Jim Torson wrote:
> At 07:39 PM 7/3/2006, Eli Rabett wrote:
>
> >Hydro resources are about maxed out. The other two speak for
> >themselves. Nuclear is better. However, the post that I was replying
> >to specifically compared coal to nuclear. If you have a problem with
> >that discuss it with the Jim Torson
>
> Which article comparing coal to nuclear are you referring to?
>
ooops, I was referring to a comment at Real Climate by jmg, you had a
comment just below #39. Anyhow, for context, I'll quote the original
here:
-----------------------------------
#
Re: #11 (arguing that we must go nuclear to reduce greenhouse gases):
Here is a letter I just sent to an author proposing the same:
-----------------------
Dear Mr. Sweet,
I just finished your book, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and
the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, and I wanted to write to
commend you for it.
However, I must add (as an undergraduate nuclear engineer who later
taught nuclear plant operations in the Navy and who took a a master's
in engineering management while working at the Hanford nuclear
reservation, before becoming an attorney) that the discussion of
nuclear power needs significant expansion to address a key issue, one
that you clearly recognize as critical when discussing other forms of
energy. We can call this the EROEI (energy return on energy invested).
There is a growing realization that nuclear plants require so much
embedded energy that they are net energy sinks for a non-trivial
period, and that nearly all of this energy causes the release of CO2.
That is, the enormous amounts of energy that go into making the plants
(particularly in concrete but also in various steels) and the fuel rods
(mining, milling, enriching, fabricating) is not at all insubstantial.
Thus, it is incorrect to ignore this or to say that nuclear plants are
essentially zero carbon plants. Sure, they don't emit carbon (or
anything else) while burning fuel, but that's like saying that hydrogen
is a zero carbon fuel by ignoring all the carbon released in making
hydrogen.
Naval nuclear plants, for example, use such high-enrichment fuel (to
avoid refueling requirements) that they _never_ produce net energy. And
while civilian light water reactors do not require that kind of
enrichment, new nuclear plants still start out with a huge carbon and
energy debt to work off, which means it is years before they produce
more energy than they consumed along the way (I have heard estimates
exceeding 15 years when all the construction and fuel cycle energy use
is accounted for).
Given that a plant ordered tomorrow would probably not carry base load
for ten years, and would probably not reach an energy profit for at
least another decade, it's very unclear whether the commitment of $100
billion for nuclear plants is a very wise investment for the United
States. On a CO2 reduction per dollar basis, I suggest that the same
money would be far more effectively spent on national and local rail
projects (to elminate truck transport and to slash airline travel),
combined heat and power plants (such as Tom Casten proposes, which you
seemed to dismiss far too lightly), conservation, and small,
distributed generation projects.
Again, I want to commend you for the book, especially for the sections
discussing the climate modelers, which was fascinating. And I do hope
you will revise and expand the third section so that it offers lay
readers a more rigorous look at the energy alternatives and the net
energy return they offer.
Comment by JMG - 29 Jun 2006 @ 10:29 am
------------------
Things do run together.
Eli Rabett
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
