8 ms·

Is uranium mining included in these numbers? Edit: it seems to be what mainly contributed to the nuclear numbers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article

by 317070 7y ago

Is uranium mining included in these numbers? Edit: it seems to be what mainly contributed to the nuclear numbers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607612537?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067360... > The sources of the effects and indeed the effects themselves for the nuclear fuel cycle are very different from those for the fossil fuel cycles. They can arise from occupational effects (especially from mining), routine radiation during generation, decommissioning, reprocessing, low-level waste disposal, high-level waste disposal, and accidents.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Recall that because it's getting energy from the nucleus rather than from electron shells, there is 2,000,000x more energy in the mined raw material when you're using nuclear. That's why a train car of nuclear fuel per year can power a city, where a coal plant needs a mile-long train car per day. Nuclear energy density is crazy high. So you don't have to mine a lot, you don't have a lot of waste, you don't need lots of land, and you don't emit any carbon dioxide. See: https://www.xkcd.com/1162/ https://www.xkcd.com/1162/
- mimixco 7y ago
  The uranium cycle requires heavy equipment (dozers, loaders, trains, trucks, etc), all of which run on fossil fuels, so it's not "carbon free."
  - theamk 7y ago
    It is not fully carbon free, yes; but compared to fossil fuels, it practically is.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Breathing produces carbon dioxide; so you aren't going to get very far with that sort of argument. Nothing is carbon free. The heavy equipment is not going to produce enough carbon to be worth measuring on a per kW basis. The energy density of nuclear fuel is just too high.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    That's included in the number of 11 gCO2-eq/kWh. Please refer to this comment where you were lightly reprimanded for saying that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905223 I say carbon-free for anything that's under 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (so I can include solar), which is 10x less than natural gas, 20x less than coal. Nuclear is 40x less natural gas! It's the lowest carbon energy source we know, tied with wind.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      Thanks but you've said elsewhere that you work in the nuclear industry. HN is not a place where we need to "reprimand" each other.
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        We do need to provide meaningful feedback to things that are incorrect, such as the suggestion that nuclear is not tied with wind as the lowest-carbon full-lifecycle energy source we know. I chose to work in the nuclear industry specifically to help avert climate change. I was like: "I want to help reduce climate change. Aha, nuclear is interesting because it's low-carbon and also not perfected. That's a good challenging problem to work on!" This doesn't invalidate anything I've said. In fact, it bolsters things I say because it means I know what I'm talking about.
        mimixco 7y ago
        That's fine and you're free to do that, but it doesn't make what I said "incorrect." The uranium cycle uses carbon and, what's worse, produces vast amount of tailings (radioactive waste) which contaminate land and water. This is in addition to the spent fuel rods which most people think of as "nuclear waste." I hope that you could agree that those are true statements.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        By that standard, there are no carbon-free energy sources.

by 317070 7y ago

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Recall that because it's getting energy from the nucleus rather than from electron shells, there is 2,000,000x more energy in the mined raw material when you're using nuclear. That's why a train car of nuclear fuel per year can power a city, where a coal plant needs a mile-long train car per day. Nuclear energy density is crazy high. So you don't have to mine a lot, you don't have a lot of waste, you don't need lots of land, and you don't emit any carbon dioxide. See: https://www.xkcd.com/1162/ https://www.xkcd.com/1162/

mimixco 7y ago
The uranium cycle requires heavy equipment (dozers, loaders, trains, trucks, etc), all of which run on fossil fuels, so it's not "carbon free."
- theamk 7y ago
  It is not fully carbon free, yes; but compared to fossil fuels, it practically is.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Breathing produces carbon dioxide; so you aren't going to get very far with that sort of argument. Nothing is carbon free. The heavy equipment is not going to produce enough carbon to be worth measuring on a per kW basis. The energy density of nuclear fuel is just too high.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  That's included in the number of 11 gCO2-eq/kWh. Please refer to this comment where you were lightly reprimanded for saying that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905223 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905223 I say carbon-free for anything that's under 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (so I can include solar), which is 10x less than natural gas, 20x less than coal. Nuclear is 40x less natural gas! It's the lowest carbon energy source we know, tied with wind.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    Thanks but you've said elsewhere that you work in the nuclear industry. HN is not a place where we need to "reprimand" each other.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      We do need to provide meaningful feedback to things that are incorrect, such as the suggestion that nuclear is not tied with wind as the lowest-carbon full-lifecycle energy source we know. I chose to work in the nuclear industry specifically to help avert climate change. I was like: "I want to help reduce climate change. Aha, nuclear is interesting because it's low-carbon and also not perfected. That's a good challenging problem to work on!" This doesn't invalidate anything I've said. In fact, it bolsters things I say because it means I know what I'm talking about.
      - mimixco 7y ago
        That's fine and you're free to do that, but it doesn't make what I said "incorrect." The uranium cycle uses carbon and, what's worse, produces vast amount of tailings (radioactive waste) which contaminate land and water. This is in addition to the spent fuel rods which most people think of as "nuclear waste." I hope that you could agree that those are true statements.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        By that standard, there are no carbon-free energy sources.