working with the
truly heinous chemicals. Maybe Mainlanders now - haven't been there since the
00s. So much better on your statistics when the people dying do it back home,
after you have worked them 8/9ths to the grave.

~~~
gdy
So the 'environmental damage' you were talking about affects people
selectively based on their citizenship?

------
rsynnott
Rolls Royce, maker of nuclear reactors and jet engines, apparently wants to
offer a package deal.

~~~
acidburnNSA
Did you know that the US Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission spent $1B
1950s dollars on nuclear-powered airplanes before we perfected
intercontinental ballistic missiles? It's true! In fact, the much loved Molten
Salt nuclear reactor design is a direct descendant of this program.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion)

~~~
missosoup
Now that drones are set to completely dominate the arena and shielding is no
longer a concern, nuclear propulsion is going to come back.

Russia is already doing it with the Skyfall missile.

Having a weapon or an attack craft with practically unlimited range and
endurance is too tempting a capability to not develop.

I'm sure Lockheed and co are dreaming up large nuclear powered flying carriers
which deliver swarms of smaller drones and standoff missiles anywhere on earth
in a few hours.

~~~
jabl
What additional useful capability does this provide? ICBM's already provide
global nuclear strike capability.

FWIW the US also had a mad doomsday nuclear powered cruise missile project
(project Pluto).

~~~
missosoup
It's the dream. A flying carrier delivers conventional air superiority
anywhere on the planet in hours at a fraction of the cost and risk associated
with naval carriers. ICBMs are a ww3 doomsday weapon and belong to a
completely different class.

The ideal air superiority fight for USA would be to get a bunch of large long-
range cargo planes carrying pallet launched missiles and drones and dump it
all at standoff range. The only thing holding that strategy back is the cost
and logistics of keeping those planes fuelled in the air.

~~~
pastage
Keeping those planes maintained and serviced is going to cost abit too.

------
yk
> Electricity costs [for small modular reactors] would be 30% lower than for a
> large nuclear facility, matching wind power, with the modular approach
> allowing parts to be made on a factory production line.

I wonder why they don't use wind power in that case.

~~~
zbobet2012
Base load generation.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load)

Or put another way the wind doesn't always blow at the same rate.

~~~
Krasnol
[https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374](https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374)

Summary

Arguments that renewable energy isn't up to the task because "the Sun doesn't
shine at night and the wind doesn't blow all the time" are overly simplistic.

There are a number of renewable energy technologies which can supply baseload
power. The intermittency of other sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic
can be addressed by interconnecting power plants which are widely
geographically distributed, and by coupling them with peak-load plants such as
gas turbines fueled by biofuels or natural gas which can quickly be switched
on to fill in gaps of low wind or solar production. Numerous regional and
global case studies – some incorporating modeling to demonstrate their
feasibility – have provided plausible plans to meet 100% of energy demand with
renewable sources.

~~~
j-pb
Why the hell is this well argued and reference providing comment down voted?!

~~~
08-15
"The intermittency... can be addressed by... natural gas"

That is indeed a great way to argue that renewables can do it all. Cynical
individuals would even conclude that they just use renewables as a convenient
talking point to shill for fossil methane.

~~~
imtringued
I don't understand this argument. Renewable energy and fossil fuel usage can
be summarized in a single number: percentage of energy produced by renewables.
As long as that number goes up everything is fine. Switching to natural gas
allows that number to go up even faster. So why does it matter what label is
attached to the fossil fuel part of the number?

What a lot of people seem to forget is that the CO2 level doesn't care about
the time of the day the CO2 is emitted or whether you use 80% fossil fuels on
one particular day and then 30% on every other day. Intermittency doesn't
prevent renewables from reducing CO2 emissions, unless of course people ban
the transition technology called natural gas. Then it doesn't even make sense
to close the coal plants and we will have neither renewables nor will we stop
using fossil fuels and the fossil fuels that are still in use, will be the
dirtiest kind because coal emits more CO2 emissions per kWh than natural gas.

Once you realize the crucial difference between a peaker plant and a
"baseload" plant you will start to realize that it's the baseload plants that
are holding everything back. Peaker plants have low capital costs. They can be
built in a short time frame. Unlike a baseload plant they do not have to run
continuously to recoup their initial investment even if that means that
renewables will have to be shut off (alternatively you shut off the coal
plants but remember you still have to pay for them even if they produce
nothing). The key aspect is that natural gas is more expensive, to the point
that it never makes sense to deploy natural gas when renewables are available.

------
credit_guy
As many nuclear skeptics are keen to point out, the main counterargument to
nuclear is construction costs. In the tens of billions. As Elon Musk has
demonstrated though, there is nothing set in stone when it comes to
manufacturing costs, the lower bound is only the cost of raw materials. If
manufacturing costs go to zero, a new nuclear power plant could cost of the
order of $10 MM rather than $20 BN. Elon has shown us that you can reduce
manufacturing costs of rockets by a factor of 10 to 100 in a mater of one to
two decades, if you put your mind to it.

Small nuclear reactors are the only chance of the nuclear industry to reduce
manufacturing costs, but once they get rolling, there is no reason to believe
they can't reduce their costs by a factor of 10 at least. For example, this
article mentions a cost of $2.4BN per small reactor. A comparable US Navy
small reactor (used for submarines) costs around $100 MM [1]. For some reason
the US Navy doesn't appear inclined to share its know-how with the civilians,
but that should give us an idea of what's possible.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-the-
rea...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-the-reactor-in-a-
nuclear-submarine-aircraft-carrier-or-ice-cutter)

