Slashdot Mirror

From your source I find this:

Under the current conditions the specific CO2 emission of nuclear power is roughly 80-130 gram CO2/kWh.

https://www.stormsmith.nl/i05....

Compare that to the CO2 emissions from here: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
While the source you gave shows more CO2 from nuclear then from Dr. Malhotra it still shows nuclear power having lower CO2 emissions than hydro and solar, about on par with biomass, and less than double that of the very low CO2 from wind. Dr. Malhotra shows data with nuclear lower than all the above but your source doesn't change the primary point I make, that nuclear power is a very low CO2 emitter and therefore it would be wise to make it part of the solution to lowering our carbon footprint.

I accept the facts you provided on CO2 emissions, despite your claim otherwise. I accept them wholeheartedly because they prove the very point I was making.

I'd address your sources' claims on the safety of nuclear power if they made any. All I got from them is that nuclear power has not been proven safe, which is very different than proving nuclear power unsafe. This is an obvious lie because safety studies have been done and Dr. Malhotra had cited them on his website, which is shown on the link I provided. Given that nuclear power has been shown to be quite safe, and again a very low CO2 emitter, then it would be wise to use as much of it as we can while continuing to develop solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever else shows to be promising.

To claim I refuse any facts given me first requires that someone provide facts. I cannot refuse what was not offered. I accept your data on CO2 because it shows nothing I didn't already know, that nuclear power has CO2 that is as low as any other energy source that has been called "zero carbon". Of course nuclear power is not truly zero carbon but then neither is solar or wind, I only claim that if "zero carbon" applies to solar then it also applies to nuclear.

Also on CMO you will see nuclear is safer than solar, safer than everything really, and uses comparatively little material resources per energy produced.

You don't have all the facts and refuse any given to you. Therefore your statements don't have any credibility.

It gets better. Fukushima Daiichi had six units, for a combined total of 4696 MW, or 4.696 GW. In your ideal scenario, over twenty years, that is 822.74 terawatt-hours.

So 2959 petajoules for a reactor we don't get a full energetic return from AND we are still on the hook energetically to clean it up.

Of the 104 reactors operating in the U.S 41 have experienced year plus outages to restore their safety levels and 10 reactors did it twice. That's 51 'year plus' outages in operating nuclear reactors and I haven't even gone into general reactor availability and uptime. The most concerning of this indicates that the infrastructure is showing systemic signs of wear so it's unlikely we can expect to reach maximum yield of energy from the entire nuclear industry.

Taking into account the above and in the parent post, consider that there are other energetic inputs, like enrichment, that haven't been considered. The energy committed to demolishing the existing reactors hasn't been spent yet and is approximately 25770 to 43560 peta joules to clean up the current nuclear industry.

If it had had a somewhat higher sea-wall to avoid a flooding situation, it would still be making power today, too.

Well you are still going to need a higher sea wall because it is unlikely that it is the last Tsunami for those parts. The reactor needs protection now more than ever because it is so fragile.

References:

The pessimistic side of the discussion is Storm Smith which is also referenced by the EU parliament. I drew on the original Vattanfal documents for the optimistic side of the calculations which are referenced in the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" - but now no longer seems to be available. So high side Storm/Smith, low side Vattenfal.

No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.

I don't think I'm following your reasoning here. It looks like you're referring to Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) graph in section 12, however, the graph for Nuclear EROEI seems is based on the assumption that high quality uranium to fuel nuclear power plants will run out in the year 2070. That makes the EROEI for the plants go to 0 at that point (which is worst than break even, because it represents a 100% loss of the invested energy). I looked for a better source that would give me some comparison values and I found this meta-analysis. In it, the authors conclude that the average nuclear plant has a 14:1 EROEI (look for figure 3 for the comparison graph), you source has a EROIE of about 2.5 for current plants, which is much lower. It's slightly lower than wind and coal and slightly higher than solar PV. As an aside, I found an article on Forbes that claimed nuclear had an EROEI of 75, but I think it's an editorial from a nuclear industry advocate...

It's important to note that the EROEI for coal, natural gas, and oil are all declining as it becomes more expensive (and energy-intensive) to access new deposits. The EROEI for nuclear may also decline, I can't be sure if the original analysis included the energy cost to store nuclear waste (What energy for storage? Well, you probably need to employ guards at the storage site for at least 60 years, for example, and they probably like heating, air conditioning, lights and maybe a fridge to keep their lunch in). The Solar PV and the wind values should increase as better construction techniques and materials decrease the energy investment cost of materials.

So can you provide a clear explaination why you think nuclear has an EROIE of 1?

1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.

Agreed.

2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.

Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?

The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay. Then there is the National Geographic article which took an inventory of the world nuclear waste and found that there is enough to fill a freight train that goes 1 and a half times around the equator of the earth.

Since the nuclear industry do not have a solution to this issue Nuclear energy is not a viable solution to the worlds energy needs. All it means is we have two problems instead of one.

3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available

No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.

4. Nuclear power current designs hit 45% efficiency https://energyeducation.ca/enc...

Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel in the once through cycle. Now the wiki article is particularly generous saying that it is 5%, which I don't agree with however it makes my point adequately.

