The lies of anti-nuclear/pro-renewable cultists are deplorable ever backed by myths, beliefs, fictional data, junk science, conspiracy theories, irrational alarmism and scaremongering tactics.
These "Greenie Lie Machines" never stop; they are ever fabricating scary fables on the fly through blogs on the web to attract and lure uninformed people to get them brainwashed in order to support ruination of natural landscapes and wildlife's habitats by wind/solar bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers.

"Frank Energy" is one of multiple aliases which he uses to lure people to his personal web page, NucPro is Frank Energy

Steve, One alias is as good as any.. why would spelling matter? If it were your real name, then it might matter... You use so many aliases that it's hard to keep track. To be honest, your fake names are not high on my priority list...

Shame on the pseudo-environmentalists:
"Revealed: The renewable energy scam making global warming worse" -Sep 21, 2016
"The largest source of "clean" energy is not reducing carbon emissions by as much as official figures claim – and it is causing immense harm to the poor and to wildlife"
https://www.newscientist.co...
http://www.breitbart.com/lo...
"In many parts of northern Europe, wind and solar projects may be highly visible facts on the ground. But the headline economic fact behind renewable energy is, and always has been, its sheer and blatant “unsustainability” "
http://www.thecommentator.c...
Eco-friendly carbon-free nuclear power is the only way to stop climate change.

"Green Lies, nothing for the environment, everything for business – how politics and business destroy our world"
"Their views on issues such as .. renewable energy are often held strongly and emotionally. But some of these views are best described as ‘little green lies’. Sometimes people bend the truth because they believe they are protecting others from the harm caused by environmental decay. Others do it for personal gain. But unlike ‘little white lies’, telling ‘little green lies’ is not harmless. If they become so widely accepted that they form the basis of government policies, our society can be worse off for them. They can even end up causing environmental damage."
http://www.perc.org/article...
http://www.amazon.com/Littl...
http://www.wrforum.org/publ...
https://www.amazon.de/Gr%C3...

A dangerous technology that kills less and causes less ecological impact than renewable per gigawatt produced.
http://www.forbes.com/sites...
http://assets2.motherboard....

Look at your own chart. This chart is doesn't show much less deaths for nuclear than renewables. It shows much less deaths for renewables or nuclear than coal or fossil fuels.

So you agree nuclear power is better aligned with other renewable energy choices than with fossil fuels! That s an excellent observation! Solar, wind and nuclear energy are all much safer than fossil fueled generation!

Nuclear energy is safe, clean and reliable. Frank Energy on the other hand is an alias, one of many and not to be trusted, He has gone so far as to "borrow" someone else's avatar which he used until that someone threatened legal action...I would call that "deplorable"

You know the approval of a fictional puppet of an anti-science conspiracy nut, means so much to me...

Admitting that nuclear power is not only the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but vital to any attempt to meet climate change goals is essential for a realistic energy policy.

The full nuclear power cycle emits >10 times more CO2eq/KWh than wind & solar as shown by independent studies referred in the Conservation (https://goo.gl/uXpdU4). It may even be 50% of that of natural gas. So nuclear is not a real low carbon source.

Following the tobacco industry, nuclear facilitated studies that nuclear is low carbon ('forgetting' important factors). The result is that study results easily differ a factor 10 (as occurred with studies regarding health harm by smoking).
As discussion about studies won’t solve the issue easily, let’s use sound reasoning.

Per dollar, costs are associated with roughly the same amount of carbon emission as costs are in the end always labor.*) Workers spend their money more or less the same. So wind, solar, nuclear electricity all emit ~X grCO2eq/$ paid for the KWh.

The costs to operate existing nuclear are >$50/MWh as shown by the NY-state subsidies (ZEC's), etc. To those costs we should add the ~$20/MWh worth of ongoing liability subsidies which nuclear get**)
The costs to operate existing wind & solar are much smaller than $5/MWh.

So sound reasoning implies that existing, depreciated, nuclear emit at least 14 times more CO2eq/KWh than comparable solar and wind!

