🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <536@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> ries writes:
>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).

That seems pretty inconsequential.  Sure, the parts and fuel need to be mined
and trucked in, but that hardly seems to be an important environmental factor.
I wonder if the effect of increased algae growth (caused by increased water
temperatures) so often used to criticize nuke plants was taken into
account in the CO2 computations.

>  "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).

What is supposed to be the impact of this small release of CO2?
WHy should we care?

>    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.

Sounds like an argument for breeder reactors to me.

>  "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.

But if the economics and technical of these technologies make them
unattractive or unworkable, what difference does it make how clean
they are?

>    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."

What makes them any different? Carbon 14 is Carbon 14.


Brian Yoder

-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-