Second I read the page you sent, thank you. The 45% you are referring to are for reactors that are not deployed and not licensed to produce electricity. Any scaling of Gen IV reactor technology will be occurring very slowly *IF* and thats a big *IF* the materials technology come through to produce them (which I hope it does come through).

So much wrong in so short a post.

If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.

Thank you for being an example.

No, Thank you!

I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?

Maybe some of us have not been on Slashdot for ten years. Might be helpful for the new guys to see where you get your data. Simply saying, "you have a computer, go Google it yourself!" is not helpful if someone does "Google it" and finds data contradicting your claims.

Poor baby. When I have more time, right now I'm just zoning from some really hard stuff I'm doing. BTW, this is not your best work Mr AC.

All you have been doing Mr. Kaos is making unsubstantiated claims, slinging insults, and generally making a fool of yourself.

I don't care what you think and I'm not going to be subscribing to the false reality of the accusations you're trying to impose in your inverted ad hom attack, especially after just telling me to STFU. Suddenly any respect I may have afforded you just disappeared.

As for specific citations I'm looking for, I'm not sure. Start with something, anything really, to make your case. How about this, you claim that nuclear CO2 footprint under estimates the mining, prove that. And, why bother answering the questions of an AC? Because it's not just one person that will read your response.

First get your head around this and when you are finished get your head around this. You'll find it's reviewed by (IIRC) ten major universities with nuclear energy systems specialization.

You have not been a paragon of solar power advocates. You've been insulting, rude, and claim solar power does everything perfectly and nuclear power does nothing but kill. Oh, and provide nothing for the new guys to verify your claims.

I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I hope your narcissistic rage calms before you sink into a deep depression for the next few weeks.

And, when people ask an honest question you accuse them of being a nuclear power ideologue.

I won't be play trite words games with your disingenuity. Every sincere person who suffers from this ism and genuinely educates themselves about the nuclear industry comes to the same conclusion - because there is no other conclusion to come to once you do. However now it would seem you are something new, perhaps I am looking at a true Nuclear Narcissist suffering Nuclear Narcissism, this must be what happens to ideologues who have their social proof shattered by truth.

You have your citations now, go read them and educate yourself as I can't see you contributing anything more of value to this conversation.

FYI. The IPCC uses the Vattenfall calculations for the emissions and EROEI which were not peer reviewed and on the optimistic side.

This is the peer reviewed report.

Since nuclear has such a wildly greater EROEI than wind and solar,

No, you're wrong. Here is the science. Short answer negative EROEI on nuclear.

why isn't this story about the trillions of lives and quintillions of dollars saved by nuclear over the last 50 years?

Because there isn't any story to tell.

The author of that study, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, is a known anti-nuclear figurehead.

You are welcome to provide an equivalent work.

The study you cite has been widely panned by scientists,

Whose critiques are addressed in the work

as can be seen with even just a cursory look at Wikipedia.

Which I did and the page you cite has no supporting data that references to the energy consumption for mining, variability for hard or soft ores, efficiency of extraction and yield.

Additionally the, now defunct, Vatenfall work used exactly the same methods to estimate industrial energy expenditure in support of the nuclear industry. Even when you use their numbers, mining consumes up to a third of the lifetime energy output of an AP1000 reactor.

Here is a peer reviewed study on the net energy return of Nuclear Power. Let's just say the outcome isn't positive.

The IPCC accepted data on this subject from Vattenfall, a company with heavy investments in Nuclear power.

Yes, it wouldn't make sense to accept data on this subject from someone who didn't run any nuclear power plants, as they then wouldn't have any data to share, now would it?!

This is the peer reviewed study used by the European Parliament.

I love how people who tout solar and wind as "clean" are actually a form of NIMBY because they don't mind all of the strip-mining at slave wages for all of the rare earth minerals that have to me mined and transported to build them. Let alone all of the pollution created during that process.

Then you should look into the Nuclear Industry's mining practices. Radon from mine tailing polluting waterways. Acid leech mining that leaves behind megalitres of radioactive sulphuric acid. Really bad stuff.

Slaves are bad, but killing the entire village is worse.

1st-world countries should be capable of running nuclear power without serious problems if their governments actually demanded quality. (That is, if you already have nuclear bombs, there's ZERO rational argument against nuclear power. I'm not suggesting proliferation of more weaponry.)

There are oodles of reasons why nuclear is a bad idea. Here is the peer reviewed science regarding the absence of any energetic return from nuclear power.

The story of Fukushima is a failure of government to regulate greedy corporations, not an inherent failure of technology.

No it isn't. It is a story of collusion, corruption and criminal negligence. Also of the human species inherent inability to operate it safely with organizational systems.

I'll never understand why slashdotters claim to love technology and "science" but eschew one of the greatest advances in the history of mankind.

Because the more you understand the many aspects, not just the reactors, but the mining, the enrichment, how radionuclide bio-accumulate, long term waste storage, decommissioning the reactors and demolishing them safely, the political, finance, legal and insurance issues, the materials technology issues, issues of scaling and developing the technology we find that whilst the technology is amazing, it's also ultimately pointless - that's why.