______
*) This doesn't apply for fossil generated electricity as fossil itself also generates CO2.

**) Nuclear liability limitations acts limit nuclear’s liability for the costs of accidents and nuclear waste to unrealistic low amounts.
The value of the accident liability limitation act:
In ~15,000 years of reactor operations accidents (Fukushima, etc) created a damage of ~$2Trillion. A subsidy of $133mln per reactor year, which translates to ~1.7cent/KWh. The insurance premium subsidy is invisible until disaster strikes. Then citizens have to pay their damage (Evacuations. New houses, shops, offices, factories, etc. Cleaning, etc) and probably also major part of costs to clean the concerned NPP.
Nuclear waste liability limitation add another ~0.5cent/KWh.

Actually you can find almost anything on the internet http://educate-yourself.org...

Regarding emissions, even scientific study results differ more than a factor 10!
That's the reason I use sound reasoning!

I didn't see any attack against that sound reasoning as shown above. So I trust its results are solid!

I don't have any hope of altering your twisted views, I post to show other people my views based on science fact and experience and illustrate how out of touch with reality your views are.

Your view is so slanted as to be vertical...LOL Your reasoning is anything but "sound". Searching the internet to find an article which supports your irrational concepts is not "sound" reasoning. I'm sorry you cannot see that.

Read my first comment. I do not use Internet results. I just use sound reasoning,

You do not give any argument why / where my sound reasoning is wrong!

You give no reason for wind/solar to have less carbon emission than nuclear energy. Did you forget what we were talking about?

Read my sound reasoning above!
Apparently you have no argument against it.
So why not recognize it's correct!

Ok your numbers do not agree with those of the IPCC, please explain why they are so far off.

Read my response to your comment below: http://www.greentechmedia.c...

Btw.
You can see in the references & links of the first article that I linked ( https://goo.gl/uXpdU4 ) that my numbers are in line with more objective studies who also consider the emissions by:
- uranium mining;
- the transport of the ore;
- the enrichment (nuclear 'burns' only enriched uranium);
- the fuel rod fabrication;
- part of the emissions due to the (many small and few big) nuclear accidents;
- the guarded nuclear waste store for centuries, etc.

As far as I can see they didn't consider the carbon emission to clean the nuclear mesh at e.g. Sellafield, or to bring the nuclear waste burried 600m deep in the salt layer under Asse back to the surface (scientists concluded that escaping radio-acitve material will migrate with water to the surface in (worst case) a thousand years and make the surface unusable....

BASM is totally wrong according to the IPCC : The IPCC ranks the sources of energy production in order of carbon emissions:
low-median-high estimated carbon emission
12 Wind onshore 7.0 - 11 - 56

11. Nuclear 3.7 - 12 - 110

10. Wind offshore 8.0 - 12 -35

9.Hydropower 1.0 - 24 - 2200

8.Concentrated solar power 8.8 - 27 - 63

7.Geothermal 6.0 - 38 - 79

6.Solar PV – rooftop 26 - 41 - 60

5.Solar PV – utility scale 18 - 48 - 180

4.Biomass – dedicated 130 - 230 - 420

3.Gas – combined cycle 410 - 490 - 650

2.Biomass – cofiring with coal 620 -740 - 890

1,Coal – PC 740 - 820 - 910

It's now ridiculous to assume that:
- Offshore wind emit similar as nuclear.
The new Dutch offshore wind farm (in ~30m deep sea, ~30km off the coast, operational in 2020) tender was won by Dong who installs, operate and decommission the wind farm for <€60/MWh, no inflation correction.
While the new Hinkley NPP needs inflation corrected guaranteed price of €118/MWh (in 2016 £) which will be increased with 1.5% inflation/year to €135/MWh (at its start in 2025) and €195/MWh in 2050...
Experts expect that new offshore wind farms will produce for substantial less than €50/MWh in 2025 when Hinkley starts.

Add to that the subsidized insurance premium (paid by government/citizens/grand-children invisile until disaster strikes) for accidents damage costs, nuclear waste costs, decommission cost; and the costs of the guarantees during construction;
then the costs are €185/MWh in 2025 and €245/MWh in 2050.

So all in all new nuclear cost ~4-5 times more than (future) offshore wind!
As construction of a wind turbine is similar to that of a NPP (steel, concrete, copper, etc), nuclear has at least a 4 times bigger carbon emission than offshore wind, which is one of the most expensive (=most emissions) renewable methods to generate electricity!

