3 ms·

> Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Still really aren't and definitely weren't when Fukushima was built. > Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 o

by qb45 13y ago

> Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are Still really aren't and definitely weren't when Fukushima was built. > Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. Care to elaborate?

onli 13y ago
Sure. When calculating the CO2 output, it happens too often that not the real numbers are used. Nuclear energy shines in that regard when focussing only on the power generation itself. But if you count it all together: Mining uranium, building the power plant, transporting to the uranium to the plant, operating the powerplant (from workers who drive to that plant) and in the end, shipping the nuclear waste to an endlager which needs to be build as well (which germany doesn't have, so that one is open ended), the costs as well as the CO2-output of nuclear energy are very high. Add the CO2 used for disaster prevention and management and from decomissioning the power plants.
- qb45 13y ago
  The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity. You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes. And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180 square miles to generate 7.3GW of energy. This is slightly less power than capacity planned for Fukushima after building two new reactors in 2016 and slightly more area than has been permanently closed after Fukushima plant failure. So you can take area intended for a solar plant, build a nuclear plant instead, cover the rest with forest and have: 1. Higher power output. 2. Probably negative CO₂ balance, thanks to big forest. 3. No evacuation even in case of Fukushima-size disaster. 4. You can even allow tourists to use this forest for recreation as long as the plant hasn't failed, and most plants have never faled in their history. Try letting tourist into a solar plant. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert#Land_use_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojav...
  - onli 13y ago
    That is not what we were talking about. We talked about the CO2-output of nuclear energy, and I added small remarks to costs. Power capacity wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see your point? edit: The parent edited his comment
    - Djehngo 13y ago
      Becuase you need to look at the CO2/MW not the CO2/Plant, If a given plant type produces half the CO2 and half the MW of another plant type you will need two of the former to replace one of the latter, therefore the CO2 output remains them same.
    - qb45 13y ago
      Power capacity matters because it means that the "CO₂ cost" of nuclear power is epsilon and if you are looking for CO₂ reduction your efforts would be better spent elsewhere, like finding ways to run cars on nuclear power (because cars have too small area to power themselves from the Sun).

by qb45 13y ago

onli 13y ago

Sure. When calculating the CO2 output, it happens too often that not the real numbers are used. Nuclear energy shines in that regard when focussing only on the power generation itself. But if you count it all together: Mining uranium, building the power plant, transporting to the uranium to the plant, operating the powerplant (from workers who drive to that plant) and in the end, shipping the nuclear waste to an endlager which needs to be build as well (which germany doesn't have, so that one is open ended), the costs as well as the CO2-output of nuclear energy are very high. Add the CO2 used for disaster prevention and management and from decomissioning the power plants.

qb45 13y ago
The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity. You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes. And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180 square miles to generate 7.3GW of energy. This is slightly less power than capacity planned for Fukushima after building two new reactors in 2016 and slightly more area than has been permanently closed after Fukushima plant failure. So you can take area intended for a solar plant, build a nuclear plant instead, cover the rest with forest and have: 1. Higher power output. 2. Probably negative CO₂ balance, thanks to big forest. 3. No evacuation even in case of Fukushima-size disaster. 4. You can even allow tourists to use this forest for recreation as long as the plant hasn't failed, and most plants have never faled in their history. Try letting tourist into a solar plant. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert#Land_use_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojav...
- onli 13y ago
  That is not what we were talking about. We talked about the CO2-output of nuclear energy, and I added small remarks to costs. Power capacity wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see your point? edit: The parent edited his comment
  - Djehngo 13y ago
    Becuase you need to look at the CO2/MW not the CO2/Plant, If a given plant type produces half the CO2 and half the MW of another plant type you will need two of the former to replace one of the latter, therefore the CO2 output remains them same.
  - qb45 13y ago
    Power capacity matters because it means that the "CO₂ cost" of nuclear power is epsilon and if you are looking for CO₂ reduction your efforts would be better spent elsewhere, like finding ways to run cars on nuclear power (because cars have too small area to power themselves from the Sun).