Submitted by EnergyTechStocks.com

In the last couple of years the nuclear power industry has deflated a lot of political opposition with the argument that, unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide emissions. But now, just as the commercial nuclear power industry appears on the verge of a worldwide resurgence, there’s a new, potentially damaging study questioning whether nuclear power really is a low-carbon source of electricity.

Even as presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain reportedly spoke last week about building dozens of nuclear reactors, a study appeared in the journal Environmental Science & Technology that could undermine critically-needed Democratic support in Congress for building new reactors in America.

The study, out of Australia, found that when looked at as a whole, the process by which electricity is produced by a nuclear reactor should be viewed as a significant source of carbon emissions.

The key is the amount of CO2 generated by the mining and transporting of uranium ore. The study determined that a nuclear revival would require more mining of lower-quality uranium deposits, which would result in more carbon being generated through the digging, refining and transporting of this ore. The study’s lead author told a reporter, “The rate at which [the average grade of uranium ore] goes down depends on demand, technology, exploration and other factors. But, especially if there is going to be a nuclear resurgence, it will go down and that will entail a higher CO2 cost.”

The study further concluded that such an increased amount of uranium mining could require more energy and water, thus releasing still more carbon into the atmosphere.

So far, this study hasn’t generated much political reaction, but just as Hillary Clinton has injected gasoline prices into the U.S. presidential sweepstakes, so might uranium mining find its way into the national politics of America or any other country looking closely at commercial nuclear power.