Is nuclear energy cleaner than fossil fuels?

[Michaelangelica]

Is nuclear energy cleaner than fossil fuels?

 

It is an argument we are having in Australia at the moment with most of the world's uranium here + a lot of the world's coal reserves.

[IDMclean]

well it would seem that Nuclear energy is dirtier, to me at least.

 

A nuclear PP has at least three pollutants. Heat, Irradiation, and Nuclear Waste. Also there has been some research that suggest that Nukes produce more [math]C0_2[/math] than Coal or Oil. It has to do with the combined processing of the components and raw fuels.

[Michaelangelica]

It is a debate that has been started by the most right wing PM we have seen in years.

I supect his motivation

SEE

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1644671.htm

 

PM promotes nuclear power debate

 

Reporter: Michael Brissenden

 

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. It's a debate the Prime Minister has been hinting at for a short while now, but suddenly, the issue of nuclear energy has become an argument Australia has to have. As he jets about the world, Mr Howard has clearly decided to promote nuclear power as a priority debate. He says nuclear power could be a real alternative that would help arrest global warming problems and protect us against rising fuel prices. The nuclear issue has been a volatile one in Australian politics now for many years. Politicians are divided and so is the scientific community. But that's been the case for a long time now. The question is: why is the Prime Minister elevating it now?

[ronthepon]

As much I know, one can get a good deal of matter other than mere Carbon di oxide by fossil fuel at times.

 

The sulphur, and things like those are also there. To form Sulphur di oxide and all.

 

Nuclear waste is less in mass, but has a high 'density of badness'. There it's just a question of figuring out what to do with the concentrated 'badness'.

[Jay-qu]

but that badness is much more easily contained then greenhouse gasses..

[IDMclean]

I'm saying that I heard a study, in like the New york times or something like that, which concludes that Nuke plants actually produce more Greenhouse gases, in addition to the direct waste product, than say Oil or Coal does.

[Mercedes Benzene]

"Clean" is utterly relative.

As for emissions during operation, nuclear power is much cleaner than burning fossil fuels. However:

Nuclear power plants offer a much less "clean" description if you consider the danger of an accident, or the storage of spent fuel.

 

Although the risk is small, there is always the chance that a nuclear plant will suffer some accident that will release dangerous levels of radiation into the environment. I can name about 3 significant nuclear disasters of the last 30 or so years. These are obviously very sparse events, however they pose serious "unclean" problems.

Also, the processing of uranium (and other products) in order to produce the fuel needed for nuclear plants is immensly dirty. For example, according to Scorecard.org, one of the worst pollutors in the US is a company in Tennessee (if i remember correctly) that processes nuclear materials...

 

So really, it all depends on what you mean by "clean".

Hope this helps:shrug:

[Zythryn]

I've read that Australia actually has one of the richest potentials for wind power in the world.

 

While nuclear plants in opperation are very much cleaner than coal plants (as others have noted) I don't know if the production of the fuel would counteract that benifit or not.

 

As for why now, it may be getting clear that Australia will be suffering breakdowns due to climite change before anyone else (outside of the poles).

[ronthepon]

but that badness is much more easily contained then greenhouse gasses..

that was eggggsactly my point.

 

 

I'm saying that I heard a study, in like the New york times or something like that, which concludes that Nuke plants actually produce more Greenhouse gases, in addition to the direct waste product, than say Oil or Coal does.

:eek:

I need the know if its true or not!!

[IDMclean]

Common Dreams

 

WISE

 

I can't find what I'm looking for so I'll need to ask my mom, when I go over today.

[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.

[IDMclean]

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]

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]

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?option=com_content&task=view&id=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]

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.