5 ms·

This got me thinking: how much CO2 is emitted by different energy sources in generating 1 kilowatt-hour? I came across this link: http://blueskymodel.org/kilow

by cmccart 10y ago

This got me thinking: how much CO2 is emitted by different energy sources in generating 1 kilowatt-hour? I came across this link: http://blueskymodel.org/kilowatt-hour http://blueskymodel.org/kilowatt-hour Seems like solar is more or less a break even, where nuclear /wind/geothermal/hydro are pure wins, which makes sense I suppose. Could you manufacture enough of these to consume 1 kilowatt-hour without generating more CO2 in the process than they would consume in their lifecycle?

sevenless 10y ago
I don't see any accounting for the cost of storing nuclear waste, long-term. (Nobody wants to do it; how do you even estimate that?)
- cmccart 10y ago
  Oh, great point, I hadn't even considered that. I'm sure creating all those steel/concrete containers isn't the most CO2 friendly activity. AFAIK most plants store onsite so there's no transportation cost at least.
- unchocked 10y ago
  It's easy, you take the cost of Yucca mountain depository (which is already sunk, btw), and amortize that over 10,000 years or so.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - omegaworks 10y ago
    So easy! Watch how it's done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeVPMzJOFrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeVPMzJOFrQ
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  You burn it as fuel[1]. More kilowatts for small (relatively) additional dollars. [1] http://terrapower.com/pages/technology http://terrapower.com/pages/technology
- sdm 10y ago
  The same goes for Hydro. Both Nuclear and Hydro have signifiant up front green costs.
- prawn 10y ago
  Here in South Australia, the government, royal commission and a citizens' jury are looking very seriously at establishing a long-term, highly secure nuclear waste dump. We have a lot of very remote areas in this state, and I believe they're looking at a spot with clay very deep down that can be used to insulate against geological movement. The facility is being planned to survive for thousands of years. Here's some info from the royal commission: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/ http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/ And from the Citizens' Jury: http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/ http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/ As I understand it, being paid to store nuclear waste is being viewed as an income stream for the state to backup or replace income from mining operations.
  - bigiain 10y ago
    I'm always suspicious of things "planned to survive thousands of years". I'll bet politicians in Rome and Sparta big-noted themselves with "projects which'll last thousands of years!" (which they then contracted out to their brother-in-law). So far as I can tell there's not much other than Pyramids which humanity has designed/built that could plausibly claim to have "survived thousands of years", and even those didn't come close to being impregnable enough to be considered "safe" for keeping curious humans away from long half life radioactive trash...
    - prawn 10y ago
      These things are going to be buried very very deeply in a particular way. I think people would need to be a lot more than just curious.
      - prawn 10y ago
        I should add that I believe the plan is to do significant work in sealing compartments so anyone looking to wreak havoc would need to breach the facility, get down a significant distance and then work through a huge amount of concrete or clay or whatever it would be. I think the supply line from port to the facility would be a softer target and is something the jury and stakeholders would be considering in serious detail.
- teraflop 10y ago
  That's true, but it's important to remember that the amount of waste produced by nuclear power generation is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuels. Let's say you want to generate 1 megawatt-hour of electricity (roughly enough to power an average American household for a month). With coal power, you get roughly 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere. [1] To generate the same amount at a nuclear plant, the waste primarily consists of about 3 grams of spent fuel. [2][3] (And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not trying to dismiss other renewable options... just trying to put nuclear power in perspective.) [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 [2]: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants/US-Nuclear-Generating-Statistics http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nu... [3]: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Si...
  - imron 10y ago
    > about 3 grams of spent fuel. Now multiply that by the number of households, and again by twelve to see the amount you'd need to permanently store each year.
    - eggy 10y ago
      That's probably based upon older reactor designs like everything in the nuclear industry, since regulation had made progress slow-going. Newer designs, and some others, burn spent fuel. Out of the 3 major nuclear reactor incidents, all were old reactor designs. There are new ones that also cannot meltdown in the common understanding of the term. Don't forget coal mining releases nuclear radiation, since you are unearthing radioactive minerals. So much so, that you are exposed to more radiation in the vicinity of a coal plant than a nuclear reactor.
kevinpet 10y ago
I found 1.2lbs, so this process is able to remove about 10% of the production cost.

