How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Avatar said:
What about the statements that there is not enough uranium around to support world's needs for more than a few decades if implemented globally instead of all fossil fuel plants?
Click to expand...
Point 1: The statements are flawed. This is a traditional supply and demand issue. The current demand does not justify going out in search of further supplies. Any major increase in the number of planned fissions plants would have to be accompanied by increased exploration for new reserves and improved recovery techniques.
Point 2: We only need around fifty years, to allow fusion to come online.
 
I hold the same opinion with you on point 2.
About point 1 - I don't really have enough information on this, just saying what I've read in a few articles.
 
The articles certainly state that, but all the ones I have read fail to concede that new uranium deposits could be discovered. Or that improved extraction methods could rework the tailings of others, or render uncommercial deposits commercial. Exactly parallel developments have occured within the oil and gas industry. Now, clearly there is a finite amount of practically and commerically extractable uranium. But unless uranium differs from every other mineral resource yet developed there is more available than we shall actually need to bridge the gap to fusion.
 
The global uranium reserves with mining costs up to US $ 80 per kilogram amount to about 2 million tonnes. The uranium reserves correspond to an energy equivalent of 28 billion tonnes hard coal when used in light water reactors. The deposits with large uranium reserves which can be mined in a cost-effective way are distributed to many countries.
Australia 460,000 t
Canada 426,000 t
Kazakhstan 254,000 t
South Africa 186,000 t
Brazil 112,000 t
Namibia 110,000 t
Uzbekistan 109,000 t
USA 102,000 t
Niger 94,000 t
Russia 75,000 t

These ten countries possess about 96% of the global uranium reserves. With their 2 million tonnes, all 439 (current) world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades. If mining costs of up to 130 $/kg are taken into consideration the global uranium reserves are increased by further 3 million tonnes. The uranium resources are estimated to be 15 to 20 million tonnes.

Source:http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm
 
Ophiolite said:
... windmills chew up birds and are ugly...
Click to expand...
We are reading from the same page except for this. Windows are 1000 times more lethal to birds. per square meter than windmills. This is a false rap to hang on windmills. Birds are very sensitive to small changes in airflow and windmills produce great changes. It is true that a few birds have been killed by windmills, but I supect 90% of them were carring some genetic defect that made them less able to sense air currents. I.e. a well informed bird lover, ought to be building windmills to improve the gene pool of birds.

That reminds me: Who won the Darwin contest this year? Perhaps it no longer exists? Prize was for the most stupid self lethal act. I.e. a contribution to improving the human gene pool. The "tough guys" in bar sticking knives in themselves a few years ago did not even make "honorable mention" but as the level of self injury in the bar contest increased, fingers were lost etc., one drunk redneck whipped out his pistol and fired it in his mouth. He did win that bar contest.

The winner of the Darwin contest last time I heard the results was a German zoo keeper. He cured his constipated elephant, in ways I will not detail, but that caused him to be standing behind when the suffering elephant finally cut loose. The discharge did not kill him directly. His head hit the concrete floor and he sufficated unconscious under the pile of crap.

On your comment that windmills are ugly, I only note that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For example, that Darwin prize winner did not suffer. He made his mark in history. I might even say it was a beautiful historic way to go, but what do I know about beauty - I like to see the big windmills slowly rotating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With their 2 million tonnes, all 439 (current) world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades.
Click to expand...

That pretty much means that nobody will close existing fossil fuel stations and very few new nuclear fission power plants will be built. Of course - till burning fossil is cheaper.

In the end though it seems that our only hope for clean energy in sufficient quantity lies in fusion,
fusion that is not there yet.
 
Last edited:
Avatar said:
...In the end though it seems that our only hope for a clean energy in sufficient quantity lies in fusion, fusion that is not there yet.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting about "breader reactors"?
 
Ophiolite said:
Yet another reason to hate Bill Gates. ;)
Click to expand...
Were still on the same page. Did you read final editted version of my post? Do you want to recommend anyone here enter the Darwin contest? If so how would you suggest?
 
I'm not a fan of the Darwin contests for the same reason I don't like practical jokes. I prefer to laugh with someone, not at them. [Though I'll make an exception for Happeh, aka Howdy.]
 
Nuclear energy isn't very clean.. you get many radioactive actinides that you have to dispose of. Mind you the USA, Canada, and the EU are very good when it comes to disposal (keeping them isolated underground for several hundred years), but regardless you still get highly radioactive spent fuel, so why is everyone saying it's a "clean" source?
 
For starters - that waste material doesn't pollute the atmosphere and affect the climate.
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuel, most of the power stations on this planet are fossil fuel ones.
 
Avatar said:
For starters - that waste material doesn't pollute the atmosphere and affect the climate.
Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuel, most of the power stations on this planet are fossil fuel ones.
Click to expand...
present your evidence that nuclear waste doesn't pollute atmoshphere not affect climate?
 
Would encasing you in glass and lead and locking you in a deep vault below a mountain where they store the stuff suffice?
 
Avatar said:
Would encasing you in glass and lead and locking you in a deep vault below a mountain where they store the stuff suffice?
Click to expand...
no, words on me screen would be more appropriate
 
Well, then you have them. What little nuclear waste there is, is stored in deep vaults which have protective walls below the earth.
Nothing is released in atmosphere or water.
 
Avatar said:
Well, then you have them. What little nuclear waste there is, is stored in deep vaults which have protective walls below the earth.
Nothing is released in atmosphere or water.
Click to expand...

"Another major problem of nuclear power is the disposal of nuclear waste. Each reactor annually produces tons of radioactive waste that remains toxic for thousands of years. Plutonium, th most dangerous of the radioactive byproducts,is also the most long lived; it remains poisonous for at least 500,000 years (* The half-life of plutonium (Pu-239) - the time after which one half of a given quantity has decayed - is 24, 400 years. This means tat if one gram of plutonium is released into the environment, about one-millionth of a gram will be left after
500,000years, a quantity which is munute but still toxic).
It is diffiult to grasp the enormous length of this time span, which far exceeds the length of time we are used to contemplating within our individual lifetimes, or witin thelifetim of a society, nation, or civilization. Half a million years, as shown on the chart below, is more than one hundred times longer tan all of recorded history. It is a time span fifty times longer than that from te end of the Ice Age to te present day, and more than ten times longer than our entire existence as humans witor present physical characteristics. This is the length of time plutonium must be isolated from the environment. What moral right do we have to leave such a deadly legacy to thousands and thousands of generations?
(The Turning Point: Science Society and the Rising Culture, Fritjof Capra, pges 261-262)(part 2 below)
 
That legacy is pretty safe down underground. Nothing is released in the atmosphere or water.
And morals are just fancies of our minds.
 
continues from my previous post)
"No human technology can create safe containers for such a enormous time span. Indeed, no permanent safe method of disposal or storage has been found for nuclear waste, in spite of millions of dollars spent during three decades of research. Numerous leaks and accidents have shown the shortcomings of all current devices. In the meantime, nuclear waste keeps mounting up. .......
Plutonium, named after Pluto, the Greek god of the underworld, is by far the most dedly of all nuclear waste products. Less tan one-millionth of a gram - an invisible dose - is carcinogenic. One pound, if uniformly distributed, could potentially induce lung cancer on every person on earth. Given tese facts, it is truly frightening to know that each commercial reactor produces four to five hundred pounds of plutonium per year. Moreover, tons of plutonium are routinely transported along American highways and railroads and are flown into aiports." (ibid. page 262)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top