Because if we don't get all those things right, every time then it slowly destroys the human genome over time through transgenic disease. We have *one* biosphere adapted to human life, radionuclides decay in geological timeframes and once they are in the environment they cannot be removed. They are in the food chain.

Because if you survive the hype about nuclear power and dig down through the layers of PR and understand all that, then you find nuclear power is inherently kleptoparasitic and future generations will have to deal with a radiological legacy from our generation the same way we have to deal with a carbon legacy from previous generations.

I think people are starting wake up to the fact that we can adversely affect future generations and ask questions about how we avoid killing our descendants.

This is what happens when something turns into an -ism. I think opposition to nuclear is based more on dogma and irrational fear than anything else at this point.

I'm so very glad you bough that up, check my sig friend, it's not my ism I am talking about.

Here's a thought: maybe we should listen to specialists (say, nuclear scientists and engineers, and throw in some statisticians to tally up safety records) about whether modern nuclear power is safe and effective enough to use.

OK, let me get you started. This is the peer reviewed science that show nuclear power provides no Net Energy Return with contributions from about 10 Universities around the world, including CERN.

Because, I'm pretty sure the science is settled at this point. Should we also should start calling opponents "nuclear deniers"?

That would be like saying climate change is bullshit, but I kind of like it.

Yeah fuckit, I'm a nuclear denier. I deny Nuclear is a real solution to climate change. I'll start calling the nutty nukker fanbois, physics deniers, better FACT deniers or 'unable to provide fact'ers - but I jest ho ho ho.

You post casually bypasses the main issue of *radionuclides* being released into the environment from these accidents. pu-239 is fatal at doses of 1 microgram, an iron analogue when presented to a metabolism, is an inhalant in the form of plutonium oxide causing lung cancer and highly water soluble in the form of plutonium chloride and when absorbed in the body causes leukemia. There a plethora of other radionuclides released in these accidents.

You speak of radiation exposure as if it is the main issue. It is not. You speak of *external* radiation exposure as if it is the only thing possible. It is not. Internal radiation exposure from the radionuclides released from these plants occurs from bioconcentration of these radionuclides in the food chain. This progressively increase the likely hood of gestating cancer, passing on transgenic disease from genetic mutation that don't kill the person but damage their reproductive germ and statistical reductions in the birthrate of human beings from failed pregnancies as a long term and permanent consequence of these accidents.

and can even be used to improve health.

From the first paragraph of the article:might provide a useful treatment modality for certain neurodegenerative diseases. Not *can*, *might*. It's not a radiashun health spa where you get a triated water enema and come out feeling superb, it's a medical treatment that may work or it may not work.

If you are genuinely concerned about the environment and climate change, look to ecological conservation groups and leading climate scientists, which uniformly support nuclear.

Based on flawed information supplied to the IPCC by Vatenfal on the energetic returns of nuclear power whilst ignoring the peer reviewed study with contributions from major universities around the world, including CERN.

Again, tropical resevoirs are the issue. Regardless, new nuclear is dirty since it most rely on low quality ore. http://www.stormsmith.nl/i07.h...

In the same way our generation is facing a carbon legacy from previous generations, future generations will face a radioistope legacy that they will be forced to solve. Consider these facts:

Right now peer reviewed science shows us that the current Nuclear power industry does not provide a Net Energy return simply because of the energetic inputs from mining and the energetic inputs to decommission the reactor. Peer reviewed science surrounding the net energy return of the entire Nuclear industry when viewed from a systemic level is well known and discussed. When examined as a whole more energy goes into the Nuclear Industry than what can safely come out.

Addressing the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 currently stored in reactor sites around America and indeed the world is imperative, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist this issue onto later generations.

There is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation so it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Even doing that, just the infrastructure project to simply move the spent fuel to a storage facility will probably take 30 years to complete as it is an enormous undertaking. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available. There is some promising work in storing spent nuclear fuels in crystaline strctures that don't leech into water tables but not that works on an industrial scale yet.

Third and fourth generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will be in service for thousands of years to avoid using up most of the energetic yeild of the reactor on reactor disposal. I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, because it burned weapons grade plutonium and DU and we desperately need to stop DU being used as a munition. Maybe one day we will be able to build reactors properly and have appropriate social and management systems that prevent the kind of accidents we have seen but that day is not here yet.

Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because our technology - especially material sciences - are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. If you look at it realistically the only way forward for the nuclear industry is a well thought out project to redesign the entire industry as a long term solution, a much better legacy for future generations than a long term problem that will last a minimum of 25,000 years for the first half life pu-239 to decay. The would require a re-engineering of the entire economy to achieve a safe nuclear industry that had a safety culture that is embedded and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That not going to happen because the nuclear industry has demonstrated they can't blame themselves for problems and consistently fail to improve. It's more realistic to beleive that accellerators will be built on the sites and most of the spent fuel destroyed before any breeder or burner reactors are ever constructed.

