<The word is slowly spreading that we have have a problemThe Oil DrumA gentle cough in the direction of the NYT>

26 comments on More on the long term UK situation

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Heading Out on November 29, 2005 - 10:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm sorry but your information on the amount of energy required to mine uranium is not correct.  Among other things uranium is found quite often in rather rotten sandstone, which is not that hard to mine relative to most other minerals.  And while it does fall into the definition of hard rock (not being coal) it is actually in most cases almost as weak, or weaker than coal.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
neutrino23 on November 30, 2005 - 1:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The information I have is from this site:

Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith

http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/

I can't speak for the accuracy of this work but it is thought provoking. They calculate from published sources the energy required to build, operate, supply fuel for and dismantle a reactor. They also calculate the CO2 generated by all of these processes.

The short of it is that the authors would agree with some of the above statements. Relatively rich ore in soft sandstone can easily produce a healthy energy yield and fewer CO2 emissions than a gas fired plant. The issue is as poorer ores from harder rocks are used at what point does the net energy yield fall to zero.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.