Reasons for the wrong IPCC data
1. They are based on studies from before 2010.
Then wind and solar were 3 - 10 times more expensive than now!
And nuclear was much cheaper than now!

2. Nuclear scientists and industry lobby executed & financed most of those studies. Just as the tobacco and asbestos industry did. Such lobby is quite effective.*)
This is also the main reason for the huge differences in results.

Scientists such as James Hansen, who estimates that Chernobyl caused <40 deaths**) in his publication (~2009), delivered a great contribution to the fraud.

_____

*) While it was known in 1950 that a single asbestos fiber can cause a deadly lung cancer after a latency of 2-4 decades, it took 50years before a total ban was implemented in Netherlands. We in still have ~600 deaths a years due to asbestos (on 16million people). Those wouldn't occur if we had implemented a ban in 1960.

**) Even the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated then 8000 deaths.

While its the official target of the IAEA to promote the application of peaceful nuclear (such as NPP's; they have a database of all NPP's in the world)

Offshore wind has the same carbon emissions as nuclear energy, according median value of hundreds of studies. Did you have trouble understanding the list?

"Offshore wind .. according median value of hundreds of studies "
So you invent studies!
Probably there are <10 studies considering offshore wind seriously!

It's in line with your other comments, which show that you don't read,
Neither my comments to which you respond, nor relevant literature.

Here is the exact quote (block and copy) from IPCC, pay close attention to the last sentence."Measurement of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions involves calculating the global-warming potential of electrical energy sources through life-cycle assessment of each energy source. The findings are presented in units of global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated by that source. The scale uses the global warming potential unit, the Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and the unit of electrical energy, the kilowatt hour (kWh). The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change harmonized the Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) findings of the major electricity generating sources in use worldwide. This was done by analyzing the findings of hundreds of individual scientific papers assessing each energy source."

This again shows your problems with reading & understanding correctly (as showed in your responses to my comments).
The last sentence tells that they analyzed hundreds of scientific papers (btw. can you show the list of those papers?), but not how many of those included offshore!!

I estimate a few. And those came with high estimations as offshore was then in its infancy and very high priced (>2-4 time more than present offshore). With the efficiency improvements, the price went down 2-4 times as well as the carbon emissions.

It explains more.
- Their measurement was not real measurement but mainly theoretical calculations done by many different researchers..
So we should consider those results anyway with care.

- Their harmonizing was probably done in line with that from Warner & Heath, which imply that they took the high emission estimations for nuclear off and kept those for fossil. So nuclear comes out as much better than it is in reality.
At the time their (wrong) idea was that only nuclear could deliver a significant carbon emission reduction. Wind & solar never could according to them and that of many others before 2011....

In addition:
Note that similar cost reductions, mainly due to efficiency improvements, occurred with PV-solar and (though less strong) onshore wind. While the costs of (new) nuclear increased ~50% or more.
So the IPCC figures are no longer relevant for these technologies.

BASM you continue to post unsubstantiated fear mongering and conjecture with no basis in reality and then accuse others of your well documented offences.

The IPCC collated the studies not I Measurement of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions involves calculating the global-warming potential of electrical energy sources through life-cycle assessment of each energy source. The findings are presented in units of global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated by that source. The scale uses the global warming potential unit, the Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and the unit of electrical energy, the kilowatt hour (kWh). The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change harmonized the Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) findings of the major electricity generating sources in use worldwide. This was done by analyzing the findings of hundreds of individual scientific papers assessing each energy source

You confirmed with your statement: "Offshore wind .. according median value of hundreds of studies " that you just cook up your facts.

There was hardly any offshore in 2011 when IPCC finished its study, only in Denmark and a little by Germany & UK..
Only recently did offshore become a real market, with of course major price decreases (>50%) hence also major carbon emission decreases due to the efficiency improvements.

Btw.
The harmonizing was done such a way that nuclear got a more favorable position. Not strange considering the influence of "blind" pro-nuclear fanatics such as James Hansen!
The problem is that these UN organizations become political organizations and the nuclear powers contribute most to their finance, etc.

