How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for remembering,
but I have subscribed to BBC's science news through RSS
so I have already read that article. :)
 
Thanks,
interesting article,
but they don't offer any alternatives.

Insulation and more efficient light bulbs won't do the trick of actually producing energy instead of fossil fuels.
So I put my hopes on nuclear fusion (ITER).
 
If that fails then the only alternative would remain to cover our deserts in solar panels, because, as pointed in that article, we don't have that much uranium around.

Of course covering our deserts in solar panels means unknown environmental consequences on itself , so it's not a safe plan (needs research).
It would be terrible if happens something on the nature like when Russians toyed with the Aral sea.
 
One thing you learn to do when studying in university. :D
I constantly have to read huge articles and court documents.
Spot the facts, skip over needless details.
 
Avatar said:
One thing you learn to do when studying in university. :D
I constantly have to read huge articles and court documents.
Spot the facts, skip over needless details.
Click to expand...
please then , for thebenefit of the 'slow' readers here, can you summarize rhe facts/itemize them brielfy----as tis is serious

i am trying to contact the Rocky Mountain (people) mentioned in article for more in-depth info. my system finds their website hard to access. i cant accesstheir contacts. so have had to go tru ecoliteracy again and see what happens
teir website's http://www.rmi.org

whyyyyy not yu. just flash em a low down of what you are about/enthusiasm for fusion and foreward their response to here??
 
Rocky Mountain? No need to disturb them, here is all the info they provide ->

<span class="verd_10_b"><big><strong>Nuclear Power</strong></big></span>
<span class="times_11">
RMI's position on nuclear power is that:<ul><li><strong>It's too expensive.</strong> Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected—and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.
</li><li><strong>Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky</strong> because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.
</li><li>Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, <strong>nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change</strong>. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.
</li><li>And of course <strong>nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material</strong>. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision-makers.)</li></ul> </span>
&nbsp;
<span class="verd_10_b"><strong><em>Downloadable RMI Publications</em></strong></span>
<span class="times_11">These and other publications can be downloaded from the <a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php" target="new">Energy section of the Library</a>.<ul><li><strong>E03-05</strong>, <a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#20H2Myths">Twenty Hydrogen Myths</a>—This documented white paper demystifies hydrogen energy, debunks popular misconceptions, and proposes a surprisingly easy, attractive, and profitable path to the hydrogen economy.
</li><li><strong>E00-19</strong>, <a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#NucFreeMil">Profiting from a Nuclear-Free Third Millennium</a>—Op-ed by Amory Lovins in the British journal <em>Power Economics</em> (November 1999).</li></ul> </span>
&nbsp;
<span class="verd_10_b"><strong><em>Related Newsletter Articles</em></strong></span>
<span class="times_11">These and other articles can be found in the <a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid330.php" target="new">Newsletter Back Issues</a>. <ul><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid640.php">Summer 2004</a>—"San Francisco Rides New Wave of Energy Planning with RMI's Help"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid639.php">Spring 2004</a>—"Helping Communities Find the Benefits of Efficiency—RMI’s New Website Calculates Energy Savings Potential"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid621.php">Fall/Winter 2003</a>—"Enlightening Blackouts"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid620.php">Summer 2003</a>—"Amory B. Lovins's Hydrogen Primer—A Few Basics About Hydrogen"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid586.php">Summer 2002</a>—"Least Cost Security: As the U.S. awaits another terror episode, RMI offers a few thoughts on security"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid585.php">Spring 2002</a>—"Time for a Switch: RMI Helps Reframe U.S. Energy Policy"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid518.php">Fall/Winter 2001</a>—"Cleaner Energy, Greener Profits: Fuel Cells as Cost-Effective Distributed Energy Resources"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid236.php">Spring 2000</a>—"Return of the Nuclear Salesmen: Global Warming Gives Them a New Sales Pitch"
</li><li><a href="http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid382.php">Summer 1995</a>—"A Treaty Whose Time Has Come: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is So Far Out It's In"</li></ul> </span>
 
And about fusion -> they would not say anything much about it that is not already known and laid down in other scientifical articles, because ITER has to be built and operational first.
Without ITER it's just theories and assumptions, no facts (about commercial production of fusion power).


=======================

In the basics this is so:

1. Commercial production of fusion power works -> all is great
2. It doesn't -> we have to invent new ways of getting energy or
3. Do something on a really mass scale with wind turbines and solar panels,
like covering most deserts of the world in them. (unknown environmental consequences)
4. Wreck our environment with fossil fuels and live in poison.
 
