|
Michael,
I suspect that if you take the cost of refining the
fuel, and building the reactor and turbines then the cost of nuclear power is
much higher than fossil fuel generation, but obviously that does not mean that
there is no net power output. However, if you add in the cost of
decommissioning the power station when its life is over, then the cost of
generation escalates enormously. If this cost is high enough then there
has been no net gain generating power using uranium. Of course this extra cost
is borne mainly by our descendents, not us. I have also heard it claimed
that the reason that the decommissioning costs are so high is because the
original power stations were producing nuclear armaments, and the cost of
decommission those is being added to the costs of nuclear generation. But it is
conceivable that the energy needed to dispose of the nuclear stations is greater
than that which they generated. One would like to think that they could be
buried cheaply in concrete and forgotten about, but what if they later
exploded?
You could argue that the damage done to the
environment by AGW is a cost that should be added to the conventional power
stations in the same way as the disposal of nuclear waste is added to nuclear
power stations, but two wrongs do not make a right.
However, as I see it, the real problem is that the
public won't accept new nuclear power stations. You and James Lovelock may
be willing to have a waste dump in your back yard, but I doubt your neighbours
will agree. Moreover we need more than two people willing to have nuclear
waste dumps if we are going to replace all fossil fuel generation with
nuclear.
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 |
- [Global Change: 772] Nuclear Power is Not the Answer Jim Torson
- [Global Change: 773] Re: Nuclear Power is Not the A... Michael Tobis
- [Global Change: 774] Re: Nuclear Power is Not t... Eric Swanson
- [Global Change: 775] Re: Nuclear Power is Not t... Jim Torson
- [Global Change: 777] Re: Nuclear Power is N... Michael Tobis
- [Global Change: 778] Re: Nuclear Power ... Alastair McDonald
- [Global Change: 779] Re: Nuclear P... Kooiti MASUDA
- [Global Change: 783] Re: Nuclear P... Don Libby
- [Global Change: 814] Re: Nucle... Don Libby
- [Global Change: 826] Re: Nuclear Power is Not the A... Mark Bahner