~~~
baybal2
> Elon has shown us that you can reduce manufacturing costs of rockets by a
> factor of 10 to 100 in a mater of one to two decades, if you put your mind
> to it.

Well, it's better to say that he reduced the _price_ of the launch, not the
cost.

~~~
pugworthy
> Well, it's better to say that he reduced the price of the launch, not the
> cost.

He improved the ROI by enabling reuse

------
nickik
Nuclear was the future of merchant shipping, rocketry, electricity production,
liquid chemical fuel production and lots of other things since the 60s.

That humanity has not moved into a nuclear age is nothing but utter and
sytstematic failure of human society and institutions.

------
newnewpdro
This is not a solution. CO2 emissions in the upper atmosphere are problematic
regardless of how you make the fuel. We need a different propulsion system for
aviation, period.

The generally accepted "impact" multiplier for aviation emissions is 2.6, so
let's say the fuel was "carbon neutral" \- wouldn't it then be 1.6? Not 0.

Edit:

Unless we're talking about straight hydrogen-fueled engines, is that where
this article is aimed? Biofuels and Synfuels are still carbon-based AIUI, but
TFA is a bit ambiguous here.

------
dredmorbius
In the event anyone thinks that the notion of synfuel generation from nuclear
power is new ... it's not.

M. King Hubbert, who first conceived of (and successfully predicted US) peak
oil suggested this ... in 1962:

"Energy Resources: A Report to the Committe on Natural Resources"

On p. 139:

<quote>

Synthesis of Chemical Fuels. Automotive vehicles for both highway and air
transportation are dependent for their energy supply upon the energy stored
chemically in the form principally of liquid fuels, and, so far as can now be
seen, will continue to be so. Heretofore these fuels have been obtained almost
solely from the fossil fuels in which the energy was originally stored by
photosynthesis. On the other hand, it has long been known to be possible to
manufacture simpler but equally useful fuels by means of the schematic
chemical reaction:

Energy + CO2 + H20 -> Fuel + O2

This has not been done because the energy required for the reaction would have
to be obtained by burning already synthesized fossil fuels.

[NB: It has been done, but generally in converting solid fossil fuels to
liquid, e.g., Germany's coal-to-liquids program during WWII.]

With the advent of nuclear energy this situation is drastically changed. Here,
with an almost unlimited supply of energy potentially available, it would be a
a comparatively simple matter to synthesize any desireable quantity of liquid
and gaseous fuels from common inorganic substances such as water and
limestone. Were this eventually to be done, our remaining fossil fuels,
comprising already synthesized complex organic molecules, could be more
effectively used as the raw material for an increasingly versatile chemical
industry.

</quote>

[http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/EnergyResources.pdf](http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/EnergyResources.pdf)

There was a small bit of stir a few years ago when the US Naval Research Lab
published research on the concept, also looking to use nuclear power, largely
for _in situ_ fuel provisioning for carrier-based combat aircraft. Those
papers only cited research back to the mid-1990s, making the concept seem
novel. I discovered it's not, with active research dating to the mid-1960s at
Brookhaven National Laboratory and the late Mayer Steinberg, as well as
M.I.T., and the more recent USNRL work.

The underlying chemistry works. Scaling the concept seems to be problematic,
as well as economics, though that has more to do with the mis-pricing of
fossil fuels than failures of Fischer-Tropsch, in my view.

I posted a number of items on it, including a literature review, here:

[https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=fischer-
tropsc...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=fischer-
tropsch&restrict_sr=on)

Lit review:

[https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electri...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electrical_fuel_synthesis_from_seawater_older/)

~~~
darksaints
The big problem with Fischer Tropsch is the wasted energy. Solid oxide fuel
cells can directly turn carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide with a little bit
of electrical current, but that last oxygen atom comes off in the Fischer
Tropsch reactor where it is far more likely to bind with hydrogen than it is
to another oxygen molecule. This essentially means that half the hydrogen you
electrolyze is going to end up back as water again. That's a lot of wasted
electricity.

