Some of my publications that are most currently useful are accessible below. Items 1-6 and 9 are in PDF format that can be read with Adobe Acrobat. Items 7,8, and 10-16 are text only. .

• Items 1,2,7,8,14 and 16 deal with our test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation induced cancer, based on lung cancer rates vs radon exposures in U.S. counties. #7 is the best
  place to start in reading about that study; it reviews and justifies the procedures, with special emphasis on treatment of confounding factors. #1 is the basic paper published in 1995. #2 is an extension involving substantial additional data. #8 is a less technical fairly recent review of that project, but parts of it are superseded by #7. Several other papers on that study are included in my list of publications in the CV. Item #14 is a response to a criticism of that work published in a British journal. Item #15 is a response to a very interesting observation by Puskin relevant to that work. Item #16 is my response to a letter by Mossman published in the July 2003 edition of
  Health Physics News.
• Item 12 is my book The Nuclear Energy Option published by Plenum Press in 1990.
  Figures are missing (few are important for understanding the text) and the editing is deficient, but otherwise, the material is there.

rsync is fast and easy:

 rsync -av --progress sourcefolder /destinationfolder --exclude thefoldertoexclude

You can use --exclude multiples times.

Note that the dir thefoldertoexclude after --exclude option is relative to the sourcefolder, i.e., sourcefolder/thefoldertoexclude.

Also you can add -n for dry run to see what will be copied before performing real operation, and if everything is ok, remove -n from command line.

The Manoeuvering Room on board HMS SCEPTRE seen as she lays alongside at Devonport dockyard just prior to decommissioning and disposal. Part of the Marine Engineering Department, the Manoeuvring Room houses the equipment which controls and monitors the submarine's nuclear reactor. It is also from where the boat's power and speed is controlled using the throttle, seen centre right.

Is the net output of CO₂ from Nuclear Energy lower than the net output of other energy sources?

A:

• Low range estimate: 1.4 g CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hr
• Mean estimate: 66 g CO2 equivalent per kWh
• High range estimate: 288 g CO2 equivalent per kWh

This is from a metastudy of 103 studies

You can access the full text from this page on the Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Here is a link to the PDF: Sovacool, B. K. 2008. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy v. 36 (8): 2950-2963.

For comparison, a natural gas-fired power plant might emit 515.29 g CO2 per kWh (per wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Carbon_dioxide; (conversion to metric mine & therefore mistakes are as well.) Coal and Oil-fired plants will emit more CO2 than a natural gas plant.

ETA: After more thorough checking, confirmed the neighborhood for CO2 equivalents emitted throughout the life cycle for natural gas and coal plants from Jarmillo et al. "Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas, LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation" in Environmental Science and Technology from 2007, link: http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/09/13/Jaramillo_ComparativeLCACoalNG.pdf Natural Gas midpoint: 499 g CO2 equivalent per kWh Coal midpoint: 953 g CO2 equivalent per kWh These are close enough to the wikipedia figures (although not exactly the same) that it appears wiki is also using the lifecycle emissions. Again, the conversion to metric is mine & etc.

A lot of science and policy work treats nuclear power as having 0 CO2 emissions, but that's not quite true, and especially is less true if the higher emissions numbers are more correct. //

• I'm not sure "maximum" and "high estimate" are meant to refer to the same concept. Anyway, please take notice that nowadays gaseous diffusion is not used anymore. Lowering worst estimates by around 60-70 g/CO2 – mirh Apr 28, 2017 at 12:41
• The study cited above is Benjamin Sovacool's now (in)famous meta study. Sovacool is an ardent opponent to nuclear power and this study has been severely criticized. First: it does not include 103 studies, because the majority of those were discarded. The actual number is about 20. Second... of these 20, van Leeuwen & Smith's wildly inaccurate study is included 3 times directly and 1 time indirectly. van Leeuwen & Smith have been even more criticized for missing the goal wildly, peer review finding them to be off the mark up to 8000%. – MichaelK Oct 27, 2017 at 11:09 //

Answer: Yes, lower than combustion based sources like coal, oil, and gas. Not lower than renewable sources like solar and hydro.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory performed a similar study to that posted by @FlyingSquidwithGoggles. This might be a less biased source (NIRS page header says "Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change" and contains much anti-nuke literature).

After screening articles by their criteria, they ended up with ~300 article inputs to the data, and ~1000 data points total.

Here are some of the figures listed by source: (Min, Median, Max)(in g CO2/kWh).

• Hydro: 0, 4, 43
• Solar: 5-7, 22-46, 89-217
• Nuclear: 1, 16, 220
• Nat Gas: 290, 469, 930
• Coal: 675, 1001, 1689

Source: "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"