I support reactor research but not commercial nuclear power. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry because their failure

"Fer God's sake, fusion energy is just around the corner... :)"

And nuclear fission is here now.

A good measure of the quality of an energy source is the energy return on energy investment (EROEI).

I see a future that is driven by nuclear fission, nothing else can compare.

Work studying the EROEI of nuclear power has already been done with input from a host of universities. They included the technologies you speak of and found that nuclear power has a *negative* EROEI.

My opinion aubout CF is: it is a useless metric.

Indeed, almost a misleading one.

I was surprised when one /. poster once posted a link to a government document (in the USA) where CF is actually "defined" and there where examples where plant owners did actually report their CFs per plant to an gov agency.

It falls into their typical fixation on reactor technology, whilst ignoring the peer reviewed science about the negligible energetic return of the entire industry.

My argument always was that e.g. in Germany no power company is using that "metric" as it is not relevant for daily use/planning of power plants.

Your explanation goes into the same direction as the US definition I remember simply was: actual-energy / max-energy-if-run-at100%-fulltime. Not sure if it was adjusted in any way regarding the actual runtime ... that document specified a set of variations of CFs.

I can see how they arrive at a 90% figure, however it's about as accurate as saying 'it makes power when it runs'. The utilisation of NPP is woeful compared to other types of generation and my sense of the measurement is that it is a construct that ignores maintenance and a life time calculation of the energetic yield.

Specifically so that they can say that a plant that has only operated for 50% of its available service life can say it has a CF of 90% (even with a poor utilisation) compared to a solar plant that operated for 100% of its service life has a CF of 50%. This way even TMI, which operated for 3 months of it's expected 40-50 year service life can claim a 90% CF.

Yeah, actually a nuclear plant has a quite high power consumption.

I just checked a german nuclear plant, its yield is 1468MW, but it consumes 66MW so the efficiency of converting thermal energy to electricity is only 35.3% (This is per turbine/block, so a plant with 4 blocks, which is cut from landlines and has to emergency shut down, would need 4 x ~ 70MW emergency power Generation)

When you consider the energetic input from front and back end industrial processes the energetic cost's go even higher. You may be interested in this work on the energetic returns of NPP, this document has been used to advise European parliament has work from universities around the world contributing.

Thanks for being one of the few people here that have enough brains to actually look at this stuff objectively. I share your frustration with these nuclear fanbois, they are only good at moral superiority that they get from social proof - once confronted with fact they have nothing to back up their claims.

You can either make a quotation from the study and paraphrase the argument or I'm not going to go reading through in detail anything you post.

That's exactly what I did. I said Peer reviewed studies show there is a diminishing Energetic Return on Energetic Investment in the Nuclear fuel cycle which is a limitation based on several design aspects. Below 200grams Uranium per ton of rock Nuclear power is no longer viable because of the amount of energy you need to produce the fuel.

I can't read them all and I think it is incumbent on you to make a point that does not require I read that unless there is actually something in there that I need.

Support for my statement. You can read for yourself or beleive me.

As to your study... you want me to read that whole thing?

Try reading i12-i16, four pages, and see how you go on the EROEI thread. You might actually find it interesting if you actually *are* interested in nuclear technology. I personally find it fascinating.

Given that the study was published in Holland and you keep referencing US legislation... I'm not seeing the connection.

No need to make one. The study examines the energetic inputs and output and uncovers the diminishing energetic return of the nuclear industry. The P-A legislation enables the industry to exist as the government assumes the liability for accidents under the bill.

Paraphrase: The evidence from peer reviewed studies is that the Nuclear industry energetic contributions is greatly diminished by the energetic inputs it requires as it becomes less viable day by day due to increasing energetic inputs.

There's no significant faction that is arguing against all flaws in nuclear power. You're trying to create a balance where it doesn't exist which would justify the behavior of the anti nuclear lobby.

Ahh, so pro nuclear. Well the anti-nuclear lobby does have justifiable fears, which the pro-nuke lobby don't believe exist.

There is no balance and no justification.

A centre position to either side of the argument appears opposite to their position as a matter of perspective. So you will call me anti-

Of course you'll find SOMEONE taking that position but no significant faction.

Indeed.

As to the problems with nuclear power... so far as I've seen, the biggest issue is the cost structure due to out of date fear based regulations

So are you arguing to abolish the Price-Anderson act?

actually makes nuclear power less safe because it becomes impractical to replace old systems with new ones or to even examine what is going on for fear that political elements will exploit that to shut the system down.

I think you'll find that it is too expensive to replace Nuclear plants and Wall st prefers wind because it is a more reliable return on investment. Peer reviewed studies show there is a diminishing Energetic Return on Energetic Investment in the Nuclear fuel cycle which is a limitation based on several design aspects. Below 200grams Uranium per ton of rock Nuclear power is no longer viable because of the amount of energy you need to produce the fuel.

Oh... and the the issue with warehousing nuclear waste which isn't a big deal unless the radicals make it a big deal.