by cmccart 10y ago

sevenless 10y ago

I don't see any accounting for the cost of storing nuclear waste, long-term. (Nobody wants to do it; how do you even estimate that?)

cmccart 10y ago
Oh, great point, I hadn't even considered that. I'm sure creating all those steel/concrete containers isn't the most CO2 friendly activity. AFAIK most plants store onsite so there's no transportation cost at least.
unchocked 10y ago
It's easy, you take the cost of Yucca mountain depository (which is already sunk, btw), and amortize that over 10,000 years or so.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- omegaworks 10y ago
  So easy! Watch how it's done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeVPMzJOFrQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeVPMzJOFrQ
ChuckMcM 10y ago
You burn it as fuel[1]. More kilowatts for small (relatively) additional dollars. [1] http://terrapower.com/pages/technology http://terrapower.com/pages/technology
sdm 10y ago
The same goes for Hydro. Both Nuclear and Hydro have signifiant up front green costs.
prawn 10y ago
Here in South Australia, the government, royal commission and a citizens' jury are looking very seriously at establishing a long-term, highly secure nuclear waste dump. We have a lot of very remote areas in this state, and I believe they're looking at a spot with clay very deep down that can be used to insulate against geological movement. The facility is being planned to survive for thousands of years. Here's some info from the royal commission: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/ http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/ And from the Citizens' Jury: http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/ http://nuclear.yoursay.sa.gov.au/ As I understand it, being paid to store nuclear waste is being viewed as an income stream for the state to backup or replace income from mining operations.
- bigiain 10y ago
  I'm always suspicious of things "planned to survive thousands of years". I'll bet politicians in Rome and Sparta big-noted themselves with "projects which'll last thousands of years!" (which they then contracted out to their brother-in-law). So far as I can tell there's not much other than Pyramids which humanity has designed/built that could plausibly claim to have "survived thousands of years", and even those didn't come close to being impregnable enough to be considered "safe" for keeping curious humans away from long half life radioactive trash...
  - prawn 10y ago
    These things are going to be buried very very deeply in a particular way. I think people would need to be a lot more than just curious.
    - prawn 10y ago
      I should add that I believe the plan is to do significant work in sealing compartments so anyone looking to wreak havoc would need to breach the facility, get down a significant distance and then work through a huge amount of concrete or clay or whatever it would be. I think the supply line from port to the facility would be a softer target and is something the jury and stakeholders would be considering in serious detail.
teraflop 10y ago
That's true, but it's important to remember that the amount of waste produced by nuclear power generation is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuels. Let's say you want to generate 1 megawatt-hour of electricity (roughly enough to power an average American household for a month). With coal power, you get roughly 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere. [1] To generate the same amount at a nuclear plant, the waste primarily consists of about 3 grams of spent fuel. [2][3] (And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not trying to dismiss other renewable options... just trying to put nuclear power in perspective.) [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 [2]: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants/US-Nuclear-Generating-Statistics http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nu... [3]: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Si...
- imron 10y ago
  > about 3 grams of spent fuel. Now multiply that by the number of households, and again by twelve to see the amount you'd need to permanently store each year.
  - eggy 10y ago
    That's probably based upon older reactor designs like everything in the nuclear industry, since regulation had made progress slow-going. Newer designs, and some others, burn spent fuel. Out of the 3 major nuclear reactor incidents, all were old reactor designs. There are new ones that also cannot meltdown in the common understanding of the term. Don't forget coal mining releases nuclear radiation, since you are unearthing radioactive minerals. So much so, that you are exposed to more radiation in the vicinity of a coal plant than a nuclear reactor.

kevinpet 10y ago

I found 1.2lbs, so this process is able to remove about 10% of the production cost.