Abstract
Purpose
Several studies using life cycle assessment (LCA) have highlighted nuclear electricity’s possible role as a low carbon-emitting electricity source. But the variability of results has also been questioned by several published LCA reviews, the latest identified dating back from 2016. This article aims at assessing whether new developments and knowledge confirm this statement.
Methods
Meta-analysis is a systematic review approach that allows to assess this variability. It was applied in this study to measure and understand the dynamics behind the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions of nuclear electricity in a life cycle perspective. From 114 publications identified since 2012, 22 primary studies were selected and analysed to provide a meta-database of 63 estimations of greenhouse gases (GHG) per kWh generated. A descriptive analysis of the meta-database provided a status of the art on the topic in terms of approaches adopted, data sources, etc. Additional data exploitation using boxplot graphs was performed to assess the dispersion and variability of the results around these figures depending on several factors such as extraction mining technique and energy demand, enrichment technology used, reactor’s size, and type of LCA practitioners.
Results and discussion
The life cycle GHG emissions of nuclear electricity found with the meta-analysis were 3.09 g CO2 eq./kWh (min), 6.36 g CO2 eq./kWh (median), 12.4 g CO2 eq./kWh (average excluding extrema), and 43.2 g CO2 eq./kWh (max), although extremum values were also identified at 53.4, 60.0, and one outlier, based on theoretical scenarios. Using principal component analysis (PCA), the two most influential variables of the environmental performance of nuclear electricity were identified: GHG emissions intensity of the electricity consumed during the enrichment of uranium and energy demand for the extraction of uranium ore.
Conclusions
Finally, the contributions of this meta-analysis to current knowledge on the GHG emissions intensity of nuclear electricity generation systems were discussed, including life cycle step breakdown, data gaps, limits, and uncertainties associated to the back end and reactor activities. Among the main areas for improvement for future LCA studies, the study helped identify a need for consolidated industrial data along with harmonised practices regarding system boundary definition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The authors declare that the findings of this study are available within the paper. Source data (primary studies) used to elaborate the meta-analysis are listed and described within the paper's supplementary information files.
References
Addinsoft (2023) XLSTAT statistical and data analysis solution. https://www.xlstat.com/fr (2022.4.1). Addinsoft
Back A (2021) Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from district heating in Finland by implementing modular nuclear reactors – a LCA study of SMRs [Åbo Akademi University]. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2021060132639
Barahmand Z, Eikeland MS (2022) Life cycle assessment under uncertainty: a scoping review. World 3(3):692–717. https://doi.org/10.3390/world3030039
Bauer C, Frischknecht R, Eckle P, Flury K, Neal T, Papp K, Schori S, Simons A, Stucki M, Treyer K (2012) Umweltauswirkungen der Stromerzeugung in der Schweiz
Beerten J, Laes E, Meskens G, D’haeseleer, W. (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: a balanced appraisal. Energ Policy 37(12):5056–5068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.073
Bjørn A, Owsianiak M, Molin C, Hauschild MZ (2018) LCA history. In Life cycle assessment (pp. 17–30). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_3
Brandão M, Heath G, Cooper J (2012) What can meta‐analyses tell us about the reliability of life cycle assessment for decision support? J Ind Ecol 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00477.x
Canadian Nuclear Association and Hatch (2014) Meta-analysis LCA of power generation lifecycle assessment literature review of nuclear, wind and natural gas power generation
Carbol P, Farrar B, Abousahl S, Gerbelova H, Konings R, Lubomorova K, Ramos M, Matuzas V, Peerani P, Peinador V, Rondinella V, Kalleveen V, Winckel S, Vegh S, Wastin F, Nilsson K-F (2021) Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’) JRC124193. https://doi.org/10.2760/665806
Carless T, Griffin WM, Fischbeck P (2016) The environmental competitiveness of small modular reactors: a life cycle study. Energy 114:84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.111
CEN/TC 350 (2012) EN15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - core rules for the product category of construction products
Curran MA (2013) Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Curr Opin Chem Eng 2(3):273–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2013.02.002
Doka G (2011) Life-cycle inventory of generic uranium in-situ leaching. Paul Scherrer Institut
Dolan SL, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind power. J Ind Ecol 16(s1):136–S154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x
Dones R, Bauer C, Doka G (2007) Kernenergie. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen Für Den Ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen Und Den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen Für Die Schweiz
Ecoinvent Centre (2021) Ecoinvent 3.8 dataset documentation - electricity production, nuclear, pressure water reactor - CH - electricity, high voltage
Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (2014) IPCC, 2014: climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf
EDF Energy and AEA (2012) Environmental product declaration of electricity from Sizewell B nuclear power station. A study for EDF Energy undertaken by AEA
EDF R&D (2022) ACV du kWh nucléaire EDF – version 2022. 6125-2406-2022-01204-FR Version 1.0
Ei-ichi I, Masanao I, Shigeru B (2016) Comprehensive assessment of life cycle CO2 emissions from power generation technologies in Japan
Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311(5760):506–508. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121416
Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Gibon T, Hahn Menacho Á (2023) Parametric life cycle assessment of nuclear power for simplified models. Environ Sci Technol 57(38):14194–14205. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03190
Gibon T, Menacho Á, Guiton M (2021) Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24717.67048
Glass G (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Researcher 5:3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
Glass G, McGaw B, Esmith M (1981) Meta-analysis in social research (Vol. 56)
Godsey KM (2019) Life cycle assessment of small modular reactors using U.S. nuclear fuel cycle [Clemson University]. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/3235/
Haque N, Norgate T (2014) The greenhouse gas footprint of in-situ leaching of uranium, gold and copper in Australia. J Clean Prod 84:382–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.033
Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Ass 18(3):683–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5
Hedges LV (1992) Meta-analysis. J Educ Stat 17(4):279–296. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986017004279
Hirschberg R, Dones R, Ganter S (1999) Environmental inventories for future electricity supply systems for Switzerland. Int J Global Energy 12(1–6):271–282
Hondo H (2000) Evaluation of power generation technologies based on life cycle CO_2 emissions: reestimation using the latest data and effects of the difference of conditions. Socioeconomic Research Center Report
Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Part II: dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Ass 3(6):343–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979345
IEA (2021a) Global Energy Review 2021. Assessing the effects of economic recoveries on global energy demand and CO2 emissions in 2021
IEA (2021b) Key world energy statistics 2021
IEA (2022) World energy outlook 2022
International Atomic Energie Association (2022) Nuclear power reactors in the world (issue 2). International Atomic Energy Agency. https://www.iaea.org/publications/15211/nuclear-power-reactors-in-the-world
International Organization for Standardization (2006a) ISO 14040:2006 - environmental management -- life cycle assessment -- principles and framework
International Organization for Standardization (2006b) ISO 14044:2006 - environmental management -- life cycle assessment -- requirements and guidelines
International Organization for Standardization (2018) ISO 14067:2018 greenhouse gases carbon footprint of products requirements and guidelines for quantification
IPSOS and EDF (2022) Presentation of findings international observatory on climate and public opinion - mobilization, concern or indifference: where are the citizens of 30 countries at with regard to climate change?
JRC-IES (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment: detailed guidance. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2788/38479
Kadiyala A, Kommalapati R, Huque Z (2016) Quantification of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power generation systems. Energies 9(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/en9110863
Lenzen M (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: a review. Energ Convers Manage 49(8):2178–2199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.01.033
Liamsanguan C, Gheewala SH (2008) LCA: a decision support tool for environmental assessment of MSW management systems. J Environ Manage 87(1):132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.003
Lifset R (2012) Toward meta-analysis in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 16:S1–S2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00473.x
Malatesta T (2021) The environmental, economic and social performance of nuclear technology in Australia. J Nuclear Rad Sci I:7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049758
Mudd G, Diesendorf M (2008) Sustainability of uranium mining and milling: toward quantifying resources and eco-efficiency. Environ Sci Technol 42:2624–2630. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900742b
Nakagawa N, Kosai S, Yamasue E (2022) Life cycle resource use of nuclear power generation considering total material requirement. J Clean Prod 363:132530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132530
Nian V, Chou SK, Su B, Bauly J (2014) Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power generation – the nuclear energy example. Appl Energ 118:68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.015
NNB Generation Company HPC Limited (2021) Life cycle carbon and environmental impact analysis of electricity from Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant development. ED 13018102 | Final Report, Issue number 1
NNB Generation Company SZC Limited (2021) Carbon focused life cycle assessment of the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power plant development. Report for NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited–7721918 ED 13018102:Issue number 1.1
Norgate T, Haque N, Koltun P (2014) The impact of uranium ore grade on the greenhouse gas footprint of nuclear power. J Clean Prod 84:360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.034
Norgate T, Haque N, Koltun P, Tharumarajah A (2010) Life cycle assessment of the uranium nuclear power cycle: part 1 once-through cycle with current technologies
ORANO (2020) ANALYSE COMPAREE DU BILAN ENVIRONNEMENTAL D’UN CYCLE ELECTRONUCLEAIRE « MONORECYCLAGE PU » ET D’UN CYCLE OUVERT. PNGMDR 2016-2018 article 9 (in French) (not publicly available)
Osswald C, Martin A (2005) Hierarchical classification for seabed characterization
Parker D, McNaughton C, Sparks G (2016) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from uranium mining and milling in Canada: Environ Sci Technol 50. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06072