That view is only sustainable if you are unaware of the effect of radionuclides on the human genome or how they propagate through the food chain via bio-accumulation. It is also a key issue for any expansion of the nuclear industry so I would actually argue that it is a core issue to both sides of the debate.

The polarization of this debate makes it difficult to discuss even the most benign criticism of the Nuclear industry. No doubt I'll be modded down for that however if the Nuclear industry wasn't so fragile perhaps it could tolerate the criticism and overcome many of the issues it has.

The peer reviewed science shows that Nuclear power provides no net energetic return and is not viable in its current form. Perhaps France has identified that and the vote will identify how well understood that is, unfortunately the political cycle is a lot shorter than the long range planning and oversight the Nuclear Industry requires.

The Nuclear industry has serious structural issues and the only way they can be solved is by looking at the facts in a realistic, analytic and pragmatic way. I welcome facts and a debate on this free of the general dogmatic skepticism and ad-hom attacks from nuclear fanbois, after all I am trying to learn as much as I can like any normal person about this important and complex subject.

I am not anti nuclear, I am Responsible Nuclear which is different from being pro or anti nuclear. Please understand the difference in that perspective before you test my radiation suit.

Bzzzzz..... Wrong answer. It is not and Studies by NASA and the UN both support a large increase in nuclear power to reduce pollution in general as well as carbon emissions as does one of the founders of Greenpeace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Most radio isotopes from power production are extremely toxic, so your response doesn't really make sense in that regard - it is clear to see that it is a major threat to the environment, just not well understood how...

Of course Greenpeace says he is a paid toady of the nuclear industry.... Vilification of those that disagree with you is the first rule of propaganda.

Sure, that's why the IAEA has publishing interdiction orders over the WHO in all matters nuclear.

Besides I'm not certain what NASA/UN studies you refer to? I do know that some rely on a document sponsored by the nuclear industry player Vattenfal, as does the IPCC, which gives them an overly optimistic picture of what is achievable with Nuclear.

Can you send me a link of what your referring to, mine is in the last two IPCC reports if you want to check.

And speaking of vilification, that is what happened to the peer reviewed science regarding the energetic return of the nuclear industry. From actual nuclear industry scientists, you'll understand the Nuclear Industry from an "energetic return" perspective on investment in the nuclear industry. I hope you find it interesting.

As of the biological harm, there is no question, it is a toxic threat to the environment via radiological and transgenic disease. I don't know if that is GP's objections but they are pretty good reasons to think radio isotopes are a threat to the environment and ultimately, humanity.

Could someone fill me in on the economics of nuclear power generation? I'd like to know what the usual payback period for a plant is, and how much it costs to operate a plant over that period.

Absolutely. Here is a link to the peer reviewed science that details net energy return after factoring input costs.

Have a great day!

One of the things to remember is that whilst Human Beings have a vested interest in their survival and will do anything to survive, the same can be held true for the Nuclear Industry. The Nuclear Industry has a vested interest in shaping people's worldview to influence the industries' survival and utilizes enormous resources to convince people of their case.

This leads me to the IPCC. In reading the 2007 report I noticed that one of their sources of information to assess the viability of Nuclear energy on climate change is a document produced by an organization with a vested interest in promoting Nuclear power, Vattenfall. I read it back in 2005 (sorry I can't find a link). Rather than a study it's called a "Environmental Product Declaration" which was written to comply with Swedish regulations in 2004, it has not been peer reviewed and was "certified" until 2007. For example, it paints an optimistic picture of the Nuclear Industry's energetic return from mining and Uranium availability through to reactor decommissioning. So it appears this commercial document has been used to deceive the IPCC.

However, a formal, peer reviewed energy analysis from Nuclear Industry Scientists is available to the IPCC in a study called Nuclear Power Insights that uses established scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. It is a comprehensive and fascinating read, which is in line with the scope and size of the nuclear industry and dispels many of the assumptions surrounding the nuclear industry. In, short the formal analysis assesses the ability of the Nuclear Industry to provide a "net energy return" based on energetic inputs and finds that roughly two thirds of its output is consumed by industrial processes external to the actual production of nuclear power. The carbon intensity of the nuclear industry is also examined.

It was quite confronting to have my worldview of Nuclear Power challenged and I had to take bites out of reading it to avoid being overloaded, however it was worth the effort in dispelling many of the long held assumptions and replacing them with good information and fact.

Actually the peer reviewed science shows that nuclear energy has no net energy return. What this means is every dollar spent on nuclear energy is wasted. The study uses industrial standards for process measurement as a basis.

The site you linked to is bunk. They're using the 2nd law of thermodynamics to argue against mined resources. Let's see what they say: "From the Second Law follows that the generated amount of useful energy from mineral energy sources is insufficient to compensate for its coupled entropy generation, even if all useful energy would applied to that purpose." It's not possible for uranium mining to decrease entropy in the universe, so obviously it's not economically viable! You could say the same thing for breathing.

And too bad they include completely made up additional costs to nuclear (like a cost of heat production - complete BS, and cost of using up uranium resources, when in fact reprocessing reduces that to almost zero very quickly )

Actually the peer reviewed science shows that nuclear energy has no net energy return. What this means is every dollar spent on nuclear energy is wasted. The study uses industrial standards for process measurement as a basis.

