<Questions About the World's Biggest Natural Gas Field The Oil Drum When the Hurricanes Come>
<DrumBeat: June 9, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: June 11, 2006>

158 comments on DrumBeat: June 10, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Laurence Aurbach on June 10, 2006 - 12:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I found this article to be a real eye-opener:

WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE
by David Fleming, April 2006

It takes a lot of fossil energy to mine uranium, and then to extract and prepare the right isotope for use in a nuclear reactor. It takes even more fossil energy to build the reactor, and, when its life is over, to decommission it and look after its radioactive waste.

As a result, with current technology, there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world's total current electricity demand for about six years.

Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a 'climate-friendly' technology.

One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.

There is also an audio recording of the author presenting his thesis. The research that the article is based on is available here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick Rouse on June 10, 2006 - 5:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I keep seeing fluorine mentioned as a limit in a nuclear reactor program. Its not that rare an element, 18th in order of abundance in the earths crust at 0.029% above nickel and way above copper and zinc.

Does any body know if it is recycled after use to make Uranium Hexafluoride for enrichment  and if not is there are fundamental reason it could not be?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
scorned by the cockroach on June 10, 2006 - 6:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.

Our determination to keep Iran from developing nuclear processing also becomes a little more understandable. If we succeed, their uranium stays available to the world market and we might get to purloin the plutonium produced in their reactors and reactors in other nations that might turn to them for reprocessing.

Which leads me to wonder if J.Edgar's real adgenda was to gain for the ruling class all there is to know about the mafia's methods. So that they might apply them on a larger scale.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

158 comments on DrumBeat: June 10, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version