NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

New uranium deposits are likely to be deeper underground and therefore more difficult to extract than at currently exploited sites, said Dr Mudd.

In addition, he said, the average grade of uranium ore - a measure of its uranium oxide content and a key economic factor in mining - is likely to fall. Getting uranium from lower-quality deposits involves digging up and refining more ore.


Even in the worst case scenario for CO2 emissions, the impact of nuclear on greenhouse emissions is still very small
Thierry Dujardin, NEA
Transporting a greater amount of ore will in turn require more diesel-powered vehicles - a principal source of greenhouse emissions in uranium mining.

"The rate at which [the average grade of uranium ore] goes down depends on demand, technology, exploration and other factors. But, especially if there is going to be a nuclear resurgence, it will go down and that will entail a higher CO2 cost," Dr Mudd explained.

Overall, the report suggests that uranium mining could require more energy and water in future, releasing greenhouse gases in greater quantities.


Just saw this article on my RSS feed and I have to say, I think it's a load of baloney. Kind of.

I believe it's true, don't get me wrong, but I don't see the point in pointing it out. I think it's a type of sensationalism by anti-nuclear groups. The point is, getting the materials for, transporting said materials to, and the building of all new power plants is going to consistently become more and more CO2-expensive, until we get ourselves into a different system for transportation. I don't know, it's probably safe to say that windmills and solar plants are comparatively CO2-cheap, even when you count the fact that you need many windmills to equate to one nuclear plant's output, but the point is that nuclear is still insanely CO2-cheap compared to fossil fuel-based plants.

I understand, I suppose, trying to go all-out, but I think environmentalists are shooting themselves in the foot (not for the first time) by standing up against what is probably the easiest transition step. Going nuclear will greatly reduce CO2 output, and can be done more quickly (generally with a smaller land area) than with wind or solar power.

What do you all think? Is nuclear a good step, or should we skip nuclear in favor of the fully green energy sources? Are we ready to do either?

We CAN'T skip nuclear, because the so-called "fully green" energy sources can't do the job. Even if we devote massive land area (which could be better used to grow, say, FOOD) to Solar, Wind and Water, we will NOT have sufficient energy being produced to keep our civilization functioning.

As to the "CO2 cost", I call bullshit. We have MASSIVE uranium deposits close to the surface that haven't even been tapped yet, and there's NOTHING that says we need to use diesel vehicles to do the job of mining and shipping.

Even more, once we start building breeder reactors, mining needs drop dramatically, as we only need common U-238 to convert into fresh fuel.

Ah, how funny. People get so frightened of nuclear energy. Now this. It transport also costs for, oh, I don't know... ANYTHING BEING TRANSPORTED?

Seriously. Never thought I'd see the day where they'd stoop that low to take a pot shot at nuclear power. Though we do need more dark matter reactors. Now THOSE puppies could keep all the world alight easily.

Given the CO2 costs for building millions of windmills, transporting millions of windmills, erecting millions of windmills, maintaining millions of windmills, and ultimately replacing millions of windmills when they reach the end of their operational life after about five minutes, I somehow doubt that using CO2 emissions generated by supporting a nuclear power plant network as an argument against it can hold much water from that particular school of thought.

As to the "CO2 cost", I call bullshit. We have MASSIVE uranium deposits close to the surface that haven't even been tapped yet, and there's NOTHING that says we need to use diesel vehicles to do the job of mining and shipping.

Yeah, we can use wheelbarrows and mules!

Yeah, we can use wheelbarrows and mules!

Well, we could do that...:D

But I was thinking more along the lines of electric vehicles. Those (and pneumatic systems) are commonly used in mining today.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to see this claim as ridiculous. I understand why there are people who are afraid of nuclear (even though the fears are mostly unfounded), but I'm pretty sure it's the best option we've got, in many cases. Though, I'm living at the moment in Germany, which has quite a lot of windmills, and I've gotta say that they certainly have a place. It works, here, when a small town has a windmill or two, the town can be nearly self-sufficient (aside from backups in case something does go wrong with the windmill). But in cases of trying to supply large amounts of power to the general population, nuclear certainly seems to be our only feasible option--at least until photovoltaics really are developed enough to provide a good bit of power. A very large solar plant in the deserts of Nevada or something could be extremely productive.

The honest question is, who cares? I can say beyond a doubt that the CO2 produced from even the most difficult uranium deposit will be far less than any amount produced by a fossil fuel plant of comparable scale. Nuclear plants still have a colossal edge over fossil fuels from an environmental standpoint. When combined with geothermal and other renewables, an economy entirely supported by clean and effectively limitless energy is 100% plausible within the fairly near-term future.

The honest question is, who cares? I can say beyond a doubt that the CO2 produced from even the most difficult uranium deposit will be far less than any amount produced by a fossil fuel plant of comparable scale. Nuclear plants still have a colossal edge over fossil fuels from an environmental standpoint. When combined with geothermal and other renewables, an economy entirely supported by clean and effectively limitless energy is 100% plausible within the fairly near-term future.

I think the point its making is that costs will only increase for nuclear power and considering the prohibitive costs to both build (especially in resources such as suitable concrete and metals) and eventually de-commission (remember of course that whoever runs the plant is supposed to set aside profits for this $325 mil cost) it may prove to become uneconomical and too risky for both private companies who do not generally receive guaranteed contracts for the plants lifetime and governments who may have future considerations

and I care because like the expansion of Heathrow it seems that this is more to deal with a wasteful sociaty and inefficiency rather than any energy concerns

What about nuclear powered trucks? Problem solved.

Oh wait, they'll need some diesel engine trucks to bring the materials to make the nuclear car engines with, creating greenhouse gases. Nvm!

(Note: I'm being sarcastic.)

The arguments against nuclear power just get worse with time.

What about nuclear powered trucks? Problem solved.

Oh wait, they'll need some diesel engine trucks to bring the materials to make the nuclear car engines with, creating greenhouse gases. Nvm!

(Note: I'm being sarcastic.)

To be honest, I am in favor of reactor-driven transportation. Though I doubt it'll happen anytime soon. That's a sci-fi type of thing (with fusion, not fission, being the top choice). Using electricity to drive the various mechanisms in vehicles allows the variety of mechanisms to vary much more than it does when you use the fuel directly.

What about nuclear powered trucks? Problem solved.

Oh wait, they'll need some diesel engine trucks to bring the materials to make the nuclear car engines with, creating greenhouse gases. Nvm!

(Note: I'm being sarcastic.)

what if we just use electric trucks, for everything.