further hidden energy footprint of nuke power

Interesting and helpful material in this Celsias article. Nuclear Reactors for the UK - is this a Good Idea? � Celsias:

"is not so widely recognised is that the final disposal of waste will require a lot of energy. This begins to become clear when you think about what has to be done to keep high-level wastes safe for the thousands for years in which they must lie undisturbed. Containers have to be built from steel, lead and electrolytic copper; vast repositories have to be dug and lined with clay; much of the work needs to be done by robots; retired fuel-rods have to be kept cool and safe for a century or so before the final disposal programme begins. Then there is the energy-cost of dismantling and burying the old reactors, doing the best that can done to rehabilitate the disused uranium mines to some semblance of sustainability and safety, and dealing with the stocks of leaking depleted uranium hexafluoride gas. (It is “depleted” in the sense that it has been used as a source of the uranium-235 needed by reactors, but some uranium-235 and all the uranium-238 remains)."

I wonder whether that has been added to the carbon footprint of 'clean' nuclear energy?
In fact we're told how energetically expensive it is: "To deal with the total legacy of waste left by a nuclear reactor through its whole life-cycle requires energy equivalent to about 25 percent of the gross energy supplied by the reactor to the grid."
And remember, we have to add to that the footprint of building the thing in the first place.

The article is mostly, in fact, about the likely shortfall in uranium. So it looks like, if we do go down the nuclear road bigtime (God forbid), we will have to generate the energy for disposal from other means: ironically, this could have to be renewables.

What About Grass-Fed Beef?

If you are rightly concerned to reduce our collective ecological footprint and you eat meat, then you should read this: "Feeding grain to cattle has got to be one of the dumbest ideas in the history of western civilization." What About Grass-Fed Beef? � Celsias:

Avaaz.org - The World in Action

I just emailed my trade minister about the fishing crisis. I hope you will, too. In a few weeks, the World Trade Organization will come forward with new rules to govern global fishing --and if enough of us raise our voice, we can help end the unfair and unsustainable fishing system, in which rich countries subsidize corporate fleets to overfish the oceans. It's unfair to fishers in poor countries. And if it keeps going, global fish populations will collapse. (Already, 90% of big fish like tuna and marlin have disappeared.)

Click on the link below to sending a message to the trade minister--and help defend our oceans and our future.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/make_fishing_fair/tf.php?CLICK_TF_TRACK

Thanks!

A few years ago, I was a pisco-vegetarian, on the basis that while meat is an resource expensive way to feed people, fish at that time didn't seem to be such a problem. It's different now. And aside from not being right keen on fish, it seems to me that eating fish is just not a particularly good thing to be doing at the moment: we should be leaving it for those who really need to make a livelihood from the sea. ...
Avaaz.org - The World in Action

Thought for the century

This is thought provoking:

nef's (the new economics foundation) analysis also looks back over the last 40 years and comes to surprising and worrying conclusions. In an age of climate change, when it is more important than ever that we use our resources efficiently, nef's Index, published in association with Friends of the Earth, reveals that:

* The UK comes a poor 21st in the league of 30 countries. Only transition economies, and Portugal, Greece, and Luxembourg do worse.
* Europe as a whole has become less efficient, not more, in translating fossil fuel use into relatively long and happy lives. In fact, the Index reveals that Europe is less carbon efficient now than it was in 1961.
* Across Europe people report comparable levels of well-being whether their lifestyles imply the need for the resources of six and a half, or just one planet like Earth. The message to politicians is that people are just as likely to lead satisfied lives whether their levels of consumption are very low or high and therefore they should not be afraid of policies to reduce demand

The rest of the article is worth a read.
UK 21st in European league of carbon efficiency and well-being

Meat production 'beefs up emissions'

One of the things that we can do effectively to reduce our carbon footprint is eat (far) less meat. And, given figures that have been around since the 1970's at least, when Ron Sider wrote "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger", it is perhaps no surprise to discover beef is the worst culprit of all the meats. "Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are emitted in the form of methane from belching cattle, but the meat production process also releases fertilising compounds that can wreak havoc in river and lake ecosystems. The study, which is published in today's New Scientist magazine, shows that the production of 1kg of beef releases greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4kg of carbon dioxide. The production process also led to fertilising compounds equivalent to 340g of sulphur dioxide and 59g of phosphate, and consumed 169 megajoules of energy. Over two-thirds of the energy is spent on producing and moving cattle feed." (Emph mine).
So I continue to press for Christians to add vegetarianism or a substantial move in that direction to their rules of life.

Meat production 'beefs up emissions' | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment:

Eco footprint 2.0

And why would we need another one? Well,

How can one compare the value of a single fish to that of a bushel of corn or a California redwood? How does that relationship change from the exhaust pouring out of your car or the dishwater circling your drain?
The methodology for answering these questions in ecological footprint analysis (EFA) is often criticized for being incomplete and for underestimating humanity's true impact on the environment. In response, researchers at Redefining Progress have made several amendments to the standard methodology, and given their creation the handle 'Ecological Footprint 2.0.'

Helpful article which also tells us what is still to be integrated into the analysis.

still missing from EF 2.0 and other methods is a way to account for the footprint of myriad other pollutants besides carbon. Presently, carbon is the only pollutant that ecological footprints consider. (Not surprising, considering the gravity of global warming) But there are many other pollutants that have significant deleterious effects on the environment, such as dioxins, mercury and endocrine-disruptors. With countries such as China and India growing massively in their production, these pollutants will make their impact felt by the environment as well as human health.

WorldChanging: Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright Green Future: Ecological Footprint 2.0

Technorati Tags: ecological_footprint,

vegetarians save theworld!

America's Debate > Peak Oil: Just for your consideration ...
"* Length of time world's petroleum reserves would last (with current technologies) if all human beings ate meat-centered diet: 13 years
* Length of time world's petroleum reserves would last (with current technologies) if all human beings ate vegetarian diet: 260 years"

come on: you know it makes sense.