3 ms·

Nuclear reactors. See above.

by sratner 18y ago

lutorm 18y ago
Nuclear power is only commercially viable because of huge subsidies (up to 80% in the US) and because the state usually assumes the liability for disasters. And even then, it's the most expensive form of power in wide use. I suspect that with the same amount of subsidies, wind and solar would be very competitive. And as far as its environmental sustainability goes, even if we ignore the fuel storage problem, look at what uranium ore mining looks like. Then imagine what it would look like if the whole world was powered by it.
- sratner 18y ago
  I don't know anything about economic viability of nuclear power, so I won't comment. I understand that wind and solar both receive substantial subsidies in the U.S. as well. There is also a possibility that were nuclear power as trendy as wind and solar, it would receive more development unhindered by politics, potentially leading to lower costs. This is of course pure speculation. As for the environmental impact and total carbon footprint, that of wind farms is not small either. Vast areas of otherwise-usable land concreted, carbon expended on building, maintaining and dismantling wind mills, backup power required to buffer against weather conditions, and the like. I haven't seen any comparison of various energy forms with all the costs included, but would certainly like to take a look at one. [edit: A quick search led me to this: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp It seems that while existing nuclear power plants (constructed over 3 decades ago) provide marginally cheaper electricity than fossil fuel based powerplants, new nuclear powerplants are indeed not viable economically, at least as compared to fossil fuels. The report suggests that including a carbon emission tax of $100/tC will bridge that gap.] [another edit: A paper (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf) claiming that total carbon footprint of nuclear power, from mining to waste disposal, is in the range of 6-12g CO2-equivalent per kWh, mostly attributable to mining, compared to 500g/kWh for natural gas and >1000g/kWh for coal. Hydro weighs in at anywhere from 3 to 3000g CO2-equiv per kWh depending on region (alpine hydro stations are clean, flooding tropical forests is not) with weighted average somewhere in the 300g range, wind is at 14-21g/kWh depending on weather conditions, and finally solar at 79g/kWh with potential to fall to 30-40g with future technologies. The concluding graph shows only [European] hydro beating nuclear in terms of total carbon footprint. Lots of other interesting reports on that site (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/ http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/), most offering similar results. One 2007 paper also considers land use, ecotoxicity, and radiation emissions, allowing certain types of wind generators to approach nuclear in terms of total environmental impact. Solar is still way off due to high levels of inorganics and toxic non-greenhouse air pollutants. ]
  - lutorm 18y ago
    About the subsidies, I found this discussion interesting: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 Thanks for the nuclear link. Haven't had time to digest the swiss documents.

Nuclear reactors. See above.

by sratner 18y ago

Nuclear reactors. See above.

Nuclear power is only commercially viable because of huge subsidies (up to 80% in the US) and because the state usually assumes the liability for disasters. And even then, it's the most expensive form of power in wide use. I suspect that with the same amount of subsidies, wind and solar would be very competitive. And as far as its environmental sustainability goes, even if we ignore the fuel storage problem, look at what uranium ore mining looks like. Then imagine what it would look like if the whole world was powered by it.

sratner 18y ago
I don't know anything about economic viability of nuclear power, so I won't comment. I understand that wind and solar both receive substantial subsidies in the U.S. as well. There is also a possibility that were nuclear power as trendy as wind and solar, it would receive more development unhindered by politics, potentially leading to lower costs. This is of course pure speculation. As for the environmental impact and total carbon footprint, that of wind farms is not small either. Vast areas of otherwise-usable land concreted, carbon expended on building, maintaining and dismantling wind mills, backup power required to buffer against weather conditions, and the like. I haven't seen any comparison of various energy forms with all the costs included, but would certainly like to take a look at one. [edit: A quick search led me to this: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp It seems that while existing nuclear power plants (constructed over 3 decades ago) provide marginally cheaper electricity than fossil fuel based powerplants, new nuclear powerplants are indeed not viable economically, at least as compared to fossil fuels. The report suggests that including a carbon emission tax of $100/tC will bridge that gap.] [another edit: A paper (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf) claiming that total carbon footprint of nuclear power, from mining to waste disposal, is in the range of 6-12g CO2-equivalent per kWh, mostly attributable to mining, compared to 500g/kWh for natural gas and >1000g/kWh for coal. Hydro weighs in at anywhere from 3 to 3000g CO2-equiv per kWh depending on region (alpine hydro stations are clean, flooding tropical forests is not) with weighted average somewhere in the 300g range, wind is at 14-21g/kWh depending on weather conditions, and finally solar at 79g/kWh with potential to fall to 30-40g with future technologies. The concluding graph shows only [European] hydro beating nuclear in terms of total carbon footprint. Lots of other interesting reports on that site (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/ http://gabe.web.psi.ch/research/lca/), most offering similar results. One 2007 paper also considers land use, ecotoxicity, and radiation emissions, allowing certain types of wind generators to approach nuclear in terms of total environmental impact. Solar is still way off due to high levels of inorganics and toxic non-greenhouse air pollutants. ]
- lutorm 18y ago
  About the subsidies, I found this discussion interesting: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/15/104213/829 Thanks for the nuclear link. Haven't had time to digest the swiss documents.