🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1957@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes:
>creagh@forestbear.Sun.COM (Creagh Yates) writes:
>
>>In light of Earth Day, I think this is one of the most exciting
>>pieces of news I have heard in years.  Talk about the ultimate
>>recycling plan, turning polluting Nuke plants into non-polluting 
>>Solar Farms.
>
>Perhaps you would enlighten the net regarding the pollution that nukes
>generate?  Be specific, now, and be sure to separate the fact from the
>fiction.  Us old nukes would really like to know.

You might start with three recent studies:

  "Environmental Emissions Fro Energy Technology Systems: The Total
  Fuel Cycle", Dr. Robert San Martin, Deputy Assistant Secretary For
  Renewable Energy, DOE, Washington, DC.

     Basically, since it's a fairly long report, it boils down to
     over the >total fuel cycle<, a boiling water nuclear reactor
     produces 7.8 metric tons of CO2 per gigawatt-hour (t/g-h) vs.
     coal combustion (964 t/g-h), wind (7.0), PV (5.0), solar-
     thermal (4.0), large hydro-electric (3.2), and biomass with 
     regrowth (-160 t/gh!, due to plant CO2 absorbtion).

  "Implications of the Greenhouse Effect for U.K. Energy Policy",
  Earth Resources Research, Ltd., c/o Friends of the Earth/U.K.

    Basically, their comparison is a 1000 MW nuclear power plant
    produced 230K metric tons per year (t/g) vs. hydro-power (78K t/g),
    wind (54K), tidal power (52K), solar (57K - 76K).

    This study also pointed out that "energy efficiency" was an even
    better way to produce [Amory Lovins "negawatts"].  For example,
    low-energy lighting: 12,000 metric tons per year.  This study also
    mentions that as the purity of uranium ore goes down, total fuel
    cycle emission increase (due to more pre-processing) to where CO2
    emission would enventually equal that of fossil fuel electricity
    generation.

  "New Resorces: Supply Curves and Environmental Effects", Northeast
  Power Planning Council, 851 S.W. Sixth Street, Suite 1100, 
  Portland, OR 97204

    This report only give partial consideration to the "total fuel
    cycle" aspect, basically concluding that "compared to all other
    resources except conservation, solar thermal, solar photovoltaics,
    and wind are relatively benign" with low to zero CO2 emissions.

    This report lists CO2 emissions from nuclear reactors as "negligible",
    but added that a typical commercial nuclear plant emits
    "8-9.5 curies of radioactive carbon-14 annually", environmentally
    on par with natural gas fuel although the risks are "dramatically
    different."

-- 
Marc Ries
           ries@venice.sedd.trw.com     (ARPA)
           somewhere!trwind!venice!ries (UUCP)
           #include <std.disclaimer>