Poinssot Ch, Bourg S, Ouvrier N, Combernoux N, Rostaing C, Vargas-Gonzalez M, Bruno J (2014) Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles. Energy 69:199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.069
Pomponi F, Hart J (2021) The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy – life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor. Appl Energ 290:116743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116743
Portugal Pereira J, Troncoso Parady G, Castro Dominguez B (2014) Japan’s energy conundrum: post-Fukushima scenarios from a life cycle perspective. Energ Policy 67:104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.131
Portugal-Pereira J, Köberle AC, Soria R, Lucena AFP, Szklo A, Schaeffer R (2016) Overlooked impacts of electricity expansion optimisation modelling: the life cycle side of the story. Energy 115:1424–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.062
Sala S, Amadei AM, Beylot A, Ardente F (2021) The evolution of life cycle assessment in European policies over three decades. Int J Life Cycle Ass 26(12):2295–2314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01893-2
Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2014) Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int J Life Cycle Ass 19(4):723–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0686-x
SCORELCA, RDC Environnement, & PRé Consultants (2014) Environmental indicators in LCA: state of the art, feedback and recommendations. SCORE LCA study n° 2013-04 – summary
Seier M, Zimmermann T (2014) Environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear power plants: methodical challenges, case study, and implications. Int J Life Cycle Ass 19(12):1919–1932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0794-2
Serp J, Poinssot C, Bourg S (2017) Assessment of the anticipated environmental footprint of future nuclear energy systems. Evidence of the beneficial effect of extensive recycling. Energies 10(9):1445. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10091445
Simons A, Bauer C (2012) Life cycle assessment of the European pressurized reactor and the influence of different fuel cycle strategies. PI Mech Eng A-J Pow 226(3):427–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650912440549
Sonnemann G, Gemechu ED, Sala S, Schau EM, Allacker K, Pant R, Adibi N, Valdivia S (2018) Life cycle thinking and the use of LCA in policies around the world. In Life cycle assessment (pp. 429–463). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_18
Sovacool BK (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey. Energ Policy 36(8):2950–2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.017
Turconi R, Boldrin A, Astrup T (2013) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew Sust Energy Rev 28:555–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.013
Vattenfall AB (2022) EPD® of electricity from Vattenfall’s nuclear power plants. Registration number S-P-00923. https://www.environdec.com/library/epd923
Wang L, Wang Y, Du H, Zuo J, Li Yi Man, R., Zhou, Z., Bi, F., & Garvlehn, M. P. (2019) A comparative life-cycle assessment of hydro-, nuclear and wind power: a China study. Appl Energy 249:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.099
Warner ES, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S73–S92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Ass 21(9):1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Whitaker M, Heath G, O’Donoughue P, Vorum M (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-fired electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S53–S72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00465.x
Wold S, Esbensen K, Geladi P (1987) Principal component analysis. Chemometr Intell Lab 2(1–3):37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(87)80084-9
World Nuclear Association (WNA) (2022) Uranium enrichment. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment.aspx.
Yasukawa S, Tadokoro Y, Kajiyama T (1992) Life cycle CO2 emission from nuclear power reactor and fuel cycle system. Expert workshop on life-cycle analysis of energy systems, methods and experience 151–160
Zafrilla JE, Cadarso M-Á, Monsalve F, de la Rúa C (2014) How carbon-friendly is nuclear energy? A hybrid MRIO-LCA model of a Spanish facility. Environ Sci Technol 48(24):14103–14111. https://doi.org/10.1021/es503352s
Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buttol P, Raggi A, Buonamici R (2012) Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the aid of meta-analysis. J Ind Ecol 16:S39–S52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00467.x
Zhang X, Bauer C (2018) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of nuclear power in Switzerland
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all lead authors and specialists that replied to request for clarifications on the primary studies as well as the reviewers for their inputs and suggestions for recommendations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Denis Le Boulch and Mickael Buronfosse developed the research idea and created the team; Pierre-Alexis Duvernois and Yannick Le Guern defined the scope of the meta-analysis. Pierre-Alexis Duvernois, with the help of Yannick Le Guern and colleagues Maxime Pousse and Frederic Croison, built the meta-database and performed the analysis; Denis Le Boulch conceived the approach and structure of this paper; Pierre-Alexis Duvernois and Yannick Le Guern developed the manuscript with the help and guidance of Denis Le Boulch and Noëmie Payen.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Enrico Benetto
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article was made thanks to a collaboration between EDF R&D and ELYS Conseil, on the initial basis of a remunerated mission.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Le Boulch, D., Buronfosse, M., Le Guern, Y. et al. Meta-analysis of the greenhouse gases emissions of nuclear electricity generation: learnings for process-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 29, 857–872 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02293-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02293-y