How do you think fossil fuel is extracted? Using Fossil fuel of course. Ever been in the gulf at night? you can see as huge flame from 10s of miles away (horizon is kinda close even on a aircraft carrier). That flame is just them burning off parts of the fuel they didn't want at the oil rig. Yes Uranium production uses fuel but when you compare the amount of CO2 produced for every watt of electricity produced its is still much higher then a coal/oil/gas plant. I would even guess that the amount of fossil fuel used to run the power plant is greater then the amount of fossil fuel used to mine and refine the uranium. My assumption is based on the fact that the fuel cost is very minor compared to the other costs of running a nuclear power plant. I say the cost is great since in out industrial economy ever dollar you spent generally turns into oil dollars at almost a fixed rate no matter what you spend it on. Since so many people and services use oil and your spending almost invariably triggers the sale of more oil within days. So since it cost more to run the plant than to mine and refine the fuel I think it is very fair to say that mining fuel is not holding back nuclear's ability to produce electrical energy at low CO2 levels. And now onto the storage facilities. At least its possible to make storage facilities for nuclear. Also with proper design of new reactors if production where to be increased by 50x times in the US we would only double the amount of waste the US has in about maybe 15 years. We already have so much waste from poor design that the extra space is really not a big deal. Also newer designs make much cleaner fuel. The pebble bed reactor which china is big on might have other issues but waste is not one of them the design is very very clean due to using gas for a coolant and burning up fuel rather well. Sending the leftover fuel to breeder reactors for a final burn would cut down on the waste even more. Anyhow please excuse my poor spelling and grammar I do not have much education but I am always impressed by the things people will say about nuclear.
Here is the end all of energy production. The only way that is going to work to reduce CO2 or any other problem is to find a way to make the cleaner production methods better and by better I mean CHEAPER. Price is what makes things happen except maybe in some ways in China. Really the closest thing to a dictatorship left on large scale. Everywhere else the cheapest tech wins.
Onto you other comments (I love these btw they are classics)
1. New products almost always increase efficiency, New homes do, Remodeled homes do, Newer cars.
But hey guess what most people do think long term even in there own budgets or the interests just don't work out. More efficient house cost 20k extra but only saves 1k a year does that pay for itself? no that 20k is on the top so for 30 years you pay 1k extra a year. (assume 5%) And the price tag is higher. People hate sticker shock. The extra heating bills come out later.
Basically I think a lot is being done about this item. It could be better but no here comes number 2.
2. I agree about the shipping and transport. But its just not practical people like working 70 miles from home. People like moving about the country/world. People like fresh production from Mexico. People like buying things cheap online individually packaged and shipped overnight even! Yes public transport would be great. In the US there are very few place where talking public transport is not associated with being either poor or crazy. I know its sad but mostly I think other then being not as convenient this is the problem. Really a improved public transport system is needed. How could this be done? Really I think just designing automated electric buses that have really good collision avoidance that is better then a human driver is the key. Smaller buses ones designed to stop and start quickly. Automated routes that people can sign up for to pick many people up in one area then go directly to another area without having to
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think fossil fuel is extracted? Using Fossil fuel of course. Ever been in the gulf at night? you can see as huge flame from 10s of miles away (horizon is kinda close even on a aircraft carrier). That flame is just them burning off parts of the fuel they didn't want at the oil rig. Yes Uranium production uses fuel but when you compare the amount of CO2 produced for every watt of electricity produced its is still much higher then a coal/oil/gas plant. I would even guess that the amount of fossil fuel used to run the power plant is greater then the amount of fossil fuel used to mine and refine the uranium. My assumption is based on the fact that the fuel cost is very minor compared to the other costs of running a nuclear power plant. I say the cost is great since in out industrial economy ever dollar you spent generally turns into oil dollars at almost a fixed rate no matter what you spend it on. Since so many people and services use oil and your spending almost invariably triggers the sale of more oil within days. So since it cost more to run the plant than to mine and refine the fuel I think it is very fair to say that mining fuel is not holding back nuclear's ability to produce electrical energy at low CO2 levels. And now onto the storage facilities. At least its possible to make storage facilities for nuclear. Also with proper design of new reactors if production where to be increased by 50x times in the US we would only double the amount of waste the US has in about maybe 15 years. We already have so much waste from poor design that the extra space is really not a big deal. Also newer designs make much cleaner fuel. The pebble bed reactor which china is big on might have other issues but waste is not one of them the design is very very clean due to using gas for a coolant and burning up fuel rather well. Sending the leftover fuel to breeder reactors for a final burn would cut down on the waste even more. Anyhow please excuse my poor spelling and grammar I do not have much education but I am always impressed by the things people will say about nuclear.
Here is the end all of energy production. The only way that is going to work to reduce CO2 or any other problem is to find a way to make the cleaner production methods better and by better I mean CHEAPER. Price is what makes things happen except maybe in some ways in China. Really the closest thing to a dictatorship left on large scale. Everywhere else the cheapest tech wins.
Onto you other comments (I love these btw they are classics)
1. New products almost always increase efficiency, New homes do, Remodeled homes do, Newer cars.
But hey guess what most people do think long term even in there own budgets or the interests just don't work out. More efficient house cost 20k extra but only saves 1k a year does that pay for itself? no that 20k is on the top so for 30 years you pay 1k extra a year. (assume 5%) And the price tag is higher. People hate sticker shock. The extra heating bills come out later.
Basically I think a lot is being done about this item. It could be better but no here comes number 2.
2. I agree about the shipping and transport. But its just not practical people like working 70 miles from home. People like moving about the country/world. People like fresh production from Mexico. People like buying things cheap online individually packaged and shipped overnight even! Yes public transport would be great. In the US there are very few place where talking public transport is not associated with being either poor or crazy. I know its sad but mostly I think other then being not as convenient this is the problem. Really a improved public transport system is needed. How could this be done? Really I think just designing automated electric buses that have really good collision avoidance that is better then a human driver is the key. Smaller buses ones designed to stop and start quickly. Automated routes that people can sign up for to pick many people up in one area then go directly to another area without having to