Biomass has potential through Fischer Tropsch though. Not much use on an
aircraft carrier, but way more energy efficient to produce syngas with
biomass.

~~~
dredmorbius
I don't know the chemistry all that well (other than the net overall balance).
But if there are alternative pathways ... that could be useful. I do believe
that there are catalysts (generally iron, thankfully not very exotic)
involved.

There's also the Sabatier process, which yields methane rather than liquid
fuels. I believe that can be further processed to arrive at longer-chain
hydrocarbons. HC6-HC10 chains are roughly petrol/gasoline, HC12 is about
kerosene, and HC16 or so roughly diesel, as I understand. Methane is CH4.

The problem with biomass is that our present energy demands are _immense_. A
sufficient amount for military aviation needs, possibly. Enough to sustain
present levels of commercial and private aviation: no.

HANPP / the photosynthetic ceiling is a real bitch.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_int...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intractable_problem_of_biomass_for_fuels_is/)

Boeing claimed a major "breakthrough" some years back. It ... doesn't add up:

[https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wo2hl/boeings...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wo2hl/boeings_biofuel_breakthrough_less_than/)

When I'd first started looking at fuel concerns, I'd thought biofuels offered
a viable path out. I'm utterly convinced they don't. At least not for a world
with 1-7 billion drivers.

 _Maybe_ with 100 million cars. Henry Ford suggested alcohol, from grains, as
a fuel circa 1900. At the time, 20% of US grain production _was_ dedicated to
transport, though utilising a somewhat different prime mover: horses.

~~~
philipkglass
When electricity from solar and wind power were much more expensive, biomass
looked attractive as a lower cost (if limited-availability) energy source. I'd
say that it is still potentially attractive for making liquid fuels, but less
because of its embodied energy content and more as a compact source of carbon
that has recently been removed from the atmosphere.

Cellulosic ethanol is pretty terrible even when the process is operating as
planned:

[http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-
to-10-mil...](http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/15344/zero-
to-10-million-in-5-years)

70 gallons of ethanol from 1 short ton of cellulose means 230 kg from 1000 kg
of cellulose. There's 444 kg of carbon in that much cellulose, enough to make
518 kg of diesel fuel if given enough externally supplied hydrogen. The energy
content of the final fuel from 1 tonne of cellulose is 23.6 GJ for diesel and
only 6.9 GJ for the ethanol.

Liquid biofuels from non-cellulosic inputs have even worse areal productivity.
(Barring (theoretically) algae, which nobody seems to be able to implement at
industrial scale.)

US airline fuel consumption peaked in 2007 at 20 billion gallons per year:

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31512](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31512)

That's about 63 million tonnes of kerosene/diesel. You'd need at least 122
million tonnes of cellulosic biomass to supply carbon for that much fuel.
You'd also need refiners, crackers, and recapture in addition to F-T units to
ensure that both too-light and too-heavy carbon compounds get recycled to
produce liquid hydrocarbons of the desired saturation and molecular weight. It
would basically be running a state of the art petrochemical complex with
biomass gasifiers and electrolytic hydrogen bolted on.

But assuming you did all that, the raw material availability looks relatively
favorable. As of 2005, this report estimated that over 300 million tonnes of
currently-unused dry biomass could be sustainably harvested from forests and
agricultural wastes:

[https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/final_billionton...](https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf)

~~~
dredmorbius
The reduction in fuel consumption apparently also suprised the FAA.

In its 2002 RITA projection, the forecast total commercial aviation
consumption for 2012 (that's nearly 8 years ago now) was ~33 billion gallons.
As of 2016, it was still only aroun 17 billion, or nearly 50% below the
forecast _for four years prior_.

Whether this is a testiment to efficiency or a harbinger of peak oil, I'm not
entirely certain. Though as an example of the shifts in resource utilisation
following prices, it's instructive.

The efficiency improvements, it should be noted, are in both per _revenue_
passenger mile and per _capacity_ passenger mile. Those result both from an
increased number of seats per aircraft (that's where your legroom's gone),
_and_ in the number of paying butts in those seats, largely courtesy improved
predictive sales / incentives methodologies. And improvements in aircraft
efficiencies. Such as by high-bypass turbofan engines, which require ever
higher, and forward-positioned, mounting systems. Which then affect aircraft
handling and stability....

There are probably limits to both approaches.

------
ChuckMcM
Would be an excellent application of a travelling wave reactor located in a
remote spot.

------
viburnum
Aviation uses so much energy, it’s gotta be this or stop flying.

~~~
BurningFrog
My theory is that people hugely overestimate the importance of things they see
and touch.

Flying is _the_ most fossil fuel intensive thing regular people interact with,
so we naturally assume it's the biggest energy user there is.

Last I heard the number was around 2% of all CO₂ emissions.

~~~
duckymcduckface
Heating is actually the biggest user, accounts for 50% of global energy
demand. This includes space heating as well as process heat.

