''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy ?



http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm

OK.
Mining uranium from less accessible sources will require more energy. If that energy comes from burning fossils, then yes, it will produce more CO2 than from more accessible sources.
But, for this to a meaningful comparison, you'd have to look at the CO2 produced from mining uranium compared with the CO2 saved by replacing fossil power generation with nuclear.
So, if you want to take a pop at nuclear on the basis of mining, just come up with the numbers.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

OK. Mining uranium from less accessible sources will require more energy. If that energy comes from burning fossils, then yes, it will produce more CO2 than from more accessible sources. But, for this to a meaningful comparison, you'd have to look at the CO2 produced from mining uranium compared with the CO2 saved by replacing fossil power generation with nuclear. So, if you want to take a pop at nuclear on the basis of mining, just come up with the numbers.

re; http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm

Of course compared to fossil fuel burning nuclear is less CO2 intensive, though I was not trying to make any comparison. I was merely highlighting a question about the article, which suggests that "nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy". I think the article puts up a reasonable argument to support its claim. Nuclear power does not look to be a long term sustainable form of energy that can make a significant impact on substituting fossil fuel burning. I don't doubt nuclear has an important contribution to make in the near term though, for many advanced industrialised economies. Going forward I think we do need to wean ourselves off fuels that can't easily be replaced though, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for an eventual fall.

Apart from the Climate Change issue and the impact of CO2 emissions, the problem we also face is the realisation that building a world based on diminishing energy supplies, is only going to create bigger problems in the years ahead. i.e. The world has allot of infrastructure intertwined into our daily lifestyles, based on an outdated mined resources energy model, that we cant even reasonably guarantee will exist and be affordable in the mid to longer term. In fact all indications suggest such energy will not be affordable for many, especially when coupled with the cost impositions associated with Climate Change. On the flip side, fortunately the world is waking up to this reality and change is occurring. Of course all these events take time to sort themselves out, though it's clearly evident change is upon us.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

re; http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm

Of course compared to fossil fuel burning nuclear is less CO2 intensive, though I was not trying to make any comparison. I was merely highlighting a question about the article, which suggests that "nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy". I think the article puts up a reasonable argument to support its claim. Nuclear power does not look to be a long term sustainable form of energy that can make a significant impact on substituting fossil fuel burning. I don't doubt nuclear has an important contribution to make in the near term though, for many advanced industrialised economies. Going forward I think we do need to wean ourselves off fuels that can't easily be replaced though, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for an eventual fall.

Apart from the Climate Change issue and the impact of CO2 emissions, the problem we also face is the realisation that building a world based on diminishing energy supplies, is only going to create bigger problems in the years ahead. i.e. The world has allot of infrastructure intertwined into our daily lifestyles, based on an outdated mined resources energy model, that we cant even reasonably guarantee will exist and be affordable in the mid to longer term. In fact all indications suggest such energy will not be affordable for many, especially when coupled with the cost impositions associated with Climate Change. On the flip side, fortunately the world is waking up to this reality and change is occurring. Of course all these events take time to sort themselves out, though it's clearly evident change is upon us.

Its a good job that the process of extracting the uranium is getting much more efficient then, making most estimates of CO2 production and resource longtivity somewhat dubious.

"Presently, nuclear fuel is commonly enriched by a clumsy process using centrifuge technology, but the Australian team has found a way to enrich uranium much more efficiently using lasers. “The technology, said Michael Goldsworthy, a nuclear scientist and leader of the project, may halve enrichment costs, which he estimated accounted for 30 percent of the price of nuclear fuel,” the Sydney Morning Herald reported on May 27, 2006."

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Its a good job that the process of extracting the uranium is getting much more efficient then, making most estimates of CO2 production and resource longtivity somewhat dubious.

