3 ms·

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 n

by 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

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).