there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world's total current electricity demand for about six years.
Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a 'climate-friendly' technology.
That should do it in...
Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be A Major Energy Source:
Filed in: nuclear_power, sustainability, CO2, climate
2 comments:
You would be right, it would be a huge disadvantage for nuclear power, except for one tiny problem: the report from Feasta isn't even remotely true. A pile of pure BS.
Otherwise, good point.
You know, I have an aversion to anonymous posters who make sweeping statements of disagreement without making a case. I considered deleting the comment, but felt that it was better to have a 'good' example of bad commenting.
As it stands the Feasta report makes a lot of credible statements about the processes involved in nuclear power and the kind of environmental impacts they have. So if you want me and others to believe that it's all "BS", you'll have to do better. Unless you do I'm inclined to believe the case that makes sense rather than the pouty, sarcastic response involving name-calling. If that's the best the pro nuke lobby can do, you're really in trouble, most of the rest of us are somewhat impressed by evidence. Even a link or links to documents that show the greenhouse costs of extraction, transport, building etc would be a step forward...
On the face if it, you are denying everything in the report: so presumably even the descriptions of what is involved in mining fissile material, and building reactors is BS is it? Or the fact that processing the raw materials takes energy, or that the products remain 'hot' for a very long time?
Must try harder!
Post a Comment