"Presently, nuclear fuel is commonly enriched by a clumsy process using centrifuge technology, but the Australian team has found a way to enrich uranium much more efficiently using lasers. “The technology, said Michael Goldsworthy, a nuclear scientist and leader of the project, may halve enrichment costs, which he estimated accounted for 30 percent of the price of nuclear fuel,” the Sydney Morning Herald reported on May 27, 2006."

Improvements in overall efficiency anywhere are welcomed, however I would be surprised that such improvements will be sufficient enough to allow nuclear fuels to replace fossil fuels indefinitely heading into the future. Enrichment is just one of several CO2 intensive processes in the nuclear cycle, that includes test drilling, mining, milling/refining, conversion, enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, production cycle waste storage and post reactor spent nuclear fuel storage. Mining indefinitely appears unsustainable environmentally and commercially.

Increasing dependency on diminishing supplies of energy resources at affordable cost, may offer some hope for the near term through improved efficiencies, but it's not sustainable indefinitely, particularly in the face of growing demand for energy. If you make energy cheap it will be used more wastefully by more people and if it's a finite resource and we build a world predominantly dependant upon it, eventually we set ourselves up for a fall. Some may say we are in free fall already. Others may more optimistically say its a reshuffling of the deck, with renewables increasing their stake.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Improvements in overall efficiency anywhere are welcomed, however I would be surprised that such improvements will be sufficient enough to allow nuclear fuels to replace fossil fuels indefinitely heading into the future. Enrichment is just one of several CO2 intensive processes in the nuclear cycle, that includes test drilling, mining, milling/refining, conversion, enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, production cycle waste storage and post reactor spent nuclear fuel storage. Mining indefinitely appears unsustainable environmentally and commercially.

The issue of whether such processes can run indefinately, and the issue of energy cost are seperate.

However, the energy cost of nuclear is on a par with wind and solar, and with improvements in the nuclear industry, this will keep the process energy competitive. Infact, the process is such that there are still much to make more efficient. I've read comments by experts who claim we are at the development equivelent of a Model T Ford when it comes to nuclear energy, so there is still much to improve in terms of efficiency. It would be a brave betting man to claim the same for wind and solar with any conviction.

Also, I'd like to remind you that the cost of the fuel is a small fraction of the overall cost of nuclear energy, so even if fuel costs rose considerably, it would impact little on the cost of electricity.

Issues like test drills require insignificent quantities of energy compared to the amount the nuclear actually produce in a carbon free fashion. The actual energy cost of nuclear energy is comparable to wind and solar overall.

In addition, we shouldn't just think of a uranium as the only resource that can be used. Thorium is often trumpeted as an alternative, which could last even longer.

Uranium alone can last longer than we can reasonably plan for, even with significent expansion, as exploration re-starts, and improvements throughout the cycle continue (I've only given an example).

Increasing dependency on diminishing supplies of energy resources at affordable cost, may offer some hope for the near term through improved efficiencies, but it's not sustainable indefinitely, particularly in the face of growing demand for energy. If you make energy cheap it will be used more wastefully by more people and if it's a finite resource and we build a world predominantly dependant upon it, eventually we set ourselves up for a fall. Some may say we are in free fall already. Others may more optimistically say its a reshuffling of the deck, with renewables increasing their stake.

Near term? Depends on what you mean by that. Nuclear energy has the potential to provide a significent slice of the supply for many countries for the long term.

For me, near term means 5-10years.

Long term means over 30 years and beyond.

Anyone who says we are in free fall already in terms of energy supply is ignoring a great deal of evidence.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

The issue of whether such processes can run indefinitely, and the issue of energy cost are seperate.

No they are not, because cost determines viability of energy recovery.

Originally Posted by Wobs

However, the energy cost of nuclear is on a par with wind and solar, and with improvements in the nuclear industry, this will keep the process energy competitive. Infact, the process is such that there are still much to make more efficient. I've read comments by experts who claim we are at the development equivelent of a Model T Ford when it comes to nuclear energy, so there is still much to improve in terms of efficiency. It would be a brave betting man to claim the same for wind and solar with any conviction.