~~~
petre
Process heat is useful, only nobody wants to live near industry or nuclear
power station. Maybe it can work out with SMRs.

~~~
acidburnNSA
I lived 6 miles from an operating nuclear power plant for decades. It was
fine. Interestingly, the most pro-nuclear people are often those who live in
the emergency planning zone. It's thought that this is due to the local
outreach that the plants do with boy scouts and whatnot.

~~~
MiroF
Also probably selection bias. And also people who are employed there live
nearby.

~~~
acidburnNSA
That's also certainly part of it. I think it's a good thing that people who
work there generally feel very safe. Interestingly, the nuclear industry has
one of the best occupational health records. Mostly because you have to take a
damned training before you operate a ladder.

------
jdkdnfndnfjd
Solar is way better for this. Producing jet fuel can start and stop which is
perfect for solar. Powering houses has to be constant

~~~
acidburnNSA
I used to believe this too. Talking to industrials, I learned that many
industrial processes require major capital investments that demand continuous
supply of power. For instance, a big water desalination plant can cost $4B.
You better believe they want to run that sucker 24/7 to make a good return on
investment.

------
hristov
Rolls Royce makes small nuclear reactors for submarines, and naturally, their
solution to the worlds climate crisis is for more people to buy their small
modular nuclear reactors. Don't pay attention, this is just salesmanship. It
is a little depressing to think that with the world at crisis, the best
companies like Rolls Royce can respond is to think "well there must be some
way to shoehorn our existing products into this existential crisis everyone is
talking about".

Small modular nuclear reactors are very dangerous because they are not secured
under heavy concrete and thus can easily blow up when something goes wrong.
And something usually goes wrong.

Their reasoning for using nuclear is nonsensical. There is no reason why those
green fuel generating facilities cannot be connected to the grid. And as far
as building new power generation for the grid, renewable energy is already far
cheaper than nuclear.

~~~
godelski
The majority of climate scientists are pro nuclear. But that is just talking
about grid energy.

There's still a lot of problems in other industries (and sub problems within
energy and transportation). There's no great green revolution in:

\- Flying

\- Shipping

\- Heat and A/C

\- Industry

\- Concrete/Steel/Construction

\- Agriculture

and many more. We often talk about transportation and grid energy, but that
isn't even half the problem. And the US is only 15% of global emissions and
the EU-28 is 9%.

What's happening here is that there is no good solution currently proposed. If
you want to critique the proposed solution, that is welcomed. But critique it
on its merits. But from your comment you seem to believe that all reactors are
the same, that no advanced have been made since Chernobyl, and most
importantly that you haven't read the article.

~~~
Krasnol
> The majority of climate scientists are pro nuclear.

Do you have any credible sources on that?

~~~
godelski
I commonly quote IPCC recommendations because this is an easy reference with
recommendations in several releases, but people rather don't like this and
claim bureaucracy (this is easy to find and can be found from emission reports
to the climate summits. I can explain some nuance if there are actual
questions here). I can also anecdotally, working in HPC, tell you that I have
yet to meet a climate scientist that is anti-nuclear or anti-sequestration (a
politician that I really like sadly calls these "false solutions"). By
anecdotally I mean that I talk to these people.

[https://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications...](https://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf)

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_R...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf)
(you'll notice a lot of talk about "continuous energy" here and notice quite a
lot of graphs about emission comparisons)

[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf)

I can provide more, if needed.

~~~
Krasnol
The first compilation is highly selective (what are those Swedish
Environmental Management Council sources for example? None of them are
available and all lead to a page that is not the SEM council) in it's sources
and would not even closely cover either the statement "pro nuclear" nor any
"majority" and it's been selected for this publication by the World Nuclear
Association...

The second one consist sentences like: "Increasing the installed capacity of
RE power plants will reduce the amount of fossil and nuclear fuels that
otherwise would be needed in order to meet a given electricity demand." or
"There are multiple means for lowering GHG emissions from the energy system
while still providing desired energy services." where nuclear is just one
option among many others or "There have been significant power reductions from
nuclear and coal plants during drought conditions in the USA and France in
recent years." and so on. The focus is clearly on RE and I don't see a clear
"pro nuclear" message there.

The third one is focused on emissions based upon unnamed sources from an
unknown time range (which is relevant for RE as there is rapid development
unlike in nuclear) ignoring relevant topics like nuclear waste management
([https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/](https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/))
and seems to end up being pro wind. I tried to find some more data on nuclear
energy on their page but it seems they are not considering it at all:
[https://www.nrel.gov/research/data-
tools.html](https://www.nrel.gov/research/data-tools.html)

So yeah, you could provide something that focuses on that "majority" and "pro
nuclear" parts. That would be nice. And please spare me nuclear lobby groups.
We had enough of their marketing efforts in the recent months here.

