36 comments on Problems in the UK.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
36 comments on Problems in the UK.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Google search
Advanced search
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- How do we maintain adequate phosphorus and potassium levels for crops?
- What should we do with funds set aside for retirement?
- Leading the Way to a Low-Energy Future
TOD:Europe
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Electric Vehicles: The End Of Australian Manufacturing ?
- Upcoming Forum In Sydney: 'Peak Oil - Is this the end of civilisation as we know it ?'
- From Counterculture To Cyberculture: The Life And Times Of Stewart Brand
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Dave Murphy, Engineer-Poet, Glenn, Heading Out, Jason Bradford, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Nate Hagens, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:ANZ: aeldric, Big Gav, Phil Hart
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Nuclear power plants generate electricity, which is, as anyone here will know, not as versatile as hydrocarbons by a long shot.
The main point I would like to stretch out, is that the construction, maintenance, operation, and finally dismantling the plant after 45-60 years requires huge hydrocarbon inputs. How much I really don't know. Anyone? Also uranium itself, I suppose, is mined by hydrocarbon driven machinery.
How will this play out in the mid- to long term when the required hydrocarbons will be less and less available, let alone affordable?
To me it seems Nuclear power is really a derivative of an underlying fossil fuel infrastructure instead of being an independent alternative in and of itself.
If another energy source produces much more energy in a usefull form like electricity then it needs lubricants, hydraulic fluids, diesel etc it can pay for very expensive hydrocarbons. It will more or less multiply the hydrocarbon input into a lot more electricity then burning the hydrocarbons would give.
Nuclear power, wind power, etc can then use heavier and scarces oils, then oils cracked with hydrogen made with electricity, oils syntehisized from coal, biological oils or oil synthetisized from raw biomass and hydrogen from electricity.
If no technological breakthrus are made I suspect that the latest generations of nuclear powerplants will be used for a lot longer then 45-60 years. You can not let the structure or systems deteriorate due to the security needed so minor subsystems are replaced as they wear down. This leaves large parts as the preassure vessel as the limiting parts while the rest of the systems are in good shape. They can be heat treated in place to release stresses in ther crystaline structure built up by irrradiation. The inner surface layer with most of the radioactivity can be etched away and then it is possible to work inside them and inspect and replace parts but they do wear out. I suspect that it then will make sense to even swap out reactor vessels. My guess is that the life lenght limiting part will be the concrete in the walls. I have no idea how long it will last, perhaps hundreds of years?
One point i find intresting is that a lot of the parts are metallic and can be melted and the metals reused, often directly and for some parts after a long period of underground storage to wait out the radioactivity. The largest volume of waste from the plant itself seems to be ion exchange filters and misc clothing and tools. It ought to be possible to reduce this waste stream with new materials that are washable but I am speculating about that. I get the impression that a nuclear technology that use breeder reactors can be sustanable more or less indefinately digging up the parts buried a few thousand years ago and remelting them along with fresh low grade ores for the next generation of powerplants.