That does not change the fact that nuclear energy is not sustainable for the planet as a prime source of energy and is not a long term substitute for fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Also, I'd like to remind you that the cost of the fuel is a small fraction of the overall cost of nuclear energy, so even if fuel costs rose considerably, it would impact little on the cost of electricity.

Perhaps not in the short term, however in the last 7 years I understand uranium prices have risen considerably around 1000% With a growing demand against diminishing supply prices will increase further and the compounding effect of price rises over the next 7 years could tell a different story. At the end of the day, nuclear is simply not a long term solution, nor a sustainable substitute for fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Issues like test drills require insignificent quantities of energy compared to the amount the nuclear actually produce in a carbon free fashion. The actual energy cost of nuclear energy is comparable to wind and solar overall.

Not in the long term. Nuclear simply can't be sustained and it will end up costing us just as oil has now. In anther 50 years or so, I expect this whole saga might play itself out again with nuclear energy, while we continue to predominantly rely on diminishing fuel reserves at affordable cost. Someone else will be having this same discussion about why we continued to remain predominantly dependant on diminishing fuel resources against rising demand and cost.

Originally Posted by Wobs

In addition, we shouldn't just think of a uranium as the only resource that can be used. Thorium is often trumpeted as an alternative, which could last even longer.

And could cost even more to extract and could do more environmental damage to extract. The mining paradigm also cannot be sustained indefinitely, even if the fuel can be recovered. Further more the storage of nuclear waste on a very large scale will present more environmental issues.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Uranium alone can last longer than we can reasonably plan for, even with significent expansion, as exploration re-starts, and improvements throughout the cycle continue (I've only given an example).

It will all cost more.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Near term? Depends on what you mean by that. Nuclear energy has the potential to provide a significent slice of the supply for many countries for the long term.

And for many more countries its simply not suitable for any term.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Anyone who says we are in free fall already in terms of energy supply is ignoring a great deal of evidence.

Free fall in the context of price against demand and supply. Or more simply affordability. Have you listened to the nuclear energy proponents lately ? You may well say that nuclear will fix the price problem, but if every nation holds that view, I very much doubt it. Have you checked your power bill lately ? What more evidence do you need ?

[Besoeker]

Without fossils and nuclear, what have we got that is remotely capable of replacing them?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Without fossils and nuclear, what have we got that is remotely capable of replacing them?

I expect in the long term renewable energy will be capable of replacing a more significant segment of energy demand. We are stuck with conventional approaches in the short term, but as the global cost of mined energy resources increases over time in the face of Climate Change and all its effects along with regulatory measures with regard to environmental management, it's evident that renewable energy should take on a far bigger role than it has today.

[LMagic007]

We may have have discussed this aspect before but, I read recently that global energy consumption is forecast to grow at an average rate of 1.6% per annum through to 2030. If renewable energy currently provides about 10% of global energy, then we can get a general idea of the kind of growth required for renewable energy to play a notably more significant role in the global energy industry. It will be interesting to see how renewable energy segments grow over the next few years, now that it's clear that the world looks to be getting serious about the role of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

[Wobs]

Have you checked your power bill lately ? What more evidence do you need ?

Well accusations of lack of competition is one factor:
Lack of competition fuels rise in gas and electricity prices says watchdog
-Although that could be certain parts of the press stirring it up.

But yes, I have seen our energy bills. I also notice it is a higher rate than what one pays in France. Coincidence? Of course not.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSh...es%20jan08.pdf

France pays slightly less on the whole for electricity, and emits far less carbon and other emissions into the atmosphere in the process. We, on the hand have coal, gas, and an aging nuclear industry that is in desperate need of updating (building new plants); and cutting down on coal and gas consumption. New nuclear builds must and will be part of that.

Our electricity prices have about zero influence from the availability of uranium, even with the increase in recent demand worldwide.

Far more influence is from gas prices (availability, and perception of availability of gas; lack storage and/or past lack of storage capacity of gas).