Enjoy the lies. Pity that environmentalists so often have to resort to them - not many ideals on those idealists.

I don't think this is a matter of 'environmentalists' anymore, our society has some severe structural issues. If we don't solve them the future of the human race will become very bleak indeed.

Coal mines and coal mining can however.

I think the point the OP was making is that radioisotopes at Chernobyl consumed 3000sqKm of land and covered it with highly radioactive pu-239 whose half life of 25000 years is effectively forever. It seems to me they are both different degrees of bad. Talking about coal though, as bad as it is, is pretty OT wrt solving spent fuel containment. We have coal and uranium problems to solve. What we have to learn from being left a carbon legacy from coal use is not to leave a radioisotope legacy for future generations. Containment has to be resolved.

Meanwhile uranium mining uses Acid leech mining to get uranium and while the area is quite small the impact can render entire water tables unusable. This is particularly bad for an arid country like Australia yet the Nuclear industry is happy to use it here while it is illegal in the US and Russia. Hardly an ethical position, but technically ok.

The reason they do that is because it take roughly 500tons of ore to yield 1 kilo of uranium and approximately 900tons of Uranium to produce 1 kilo of fissionable Uranium usable in a reactor. A reactor core requires roughly 150tons.

It may not take as much surface area however, it now consumes approximately 1/3 of the power output over the life time of the reactor just to produce the fuel. The peer reviewed science has been done which shows that there is no energetic benefit from Nuclear power in its current form.

Before you ask for a citation it's peer reviewed and uses U.S government standards for industrial process measurement.

Seriously, though if you're trying to make nuclear energy look bad, please don't compare it to coal unless you're trying to actually make it look good.

Well the coal industries externality is carbon into the atmosphere and no one wants to pay for that. So who wants to pay for the Nuclear industries' externalities? The nuclear industry is obsolete until it deals with this spent fuel containment issue, which it described as a non issue that would be solved in the 80's.

Nuclear only looks good when you don't actually understand the full implications and ignorance won't protect you from the consequences.

Nuclear energy is many many orders of magnitude more energy dense than coal.

Unfortunately none of the reactors in operation can utilize any more than 0.3% of that energy density. Yes, less than one percent, nuclear reactors are fantastically inefficient.

What people generally don't realise is...

What the hell all of this talk about coal has got to do with the over whelming need for spent fuel containment in a geologically sound facility. No evolution of the Nuclear industry will come without that.

The only reason you don't hear about it as much is that most of the mining now happens in poor countries or in the middle of absoloutely nowhere (i.e. Austrailia).

Having traveled to the area you may not be aware that it is also a World Heritage National park and one of the most beautiful places in the world with a huge amount of bio-diversity where they do the acid leech mining for these reactors. You may think it's unreasonable but why should I risk my back yard for you? Of course there has already been a 2 million litre spill of that acid there because the tanks weren't maintained - so commitments really mean nothing.

I know you can't appreciate it but if you give me your address I'll send you a fresh turd for you to put on your kitchen table so you'll get some idea what it means to me. In the meantime I'll continue to lobby government to shut it down and you can buy uranium from the south africans. We all win.

It's actually easy to crunch the numbers. In terms of deaths per kWh and land rendered unusable, and a whole bu

Logic is a wonderful thing and we need more critical thinking and less hyperbole with regards to green energy.

Let's test that.

Strident hyperbole with regards to the anti-nuclear energy has resulted in the real world build of coal power plants as renewals simply are suitable for baseline power.

Nuclear generation has a ramp up time to respond to basload conditions. Baseload power is a function of the grid, not of a single form of generation. Solar Thermal is responsive for baseload and wind is more scaleable than nuclear or coal.

Coal power plants also release far more pollution and for the ignorant they also result in a lot of radiation being released into the air.

It's not radiation that is being released, it's radionuclides that emit radiation, the destinction being that radiation doesn't get into the food chain, radinuclides do. ALL radionuclide release into the environment produces mutagenic responses in metabolisms that in many cases result in some form of cancer. So yeah, it's a problem for the coal industry and the nuclear industry.

Radionuclides from coal plants are also not artificially enriched, so they are less *radioactive*.

Nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest pollution, best carbon footprint of anything we have

The point of nuclear power isn't carbon footprint, it's "Net Energy Return". You can check the science that the nuclear industry itself has spent much time attempting to refute. You will find it's been peer reviewed and constructed using using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement. So until you come up with a better argument, then this one alone is enough to reveal any further investment in commercial nuclear power as pointless as we will leave a radionuclide legacy for future generations the way we were left a carbon legacy by previous generations. We simply have to find a way to do it better than nuclear or coal.

(it's largest footprint comes from the concrete used in it's construction) and could be far cheaper if it wasn't severely over-regulated.

So what are you suggesting? Reduce the the ratio of containment volume to thermal power so it is below the design of the AP-1000 which is below that of today's operating PWRs. Further increase risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident, as if Fukushima never happened?