Last edited:
Avatar said:
...<span class="verd_10_b"><big><strong>Nuclear Power</strong></big></span>
<span class="times_11">
RMI's position on nuclear power is that:<ul><li><strong>It's too expensive.</strong> Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected—and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.
</li><li><strong>Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky</strong> because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.
</li><li>Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, <strong>nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change</strong>. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.
</li><li>And of course <strong>nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material</strong>. ...
Click to expand...
The four points above boil down to:
(a)Nuclear power is too costly.
and
(b)Nuclear power releases radioactivity instead of CO2.

On (a):
The initial projection were that Nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. I.e the plan for charging individual homes was just a fixed monthly fee, like telephone local calls. The economists making these projections did not anticipate that the various "enviromentalist" would delay permits, get injunctions, etc. so that to bring a plant on line would require 12 or more years.

As more than 95% of the cost of nuclear power is the capital or labor costs (fuel less than 5%) and the public service commisions do not let ANY of the capital being invested in a new plant to be included in the "rate base" on which the "fare rate of return" is calculated UNTIL THE PLANT IS "ON-LINE" This zero return for a decade is why nuclear power is expensive. Little of this happens in France. 80% of electric power in France comes from nuclear power. Germany has coal but inports a lot of nuclear power generated electricity from France as where the "greens" have not artificially made nuclear power costly, it is as the economists originally projected much cheaper than coal generated electricity.
SUMMARY: Blame the "greens" not physics for the cost of nuclear power. It can be cheap and safe, as in France.

On (b)
Because of the trace amounts of K40 and uranium etc found in coal and the tons of coal need to make the enery that grams of nuclear fuel can generate, the use of coal is releasing more radioactivity into the enviroment than nuclear power.

SUMMARY: Coal power plants not only release CO2, but release MORE RADIOACTIVITY than nuclear power.

SUMMARY: The green's opposition of nuclear power has INCREASED the release of radioactiviy into your air and food and made you electric bills higher than they should be. Learn a little of the facts and direct your anger at the correct target.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those are not my points at all!
Read the post, I merely copied data from Rocky Mountain Institute,
because duendy had trouble navigating that website with his tv setup.
 
Avatar said:
Those are not my points at all!
Read the post, I merely copied data from Rocky Mountain Institute,
because duendy had trouble navigating that website with his tv setup.
Click to expand...
OK - I do not attack people. I was attackking the ignorance in those four points. That widely spread ignorance is a large part of the US's energy problem.
 
actually nuclear energy is most enviromentally friendly energy of them all...people you see are parasites...they will live in a certain place, then trash that place...and that will go on for millions of years...whereas when people use nuclear energy to the full extent...all of the people die...thus no more problems for nature since all people are gone now...So yes, nuclear engineering is the safest of them all, it saves nature, yes there might be a nuclear fallout...but that all passes and new life arises, whereas human=parasites are now gone.
 
draqon said:
actually nuclear energy is most enviromentally friendly energy of them all...people you see are parasites...they will live in a certain place, then trash that place...and that will go on for millions of years...whereas when people use nuclear energy to the full extent...all of the people die...thus no more problems for nature since all people are gone now...So yes, nuclear engineering is the safest of them all, it saves nature, yes there might be a nuclear fallout...but that all passes and new life arises, whereas human=parasites are now gone.
Click to expand...
so tell. what survives nuclear pollution?
 
From the article
Following a recent research expedition to the Chernobyl region, a U.S. Department of Energy official asked us to assess the ecological impacts of the April 1986 Chornobyl disaster on populations of animals. We replied that, although a quantitative assessment is difficult, the net ecological impact has been positive. After a long pause, the perplexed official asked how it could be possible that the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, releasing between 100 and 200 million Curies of radiation into environment, could produce positive ecological consequences. The answer was simple - humans have evacuated the contaminated zone.

Mention of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster usually brings thoughts of death, destruction, cancer, massive economic loss, and other negative images. Clearly, the economic impacs have been devastating for the Ukrainian economy, and the harmful effects such as elevated cancer rates in humans [1-3] and the killing of the pine trees in the Red Forest are real [4,5]. However, the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals [6]. Our 12 expeditions to the most radioactive areas of these zones reveal that animal life is abundant. Parts of the 10-km zone exclusion zone around Reactor 4 are strikingly, yet deceptively, beautiful (Fig.1). Only the clicks and whistles of our electronic equipment indicated that the habitat was contaminated with radioactivity.
Click to expand...
 
Avatar...I was actually born in the same year (1986) of the Chernobyl accident, and I was born 500km away from the Chernobyl power plant (which of course wasnt called that way before the accident occured).
 
Avatar said:
So what? Are you green and have grown a couple of antenna?
Read the text.
Click to expand...
I read the text...being a Russian I know a bit more then anyone else around here about the accident...I also know that some individuals whose names I do not know have used the Chernobyl accident for their advantage, they planted opium plants, which were much larger then the regular opium plants. There are fields of opium hidden in the forests around the Chernobyl.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top