Energy sources compared on lifecycle CO2 and energy intensity

A 182 page pdf from Australia that befores a detailed analysis on the CO2 generated for the full life cycle of different energy sources and compares energy sources based on energy intensity

Here is the chart that summarizes the comparisons. Notice the ranges in the brackets. Those are the range across which the values could fall depending upon location and other variable factors

Nuclear power is about 10-20 times better for CO2 than coal or natural gas.
Nuclear power is better than photovoltaics for CO2 and three times worse than wind and four times worse than hydroelectric.

Hat tip to for pointing out this source and collecting several interesting articles from around the blogosphere.

As usual a high quality article from Kirk Sorensen at Kirk provides an indication of how much of California has seismic issues where a nuclear reactor would not be placed. Kirk also reiterates his plan for submarine placement of nuclear reactors to enable reactors to tide out any earthquake.

A reminder:
Go to the California power initiative to support allowing nuclear power to be used to provide clean energy to Californians