Over Regulated? The Nuclear Industry *ITSELF* suggested a list of 30 improvements to reactor design which it couldn't afford to implement in the standardised design. It's simply too expensive and Wall street is interested in cost effective solutions like wind and solar that don't require artificial legislative constructs like the Price-Anderson act so they can be insured.

Thorium reactors are also starting to get planned for production and deserve a good look (and if fact a proof of concept plant was built in the past).

So we trade Plutonium-239 for Thallium-208 another gamma emmiter - very nasty stuff to deal with - very hard to deal with and still no idea what to do with the 70,000 tons of pu-239 we have.

Thorium reactors have the green advantages of nuclear reactors and should be included.

It's time to get real about getting green and put the likes of Greenpeace out to pasture. They have done far more harm to the environment than just about anyone short of the Koch brothers.

Except Nuclear reactors have no green advantage. Groupthink is a cancer, no matter the group, no matter the think. It's a result of the very social proof your signature rallies against but comments like this quite clearly demonstrate you have become a victim to. With respect, I would seriously consider synthesising new opinions based on real information and reasoning.

So, as you see, seawter extraction is more Sy Fy.

No, because you completely failed to mention anything at all about sea water.

Show me the technology in operation and I'll mention it. I've searched in the past and haven't found any commercially operating seawater uranium extraction. Show me a prototype. It's your argument and if it was more efficient than mining then it would be being done already. So, yeah, so until I see it, it's basically SyFy.

You also seem to be arguing that the amount of energy required to build a nuclear plant is equivalent to over 1% of the energy usage of the world's 6th largest economy for an entire year. That seems implausible unless you have some very solid citations to back it up.

You are also claiming that reactors yield little more than the energy required to extract the ore. This is also implausible given that some countries electricity is almost entirely nuclear.

It's quite obvious you don't understand the Nuclear industry as a whole. Mining is one phase of preparing fuel, enrichment the next. Building the reactor is energy intensive , but not nearly as much as tearing the reactor down. Here is the peer reviewed science that you were to lazy to look for when I directed you to it.

You also claimed that stockpiling uranium was implausible.

Where did I say that? Actually my plan does include stockpiling nuclear fuel. What I said was

Oh here we go again, sea water blah blah - no idea of the energetic cost to actually *extract* the fuel from the seawater - extereme density fuel but commercial reactor technology can't extract any more than 1% of that energy density. I've heard it all before just like every other Nuklear Cowboy a shallow ill thought out parroted propaganda argument with very little basis in reality, evidence or fact. I'd call it SY FY - but more ridiculous.

It would seem you have very poor attention to detail.

Your numbers were wrong.

First you say I haven't done the number and when I prove that I have you say they are wrong but not why.

At this point it's fair to say your a hopelessly naive Nuklear Cowboy. You've got no argument to present. The deeper you dig here the more like a fool you are going to look. I'd suggest you educate yourself further and then approach me again with some facts and an honest argument. It's unlikely you have anything further of value to offer.

Oh, I'd go a bit further by saying some scientists would disagree, you can check their research. The nuclear industry itself has spent much time attempting to refute their research - so I doubt you can. You will find it's been peer reviewed and constructed using using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement. So until you come up with a better argument then just saying "confirmation biases" this one alone is enough to reveal any further investment in commercial nuclear power as pointless.

Peer reviewed science. Got anything better Nuklear Cowboy.

I'm not interested in CO2, and OP was writing about efficiency. And, where "efficiency", I mean "miles per dollar."

Your CO2 discussion belongs in another thread (and I submit that it probably ends with nuclear energy being king, which is fine by me).

You speak of efficiency and Nuclear in the same post when reputable Nuclear scientists demonstrate that there is no net energy return from nuclear power. You can check their research I believe you will find it's been peer reviewed and constructed using using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement. So, actually, I think you will find that that thread ends with geothermal, solar and wind.

Dammit, broken link, this is the paper.

To give a slight idea of just how much energy is released in a nuclear reactor..The reaction itself is limited only by the temperature at which the ceramic fuel rods and steel cladding melts, and at any time the fuel present in a large reactor contains more energy than entire countries consume in a year.

Thanks for the science lesson but what you are confusing is the *potential* energy available with the reactors capability to release that energy within it's engineering limitations, or it's "potential capacity". This "potential capacity" is also limited by the availability (or uptime) of the reactor. Of the 104 reactors operating in the U.S 41 experienced year plus outages to restore their safety levels and 10 reactors did it twice. That's 51 'year plus' outages in operating nuclear reactors and I haven't even gone into general reactor availability and uptime. The most concerning of this indicates that the infrastructure is showing systemic signs of wear.

Of course, you don't have to believe me just read the report on reactor outages (pdf) so you can educate yourself with real scientific data.

For nuclear power to end up on an energy deficit the energy needed to extract, refine, burn and dispose it would have to be hundreds of millions times larger ( per atom counted ) than the energy needed to extract and refine conventional fuels.

