Doubts over 'clean' nuke power

[jpak]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15822495%255E1702,00.html

NUCLEAR power generates more damaging greenhouse gas emissions than gas-fired power, an Australian scientist says.

As federal and state politicians debate the merits of starting down the nuclear power path to help reduce Australia's contribution to global warming, scientists say it may not be so clean after all.

University of NSW Institute of Environmental Studies senior lecturer Dr Mark Diesendorf says nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2) themselves, but the processes involved in creating nuclear energy do.

Mining, milling, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel production, power station construction and operation, storage and reprocessing of spent fuel, long-term management of radioactive waste and closing down old power stations all require the burning of fossil fuels, he says.

<more>

:popcorn:

[jpak]

1. US uranium enrichment plants are also major sources of CFC's

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Uranium-Harms-Ozone-Layer.htm

CFC 114 is also a powerful greenhouse gas with radiation forcing potentials several thousand times greater than CO2...

http://www.afeas.org/greenhouse_gases.html

ChimpCo's pending air strikes against Iran's nuclear power infrastructure will also consume a lot of aviation fuel - producing more CO2 that will contribute to global warming.

So much for Clean Green Peaceful nuclear energy....

[Coastie for Truth]

2. Come on!

1. That's the same argument I have heard against solar energy (fabbing the PV cells) - I worked in a PV fab - and that is cow pattie.

2. Our local progressive club met last night - demographics is "young retireds" (60-75) in Silicon Valley, with lots of retired engineers -- our topic was a book talk of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" and Jim Kunstler's "Long Emergency.." ... and all of these 60-something year old, and spry and sharp as a tack, PhD engineers - en masse - "nuclear power is clean power."

3. Mark is an economist - not an engineer. And he seems to be pushing wind and geothermal.

"Coastie"
PhD (Chem Engineering)

[Brotherjohn]

3. Well, with all due respect, those CO2 emissions would result from...

... construction and maintenance, and fuel-gathering, for nearly ANY type of power plant, or any type of industry.

Not to defend nuclear energy as harmless, but once the nuclear plant is constructed, it is responsible for virtually zero CO2 emissions. On the other hand, the CO2 emissions we are concerned about with fossil-fuel plants are not the relatively minor discharges from construction, fuel-gathering, etc... but the ongoing major discharges from the constant burining of fossil-fuels for energy. The latter dwarfs the former.

[jpak]

4. Only if new nuclear power plants replace existing fossil fuel plants

or lead to the cancellation of those under construction.

Prior to the passage of ChimpCo's "Energy Bill" there were ~100 new coal plants in various stages of planning and construction.

After the passage of ChimpCo's "Energy Bill" (which provided massive subsidies for new nuclear power plants), there were still ~100 new coal plants in various stages of planning and construction.

None were canceled and the utilities that will take advantage of the taxpayers "generosity" to build new nuclear plants have no plans to shut existing fossil-fired facilities or cancel new projects.

Note: ChimpCo's "Energy Bill" also provides the same massive subsidies (a 1.8 cent per kWh production credit and up to 80% costs from taxpayer guaranteed loans) to new coal-fired power plants.

Furthermore, ChimpCo's new nuclear power plants will not replace all the older plants scheduled for closure in the coming decades, and will not reduce coal consumption.

ChimpCo's new nuclear plants will not produce a net reduction in US CO2 emissions and will cost taxpayers dearly.

[NNadir]

9. Don't worry. All the coal plants and nuclear plants will be replaced by

solar cells, which are produced by magic.

Solar cells do not require carbon dioxide for their manufacture, because, well, they're manufactured by chanting.

Details here: http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/e2000-15.pdf

There is only 399.9999 exajoules to go until this solar PV magic becomes reality.

http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/tadn/tadn013/frbi01a.htm

I can't wait. We all can't wait...

...and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait...

While we're waiting, we'll all contemplate the end of nuclear energy which has apparently vanished because the world has run completely out of uranium...

[AndyTiedye]

5. Except That Nuke Plants Wear Out After About 25-30 Years

The reactor vessel gets brittle from constant bombardment with radiation.
That is the main reason that old nuclear plants have to be shut down.

Other types of power plants last a lot longer than this.

[Massacure]

8. The old plants did, but the new generation has better materials.

France has run their most of their reactors for 30 years with no problems.

[skids]

7. Here's the carbon/energy load lifecycle for a wind turbine.

http://www.vestas.com/uk/environment/2005_rev/turbine_lifecycle.asp

[Dead_Parrot]

6. The guardian ran a similar article...

...decrying the dangers of using any sort of metal. We ended up discussing flint-knapping and charcoal...

The problem is the mining equipment, not the metal in question.