« GM Crops. | Main | Pollyanna »
July 21, 2006
More Nuclear Bollocks
Apologies for being a little terse this morning: a slight ache behind the eyes and the nonsense that is in the papers today:
France's 60 operating PWRs emit a relatively benign 29 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour; but that is for today's high-grade ores, which will last a few years at best. Once we consider the next grade of uranium ore down, then nuclear power burns up considerably more energy than it generates and its emissions will exceed those even of coal.
Entirely bollocks. More emissions than coal? Use more energy than it generates? What planet is this man on? Even the most alarmist of the studies did not show that (a study with which there are all sorts of problems anyway):
Using sensible assumptions, Professors Smith and Van Leeuwen determined that nuclear generation produced about a third as much CO2 per kWh as conventional mid-sized gas-fired electricity generation.
July 21, 2006 in Nuclear | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834a2607453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Nuclear Bollocks:
Comments
"Using sensible assumptions, Professors Smith and Van Leeuwen"
There is nothing sensible about their assumptions!
http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/saf/pollution.html
The few years estimate comes from the assumption that all energy was to be nuclear produced and no further exploration would yield anything.
Bollux indeed!
Posted by: Josh | Jul 21, 2006 10:08:49 AM
This and Polly's nonsense from the other day is definitely worth a blogging.
Posted by: Josh | Jul 21, 2006 11:25:03 AM
Dont use the dutchman's name, it only gives his bad science publicity. Do not feed the media beast.
Posted by: johnny bonk | Jul 21, 2006 3:16:16 PM
Can someone explain how nuclear GENERATION produces any CO2 emissions at all?
Constructing nuclear stations, yes. Mining the fuel, yes. Disposing of the waste, maybe, depending on how it's done.
But the GENERATION process? You know, that fission/steam turbine/generator thingy? Carbon Dioxide? Where and how?
Sorry, but I am only a simple chemist, can someone point out whatever it is I've missed?
Tim adds: You are correct, nuclear generation produces no CO2. Nor does generation via solar or wind of course.
However, that’s not really good enough. What we want to know is what are the total lifecycle CO2 emissions per M Watt. These are about 14 tonnes for wind, 16 for nuclear and 39 for solar. It is the concrete, the purification etc that cause it.
Posted by: andrew duffin | Jul 21, 2006 4:00:17 PM
Basing CO2 estimates for nuclear fuel production on the status quo is deeply flawed. The whopper is the assumption that the electricty for enrichment comes from the existing mix of (mainly fossil-powered) sources. A more correct analysis would look at the net or incremental contribution to GHG of adding nuclear capacity to the grid; the energy required for enrichment facilities should just be deducted from the plant's output.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 21, 2006 4:56:50 PM
Doug hits it - the major CO2 assumption is enrichment. Usually they use old data where enrichment was by gaseous diffusion plus they add in weapon-grade highly enriched uranium production with civilian low enriched uranium.
Perhaps people should consider the technology trends. Gaseous diffusion plants are now shutdown and centrifuges are in. The latter use 10% of the electrical energy of comparable diffusion for equivalent separatory work.
Looking ahead just a little, laser isotopic enrichment is poised for commercial development and one can predict even greater efficiencies in kW-hr/SWU (that's kilowatt-hour per separatory work unit).
Posted by: Whitehall | Jul 21, 2006 5:17:36 PM
How soon before Pakistan nicks the laser dooda, then?
Posted by: dearieme | Jul 21, 2006 11:15:24 PM
Doug may be on to a serious methodological flaw that I had also noticed .. what do folk reckon? Is there a glaring mathematical error in the way the dutchman does the numbers?
Posted by: johnny bonk | Jul 22, 2006 1:14:13 AM
Refusal to consider centrifuge enrichment or diffussion enrichment powered by nuclear is the least of van Leeuwen and Smith's crimes. They use an inaccurate method for calculating the energy cost of building a nuclear plant: basically using the cost in pounds (or dollars or euros) to estimate the energy cost. Of course nuclear plants can be delayed for years by enquiries, accruing huge borrowing costs. They also use high value labour, but none of this equates to a greater energy cost.
Their figures for mining and milling of uranium ore are even more inaccurate. As I try to post wherever I see their names, their predictions for low grade ores, when applied to existing mines, produce overestimates between 50-100 times. In the case of the Rossing mine in Namibia they predict it uses more energy than the whole country!
For the definitive, slam dunk of this pseudo-science go to http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power.
Posted by: MCrab | Jul 22, 2006 3:44:41 AM
johnny bonk said: But the GENERATION process? You know, that fission/steam turbine/generator thingy? Carbon Dioxide? Where and how?
In 34 years working in and around nuclear power, I can authoritatively say that I have seen Carbon Dioxide associated with the "fission/steam turbine/generator thingy." The most direct instance was when I had to close the CO2 isolation valve for the fire supression system after the generator exciter fire was out.
johnny bonk is right. Carbon dioxide is NOT a part of the generation process and certainly not an effluent from the process.
Posted by: Mike in Arkansas | Jul 23, 2006 6:57:33 PM