First of all mean energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh (40-120 PetaJoules). However energy cost for demolition are around 70TWh (240-300 PetaJoules) if deconstruction is performed safely. Just in the construction/demolition phase you have consumed 1 third of the 300TWh's expected from the life of a brand new AP1000 reactor. Then factor the energetic costs of the dismantling and clean up of the core 5.6 - 16TWh's and it really is starting to look like a very poor energy return from your 1GW reactor.

Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enrichment you've consumed over 100TWhs without a 1/3 core refuel every ten years for forty and we haven't even factored energetic costs of a spent fuel containment facility or the logistics of moving spent fuel safely.

Even though most reactors today only burn about 5%

It is *common knowledge* that current reactors have a burn up rate of roughly less than half of one percent (0.3%) of the fuel, not a good starting point fuel wise, with the reactor being around 33% efficient. That might be typical for an industrial power plant but as the industrial energetic inputs weigh heavily off the efficiency of the plant, that is going to be another figure we will never be able to determine simply because the plants will consume energy *after* they are decommissioned.

This brings us to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the net energy return of the Nuclear industry. You can check their research which is one source for the above figures and tell me what you think (the other being nuclear industry estimates which are *not* peer reviewed). The nuclear industry itself has spent much time attempting to refute their research. You will find it's been peer reviewed and constructed using using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement. So until you come up with a better argument, then this one alone is enough to reveal any further investment in commercial nuclear power as pointless.

This is how far I read

Nuclear opponents sometimes like to quote a study by a guy named Storm van Leeuwen who claims otherwise, but from what I can tell it is flawed.

Oh, I think some scientists would disagree, you can check their research and tell me what you think. The nuclear industry itself has spent much time attempting to refute their research. I believe you will find it's been peer reviewed and constructed using using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement.

you don't get a link, if you can't understand why a nuclear process is thousands of times as energetic as a chemical one no link will help you.

Now, now don't be overbearing if you can't backup your case. This is in not a matter of a nuclear process vs a chemical one, it's about the energy yield from the technology available. Existing reactor technology does not provide a net energy benefit in the long term when you compare the energy inputs to outputs.

You can't even reason correctly about an engineering problem, no need to meet 100% of our electric needs in the next five decades, growing to 30 or 40% from 20% will do nicely.

hahahaha, personal attacks instead of rational argument! Most of the 100 odd reactors in the U.S are approaching old-age and have to be de-commissioned long before your fantasy comes true. The last one was built in the 70's, from memory, and since they only have a 40 year life span that's getting pretty close. So what does your "reasoning" suggest we replace them with eh? AP1000's with shit containment or PBMR that produce deadlier waste and have deadlier failure modes.

In reality what you are saying is to build 200 new reactors in America, when even 100 new reactors in America, assuming you can keep the old ones running, is a massive task - and still no geologically stable waste repository. There are much better energy investments in the US, why not utilise those? They have a much better energy return and even without the generous subsidies that Nuklere bower gets, wouldn't it be logical to invest something into them to enhance that technology?

And a link to a (badly formatted) web page by two fringe nutjobs proves nothing, the economics of nuclear power work out just as well as oil (include most military spending) or other fossil fuel subsidized energy source.

More personal attacks, I guess they were concentrating on being nuclear scientist's rather than web programmers. Here is a link to their paper as a pdf. If they were fringe nutjobs then the nuclear industry itself would not have spent so much time attempting to refute their research. YOU however do not have THEIR qualification's so who are you to cast aspersions on their reputation or their work which has been peer reviewed in a proper scientific manner using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement.

I know you want to believe, but it's not just the science, it's the economic and medical consequences of having an operational nuclear industry without proper supporting technology to utilise the material safely and effectively.

AND you talk about the economics of the OIL industry which clearly proves your ignorance of the subject matter. The economics of the oil industry doesn't work either because you have reserves being inflated for political reasons so that production quota's can be kept artificially high. Petrol in your country is so cheap because of those subsidies, and with every oil field in the world in decline, you have picked an example that illustrates my argument. As the raw materials get harder to produce and they become more energy intensive and produce a lower energy return, offsetting the costs to another generation.

AND If both these industries are so good - why do they need subsidies?

You don't need to buy into anything, already happening.

Where in America has the soil been turned, where is the actual CONSTRUCTION taking place?

Apparently most of the educated engineering world disagrees with your assessment of the economics, and so the plants are being built.

Oh Dear, I guess that's because engineers do engineering and economist's do economics. You see ruby ruby ruby ruby so-ho, details like that are important thats why the people who actually ARE educated, or educate themselves about nuclear energy, don't support it. They underst

nuclear reactors don't themselvs produce CO2. but the production of uranium sure does. mining the stuff it makes me wonder, how much energy does nuclear actually net? this site doesn't have all the information but it sure has some nice pics.

in this paper, the authors calculated that with high quality ore, the CO2 produced by the full life of a reactor is about half to one third of an equivalent sized gas-fired power station. but once high quality ore is not available (it's getting rare) low quality ores are used, requiring more energy to mine and refine, and the CO2 produced by the reactor becomes equal to that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.

but a station built to run on natural gas could be retrofitted to be fueled by something more carbon neutral, less radioactive.