<...snip...> > 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, > <...> > 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. <...>
Not zero carbon, true, but also true - lowest carbon per kWh produced relative to other major base-load generating sources (compare to coal, for example - source http://www.uic.com.au/nip100.htm). Furthermore, emissions and power consumption can be lowered substantially. Enrichment being the primary power consumer among those you've mentioned - replace coal-fired gasseous diffusion enrichment with nuclear-powered centrifuge enrichment. > 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. Interesting conjecture, especially if the rails be electrified. Unfortunately, the question of whether new base-load generating stations should be coal or nuclear is not addressed. In my state, current pricing models favor the construction of coal plants. In fact, the EIS for a big new coal plant nearby does provide for expansion of rail transport - to transport coal in by rail and to transport ash out by rail. The pricing model used to consider financial impacts chose the nuclear option only on condition that (1) the law prohibiting new nuclear plant construction be repealed and (2) carbon emissions be monetized. Commitment of $100 B for new nuclear-powered centrifuge enrichment plus new nuclear plants will doubtless have a net carbon emission reduction and set the US (hence globe) on a path toward atmospheric carbon stabilization by 2100. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
