publication . Article . 2014

Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles

Ch. Poinssot; S. Bourg; N. Ouvrier; N. Combernoux; C. Rostaing; M. Vargas-Gonzalez; Jordi Bruno;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 May 2014 Journal: Energy, volume 69, pages 199-211 (issn: 0360-5442, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Elsevier BV
Abstract
AbstractEnergy perspectives for the current century are dominated by the anticipated significant increase of energy needs. Particularly, electricity consumption is anticipated to increase by a factor higher than two before 2050. Energy choices are considered as structuring political choices that implies a long-standing and stable policy based on objective criteria. LCA (life cycle analysis) is a structured basis for deriving relevant indicators which can allow the comparison of a wide range of impacts of different energy sources. Among the energy-mix, nuclear power is anticipated to have very low GHG-emissions. However, its viability is severely addressed by the...
Persistent Identifiers
Subjects
free text keywords: Energy(all), Pollution, Life cycle analysis, Nuclear energy, French nuclear fuel cycle, Environmental impacts, Energy system assessment, Sustainable energy development, General Energy, Public policy, Renewable energy, business.industry, business, Ecological footprint, Nuclear fuel cycle, Environmental economics, Energy policy, Electricity, Nuclear power, Environmental engineering, Energy source, Engineering
62 references, page 1 of 5

[1] IAEA. Nuclear energy development in the 21st century: global scenarios and regional trends. Vienna: IAEA Nuclear Energy Series; 2010.

[2] Dones R, Bauer C, Bollinger R, Faist Emmenegger M, Frischknecht R. Life cycle inventory of energy systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries. Data V2.0. Ecoinvent Report n 5. Villigen: PSI; 2007.

[3] Vattenfall. Nuclear power certified environmental product declaration EPD of electricity from Forsmark nuclear power plant; 2010. Sweden.

[4] Bruntland G. World commission on environment and development, our common future. The Brundtland report. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

[5] Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Homer M. Critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(4e5):286e311.

[6] Buchholz T, Luzadis VA, Volk TA. Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. J Clean Prod 2009;17:S86e98.

[7] Gallego Carrera D, Mack A. Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: results of a survey among European energy experts. Energy Policy 2010;38:1030e9.

[8] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Sustainability considerations for electricity generation from biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(5):1419e27.

[9] Lior N. Sustainable energy development: the present (2009) situation and possible paths to the future. Energy 2010;35(10):3976e94.

[10] Piera M. Sustainability issues in the development of nuclear fission energy. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51(5):938e46.

[11] Goralzcyk M. Life cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Appl Energy 2003;75:205e11.

[12] Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(5): 1082e8.

[13] La Rovere E, Soares J, Oliveira L, Lauria T. Sustainable expansion of electricity sector: sustainability indicators as an instrument to support decision maling. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:422e9.

[14] Jovanovic M, Afgan N, Bakic V. An analytical method for the measurement of energy system sustainability in urban areas. Energy 2010;35(9):3909e20. [OpenAIRE]

[15] Kessler G. Requirements for nuclear energy in the 21st century e nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source. Prog Nucl Energy 2002;40(3e4): 309e25.

62 references, page 1 of 5
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue