|
Nuclear Energy |
|---|---|
| |
|
If global political stability could be assured for 10,000 years, nuclear power might be an option. However, as yet no nation has demonstrated the capability to maintain control of nuclear materials for peaceful means for millenia. If the
energetics
of nuclear power were reasonable, then it would be possible to imagine a solution, but even that attribute is marginal. What this means is that too much fossil fuel is needed to mine and process uranium ore, even before considering environmental impacts or the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Of course one can find contradictions to this conclusion: Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs? posted by Prof. Goose in The Oil Drum [2007 March 1] "Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation." Minor detail, these reactors have to be cooled. So if they are placed beside the ocean for cooling water, what happens when sea level rises?
Reactor increase not needed to cut CO2 drastically: research, Japan Times [2005 November 15] "Carbon dioxide emissions can be cut by 70 percent by 2050 in Japan even without adding nuclear power plants if the country improves energy efficiency and increases natural energy generation, a governmental environmental institute said."See also Global Challenges Toward Low-Carbon Economy - Focus on Country-Specific Scenario Analysis
Heavy users of nuclear power depend upon imported uranium. New mining extraction was below usage in 2004. As pressures for uranium fuel develop, are we going to see an "ONEC" (Organization of Nuclear Exporting Countries) emerge? [Country-by-Country Bar Graph] [Users Pie Chart] [Enablers Pie Chart] [Source Data: Reactors and Uranium Use] [Source Data: Uranium Extraction] [Spreadsheet]
Nuclear Energy And MercoSur, by Gustavo Fernández Colón [2006 August] "... the initiative to develop plans for the generation of electricity produced by means of nuclear reactors in Venezuela seems to us absolutely inconvenient... It is an unnecessary and expensive risk, mainly if one considers the diversity of clean power sources available in the wide extension of national geography."Adopting an energy lean lifestyle, by John Busby, On Line Opinion, Australia's e-journal of social and political debate [2005 November 18] "John Busby argues that reserves of natural gas, coal and uranium will not give Australia secure buffers against the impending energy crisis." Not that it's profitable even now. See http://www.uic.com.au/emine.htm. The WMC revenue chart for Olympic Dam shows the combined Copper-Uranium sales revenue of Aus$ 1,118 million in 2004 with a profit of only Aus$184 million while in 2003 there was an Aus$120 million loss. Even with copper it is not a great business. Later it states that with the copper as co-product the low grade ores are viable. What happens if energy costs make the copper non-viable? Examine the complexity of the process. Did SLS collect all the chemical energy costs? Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy, by John Busby [2005 October 31] "... [T]he claim for the carbon-free status of nuclear power proves to be false. Carbon dioxide is released in every component of the nuclear fuel cycle except the actual fission in the reactor."
A back-door come-back: Nuclear energy as a solution for climate change?, in Nuclear Monitor, a Publication of World Information Service on Energy (WISE) and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), incorporating the former WISE News Communique [2005 February] "In the context of international climate change negotiations, the nuclear industry tries to depict nuclear energy as the most effective way to solve the climate problem. This claim has no basis in fact. Nuclear energy is neither effective nor viable, it is not a sustainable source and it causes devastating problems that humanity is not able to handle."
Can nuclear power provide energy for the future; would it solve the CO2 problem? (summary), [table of contents for full report] by Jan Willem Storm van Leewen and Philip Smith [2004 July 15] "The nuclear industry claims that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source and further that it produces neglible amounts of CO2. These claims are highly debatable..."
Is Nuclear Power The Solution to Global Warming?, transcript of an interview by Amy Goodman [2004 September 24] "We are joined by longtime anti-nuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott and Scott Peterson, from the Nuclear Energy Institute."
Govt, Donen blamed over 1999 N-accident by Yomiuri Shimbun [2005 February] "A final report to be issued by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency over the 1999 criticality accident in Ibaraki Prefecture will state that the government and the former Nuclear Fuel Development Corp. (Donen) should share responsibility for the disaster..."
Nuclear Safety by Matt Bivens, Nation Magazine [2001 September 16] "What happens if a suicide bomber drives a jumbo jet into one of America's 103 nuclear power reactors? What happens if a fire fed by thousands of tons of jet fuel roars through a reactor complex--or, worse, through the enormous and barely-protected containment pools of spent nuclear fuel found at every such plant?"
"The 'energy recovery time' (i.e. the time the nuclear power station has to have been operational before all the energy consumed in the chain has been earned back and the power station begins to produce net energy) is highly dependent on the uranium content of the ores, and is about 10 years for uranium-rich ores (10 per cent) and 18 years for uranium-poor ores (0.05 per cent)." "how long would the reserves of uranium last if we were to extract energy at the rate of ten terawatts? Well, it turns out that you only have about ten years of U-235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium reserves. (U-235 is the isotope of uranium that undergoes nuclear fission.)" |
|
|
 © 1994-2007 • EcoSystems |
• contact info |