Prove it.. show me your information is better than the IPCC

The IPCC figures are based on old studies, mostly from before 2010.
Since that time production efficiency of solar and wind improved greatly (~200% - 300%) while that of (new) nuclear decreased greatly (~50%) due to the discoveries after 9/11 and Fukushima that existing NPP's are unsafe.

So new NPP's require far more equipment and material (e.g. the EPR has a double dome) => more expensive and more CO2.
Even old NPP's are affected as they have to be upgraded to post-Fukushima standards.
A typical example:
The only Dutch NPP:
- still needs a safety upgrade of ~€500million in order to bring its safety to post-Fukushima standards;
- needs to reserve far more money (~€1billon according to government models) for the safe storage of its waste
- needs to reserve at least €500million more for decommission
While it's making losses of ~€50mln/a) due to the low market prices here (~€31/MWh)...
Spending all that extra money implies also a corresponding increase in CO2 emissions.

So nowadays nuclear emits 3 - 6 times more CO2/KWh produced than wind & solar!

The IPCC study was done in 2014, when did your study get done? Maybe a link to your study and the peer review?

Read the IPCC study (when do you start reading?).
The IPCC study only summarized part of the carbon emission studies and used 'harmonized' results (such as those of
Warner & Heath) which harmonizing improved the picture for nuclear greatly!
Most of those studies used were from before 2010!

Yes, which was a direct quote from the IPCC.

How do you equate cost to carbon emissions?

Read my sound reasoning. Especially for you below a repeat:

Per dollar, costs are associated with roughly the same amount of carbon emission as costs are in the end always labor.*) Workers spend their money more or less the same. So wind, solar, nuclear electricity all emit ~X grCO2eq per $ paid for the KWh.

The costs to operate existing nuclear are >$50/MWh as shown by the NY-state subsidies (ZEC's), etc. To those costs we should add the ~$20/MWh worth of ongoing liability subsidies which nuclear get**)
The costs to operate existing wind & solar are >10 times smaller (<$5/MWh).

But we must add the ongoing subsidies to the costs of nuclear. Those subsidies(mainly liability limitations) have a value of ~$20/MWh**) So we have to compare >$70/MWh versus <5/MWh.
Which implies that existing, depreciated, nuclear emit at least 14 times more CO2eq/KWh than comparable solar and wind!

______
*) This doesn't apply for fossil generated electricity as fossil itself also generates CO2.

**) Nuclear liability limitations acts limit nuclear’s liability for the costs of accidents and nuclear waste to unrealistic low amounts.
The value of the accident liability limitation act:
In ~15,000 years of reactor operations accidents (Fukushima, etc) created a damage of ~$2Trillion. A subsidy of $133mln per reactor year, which translates to ~1.7cent/KWh. That insurance premium subsidy is invisible until disaster strikes. Then citizens have to pay their damage (Evacuations. New houses, shops, offices, factories, etc. Cleaning, etc) and probably also major part of costs to clean the concerned NPP.
Nuclear waste liability limitation add another ~0.5cent/KWh.

I still haven't read any sound reasoning.. none of you posts seem to contain any....

In other words no connection whatsoever... you make a ridiculous assumption with no data, then base your theories on that assumption..

The IPCC ranks the sources of energy production in order of carbon emissions:

low-median-high estimated carbon emission

1,Coal – PC 740 - 820 - 910
2.Biomass – cofiring with coal 620 -740 - 890
3.Gas – combined cycle 410 - 490 - 650
4.Biomass – dedicated 130 - 230 - 420
5.Solar PV – utility scale 18 - 48 - 180
6.Solar PV – rooftop 26 - 41 - 60
7.Geothermal 6.0 - 38 - 79
8.Concentrated solar power 8.8 - 27 - 63
9.Hydropower 1.0 - 24 - 2200
10. Wind offshore 8.0 - 12 -35
11. Nuclear 3.7 - 12 - 110
12 Wind onshore 7.0 - 11 - 56

Not according to the leading authority, the IPCC https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Refer to my response above.

I understand now.. you make up your own numbers to suit your needs. No need for real data when you do it that way.. I think everyone understands now.