 | Carbon emissions: China no longer has any excuse to wait | The Oil Drum | Smart Metering and Smarter Metering |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
30 new newkewlar plants ?
Color me a NIMBY.
Put the first one on the White House lawn. Seems only fair since Reagan ripped out the solar panels.
For the annual Easter Egg roll: Glow-in-the-dark Easter eggs!
#2 can go in Crawford TX
Leadership by example
Put the first one on the White House lawn.
Oh, I can't agree with that. Washington DC is due to be underwater with global warming. The 'location of the plant is underwater' doesn't seem to be a failure mode for the large , hard to move, fission reactors.
But otherwise, sure.
I already have one in my backyard, but I'd go for another.
NIMBY is so yesterday.
It's now BANANA
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
seems like some carbon dioxide might be generated by the processes needed to mine, refine, concentrate and finally dispose of that uranium fuel. What, exactly, is the tradeoff?
Oh you know, minor things, like the lights not going out. That sort of thing.
Oh the horror of not having Christmas tree lights!
Oh the horror of change, where one has an energy budget.
That's ok. The model is to have a large reactor - I'm sure the area around them will be just fine when they suffer failure.
We must keep the lights on in mall parking lots at 3 in the morning at all costs!
In terms of a risk to the public a nuclear reactor is many orders of magnitude safer than a lack of power to keep civilisation up and running.
Keep in mind, any degree of 'dieoff' is worse than virtually any other event - for everyone. Next to that, fatuous comments about Christmas tree lights look ill advised.
In terms of a risk to the public a nuclear reactor is many orders of magnitude safer than a lack of power to keep civilisation up and running.
How safe is a civilian power reactor in Iran?
Since they are all government, and consequently militarily controlled, you are asking an unanswerable rhetoric laced question.
It's big, very energy positive, I think you will find the answer here: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/docs/commissioned/ISA_report.pdf
It is also very carbon beneficial. Of course there is a dependency on oil&gas based fuels, but that wasn't covered in the report.
Some carbon dioxide...
http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm
This can be dismissed as sensationalist bullshit; Consider their source:
Storm/Smith have been repeatedly demonstrated to be habitual liars with sloppy research guided to a desired outcome.
Then perhaps you would care to do your own detailed scientific analysis on how much C02 is involved in your standard 'run of the mill' nuclear reactor. Numerous contributors at TOD have discussed how much, or little, C02 is produced when constructing a power plant. I believe the general consensus was that 1/3rd of the total pollution was just from the concrete slab itself.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on this subject? Until then...
You're suggesting that the concrete used in a nuclear power plant is even close to the CO2 emissions profile of coal or even natural gas?
Of course its not. Of all the 'concentrated' energy production options, Nuclear probably produces the least amount of C02 and has the greatest amount of site flexibility compared to any other source we could use. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your logic to dismiss someones else's analysis as 'flawed' because they are 'cranks' when you have no data to support your own opinion other than what other 'flawed' and 'crank' scientist have produced.
The construction of a nuclear power plant and the mining/refining/transportation of the ore produces FAR less pollution than a similarly sized coal, oil or natural gas powered plant. The only concern with nuclear power is how to dispose of the waste. The next generation plants will render that debate mute.
The only concern with nuclear power is how to dispose of the waste. The next generation plants will render that debate mute.
The next generation won't produce Depleted Uranium?
I don't think any of the plants produce depleted Uranium. That is a byproduct of enrichment. Uranium powered plants usually produce Plutonium. If they are fuelled with weapons grade Uranium and Thorium they only produce more weapons grade Uranium...and a bunch of other nasty stuff of no value that has to be guarded for 10,000 years or so. But who's counting?
Not any of the CANDU ones, no.
Neither will molten salt reactors.
Wrong, the newer CANDU reactors use low enrichment (about 1% from memory) uranium which does, of course, also produce depleted uranium as a byproduct.
Alan
CANDU reactors are entirely capable of running on natural uranium, we're being a bit pedantic here. I suppose if you mean the spent fuel will be depleted of its fissile material thats true also, but the statement is simply that heavy water cycles dont require any enrichment. Lets not get in silly arguments over definitions...
You're trying to insult me and agree with me at the same time?
Storm/Smith used all kinds of bad data for analyzing the nuclear energy lifecycle to paint it as energy negative and a vast source of CO2, which is obviously not the case just by looking at the simple illustration of France.
Yes, the CO2 emissions from the Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant were among the worst in the world/ MWh !
WHOOPS #1, #3, #4, #5 were terrible as well.
Ft. St. Vrain none too good.
River Bend #2, etc. etc.
Best Hopes that Nuke does Better the Second Time Around,
Alan
ft st vrain ! lol the good people of colorado paid and paid and are probably still paying for that one.
Divide by zero error. You're being disingenuous.
Yes and no. Ft. St. Vrain did produce a little electricity for a few years.
Zimmer is producing electricity today, but some of the worst in the nation/world.
All of the nuke parts were sold for scrap, but the low pressure steam turbine and 4 pole generator were "adapted" for very inefficient coal fired electrical production.
Whoops #2 has evolved into a decent nuke; but to be fair, the carbon and other investments in #1, #3, #4 and #5 have to be included. NOT a winner.
Likewise the massive concrete slab and built but never installed pressure vessel for River Bend #2 should be added to the carbon quota for River Bend #1.
The totality of nuclear power to date includes not tens of billions in wasted investment, but perhaps as much as hundred billion in waste.
If only those resources had gone into something useful, like microhydro or windpower.
Best Hopes for doing better the second time,
Alan
I thought that was spelt NOOCULAR
probably, i have always had trouble with spellin' and rocket surgury.