tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post554864179330508272..comments2024-03-13T18:55:49.391+00:00Comments on Energy Balance: Nuclear "Solution" Untenable.Professor Chris Rhodeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-83446004098998418162008-12-01T06:40:00.000+00:002008-12-01T06:40:00.000+00:00Dear Andrew,I agree that getting a consistent figu...Dear Andrew,<BR/><BR/>I agree that getting a consistent figure is very difficult since each value depends on what exactly is included in the cost analysis.<BR/><BR/>I am aware of the Dutch work, which is berated by some in the nuclear industry and its supporters: in particular their claim that once the uranium ore gets of sufficiently poor quality, the amount of energy needed to extract and process it into fuel rods exceeds that which can be recovered from the uranium fuel.<BR/><BR/>Other analyses refute this, however, and suggest that even at a few ppm the EROEI would still come out on top for nuclear.<BR/><BR/>I see there is a paper going through US senate just now which proposes using thorium as a fuel rather than uranium.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Chris.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-5684601679059634702008-12-01T01:46:00.000+00:002008-12-01T01:46:00.000+00:00The amount of CO2 produced depends a great deal on...The amount of CO2 produced depends a great deal on how rich the uranium ore is. You're not going to find a consistent figure. <BR/><BR/>The figures you provide however are much more optimistic than some. Have a read of this one, which suggests that nuclear power may be no improvement over using fossil fuels:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.elstatconsultant.nl/" REL="nofollow">http://www.elstatconsultant.nl/</A><BR/><BR/>It's backed up with lots of detail in the linked pages. It sounds well argued to me, but I am no nuclear physicist.<BR/><BR/>This one's also worth a read:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/isa.review.htm" REL="nofollow">http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/isa.review.htm</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-37524754779118770382007-07-06T06:59:00.000+01:002007-07-06T06:59:00.000+01:00I'm all in favour of thorium and molten salt react...I'm all in favour of thorium and molten salt reactors - you can see some of my supporting articles and comments on the energyfromthorium blog (linked at top left of this blog). There are 40 - 50 years of uranium in reserves for fission, as things stand, and I agree breeder technology (which is what thorium involves too) is the only way to make those reserves last into the far future. <BR/><BR/>Since the US, Russia and the UK are actually revamping their nuclear arsenals now, do you think it likely that warheads will be turned into fuel rods? The world gets through about 65,000 tons of uranium each year and some 10,000 tonnes of reprocessed weapons-stock.<BR/><BR/>Some jester has posted on another posting peak oil is fake! I don't believe that and I think that running out of oil (then gas) which are used to extract and convert uranium ore into nuclear fuel will hit us before we actually run short of uranium. It takes resources to extract resources and that is, I think, the weak link in the nuclear fuel chain.<BR/><BR/>If you are the same anonymous as posted the first comment here, you can see I have posted a reference to a far smaller estimate of the CO2 output over the working lifetime of a nuclear plant for comparison. But when there are such disparities in projected values, e.g. 20 - 40% compared with 3%, I wonder which is the more reliable.<BR/><BR/>Keep sending your thoughts, as you seem to know what you are talking about! This blog is an evolving medium.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Chris Rhodes.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-25072871084242665352007-07-06T01:31:00.000+01:002007-07-06T01:31:00.000+01:00In 1986 there were 65,000 nuclear weapons in the w...In 1986 there were 65,000 nuclear weapons in the world. This is enough fissionable material to keep thousands or reactors going for a long time, without mining more uranium. Only 3% of the energy in Uranium is used before nuclear fuel is poisoned by fission daughter products. Reporcessing would allow the progressive capture of more and more energy. Breeding would open up the energy possibility even more. Using Molten Salt brreding technology would all for the efficient breeding of thorium, and the capture of all the energy potential In thorium and uranium. This would provide enough energy to last us for several thousand years. In 1941, no one had ever built a reactor. By the end of 1944, the United States had built 5. This was relatively a far greater challenge than building thousands of reactors today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-86568462198929365392007-07-02T15:59:00.000+01:002007-07-02T15:59:00.000+01:00Seems to be a contentious point that. I have appen...Seems to be a contentious point that. I have appended the link that I got this from to the article. If you have some other information please send it on, and maybe I can write a posting about the realities of CO2 emissions from nuclear. I have no axe to grind either way, and am not anti-nuclear particularly. BTW, who are you?Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-22066352576476600102007-07-02T15:14:00.000+01:002007-07-02T15:14:00.000+01:00A coal plant releases one tonne of carbon dioxide ...A coal plant releases one tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for each megawatt hour of electricity it produces. Nuclear plants will no where come close to producing that much carbon dioxide. A claim that nuclear plants will produce 20-40% less carbon dioxide is incorrect and irresponsible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com