[cwes99_03]

KAC that WISE study is from 1997, pretty out of date considering it's statements about 2005 uranium ore production as futuristic.

However, the most disturbing finds in that study are that it attributes the 140 g/KWh of CO_2 solely to the mining, shipping, and enrichment of the uranium ore. While the 150 g/KWh is contributed to just the burning of a gas fueled Combined Heat and Power plant. Gas of course does not require mining, and is shipped very short distances through pipelines. However it then threatens that the supply of uranium is diminishing without saying anything about the gas supplies diminishing.

Also in the paper is the following quote

The possibilities to reduce the CO2 emissions in the production of electricity are limited. In the Netherlands the increase of the greenhouse effect through the burning of fossile fuel is confined to 24,8 % creditable to electrical power production. The remainder is spent on fuel for cars and aeroplanes, residential heating and, for instance, cooking. Nuclear power stations can only be utilized for the production of electricity.

This makes it seem like nuclear power plants contribute more CO_2 without solving the issue of CO_2 production in other areas.
What it actually states.
the increase of the greenhouse effect through the burning of fossile fuel is confined to 24,8 % creditable to electrical power production (i.e. fossil fuel burning to create electricity contributes 25% of the increased CO_2 emissions)
and
Nuclear power stations can only be utilized for the production of electricity, not to power cars and planes, heat homes, cook food, etc. This is a bald faced lie. Electricity can be used to power cars, can be used to cook food, and can be used to heat homes. Thus if a power plant were built in place of a coal plant, the clean energy produced by it could reduce the greenhouse gas production in the netherlands by maybe 75% or more (can't figure out how to power a 747 off of a nuclear power plant so...).

This paper seems to be heavily slanted and biased against nuclear power.

Strictly comparing coal based power to nuclear based power production, there is no doubt that coal plants are less capable of immediate disaster, however, they are much filthier in the air, water and land polution categories (coal mining is incredibly destructive to the land and the health of the workers.) I don't have data on the mining of uranium, but I do know much of todays coal goes through a process of "enrichment" to make it burn cleaner, though this does not make it cleaner than nuclear power.

Someone above cited heat as a polutant. I'm sorry heat isn't even a biproduct, it is the purpose of the plant, produce heat and turn it into electricity.

Power plants do not produce vented radiation. The areas surrounding plants are well protected to the best of my knowledge. The radiation is kept inside a looped system so that any water or other coolant that comes in direct contact with radioactive elements is never allowed to escape by design. Any leaks should be immediately dealt with and not allowed to enter the external environment unless a large catastrophe occurs.

[KickAssClown]

Didn't say it was cleaner.

[Michaelangelica]

In a book "Human Ecology, Human economy" Diesendorf & Hamilton
there is a chart that shows:
coal's thermal efficiency between 29-45% (depending on the type of coal and process used)
CO2 Emission (kt/MW-year=0.114kg/kWh?) 6.4-12

Natural Gas is:
Turbine 30-35%
Combined Cycle 50%
cogeneration ('simultaneous use of heat and electricity at point of use'?) 80%
CO2 Emission 2.5-6.5

There are no figures for nuclear energy.

The debate on nuclear energy here is probably more a political ploy than anything else. (Hoping to drive a wedge though the opposition parties).

Then again we are "not without sin" having signed up to supply China with all its Uranium needs. (We have half the world's known reserves)
So, "Why not use nuclear energy here?" is the argument.

It is amazing that this month saw two "small," "insignificant" leaks of radioactive material from the Lucas Heights experimental reactor. A reactor-once in the 'bush'- now right in the middle of Sydney suburbia.

-

[dagaz]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

It is amazing that this month saw two "small," "insignificant" leaks of radioactive material from the Lucas Heights experimental reactor. A reactor-once in the 'bush'- now right in the middle of Sydney suburbia.

As I was reading through I was going to bring that up myself. Why, when we have such a right-wing Prime Minister, is the so-called 'opposition' not jumping up and down about this and pointing out the dangers inherent in nuclear power?

There is absolutely no terms of reference in this government inquiry as to any form of alternative energy, it is strictly a cost/benefit assessment of nuclear power as opposed to coal power. My understanding is that it is also primarily concerned with the actual monetary costs rather than any associated environmental and/or social costs (e.g. many of our larger uranium deposits are associated with aboriginal communities that have some sort of traditional association with the land in question).

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by dagaz

As I was reading through I was going to bring that up myself. Why, when we have such a right-wing Prime Minister, is the so-called 'opposition' not jumping up and down about this and pointing out the dangers inherent in nuclear power?

Because 1) the oposition(S) is/are useless.

see
The Howard Years: a retrospective
http://www.chaser.com.au/index.php?o...=3061&Itemid=5
QUOTE:
snip
we don' need all that
sorry I hadnt taken my pills.
m

[cwes99_03]

MA, is this a thread about the clean-ness of nuclear energy or is this a political thread. The answer to that question will determine which forum it belongs in.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

MA, is this a thread about the clean-ness of nuclear energy or is this a political thread. The answer to that question will determine which forum it belongs in.

Quite right.
I will take the pills in future.

[Michaelangelica]

I am reading Karl Kruszelnicki's book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001. He has an interesting take on this topic
"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."
He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! Thats if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104

Then he doesn't mention that the States only stopped dropping 44gal. drums of used plutonium into the sea in 1990. How long does it take a tin to rust? Sixteen years?