Nuclear Investors Beware

[kristopher]

Nuclear Investors: Beware New Study Challenging Nuclear Power as Low Carbon Power Source

Posted: May 16, 2008

In the last couple of years the nuclear power industry has deflated a lot of political opposition with the argument that, unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide emissions. But now, just as the commercial nuclear power industry appears on the verge of a worldwide resurgence, there’s a new, potentially damaging study questioning whether nuclear power really is a low-carbon source of electricity.

Even as presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain reportedly spoke last week about building dozens of nuclear reactors, a study appeared in the journal Environmental Science & Technology that could undermine critically-needed Democratic support in Congress for building new reactors in America.

The study, out of Australia, found that when looked at as a whole, the process by which electricity is produced by a nuclear reactor should be viewed as a significant source of carbon emissions.

The key is the amount of CO2 generated by the mining and transporting of uranium ore. The study determined that a nuclear revival would require more mining of lower-quality uranium deposits, which would result in more carbon being generated through the digging, refining and transporting of this ore. The study’s lead author told a reporter, “The rate at which goes down depends on demand, technology, exploration and other factors. But, especially if there is going to be a nuclear resurgence, it will go down and that will entail a higher CO2 cost.”

The study further concluded that such an increased amount of uranium mining could require more energy and water, thus releasing still more carbon into the atmosphere.

So far, this study hasn’t generated much political reaction, but just as Hillary Clinton has injected gasoline prices into the U.S. presidential sweepstakes, so might uranium mining find its way into the national politics of America or any other country looking closely at commercial nuclear power.

http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=1223

[depakid]

1. In my experience, most Aussies are strongly anti-nuke

Yet not only do they mine & export a substantial amount of uranium- but also coal (which is used domestically as well).

It's a strange set of attitudes-. Aussies will mine and sell the stuff, yet not reap the low CO2 benefits of replacing coal fired plants. And- of all nations, there are vast unused and geologically stable areas to store the waste.

All the while being hard hit in several regions by climate change.

[kristopher]

4. Talk about strange framing...

How does your generalization about Australian attitudes relate to the science related in the article? Are you implying that the researcher was biased?

[depakid]

5. Just making an observation- and yes, it does reflect on the authors' potential biases

I guess you'd have to spend a bit of time in Oz and talk with a lot of people to understand it.

(I still haven't figured all of it out- though part of it has to do with a psyche that for years felt relatively safe- or rather, like they'd be marooned survivors, should our worst fears have come to pass during the cold war).

[kristopher]

14. I don't think the work is biased.

It looks like a solid, dispassionate piece of research to me.

[depakid]

19. The article simply references a study that appear to note that mining, refining and transportation

are carbon intensive.

Well, duh.

My comment on that was simply to note that if a society is going to engage in most of the carbon intensive efforts- then why not take advantage of the low carbon end product, which is VASTLY superior to what's currently "keeping the lights on?"

The answer to that is somewhat complex- and so it doesn't surprise me to see studies like this done in Oz -where they cling to filthy coal (note: there a substantial Welsh population that was either transported or emigrated- and have worked coal for generations. Unlike the states, working conditions are relatively safe- and they're very well paid. Strikingly different than poor Scotts Irish West Virginians.

[kristopher]

21. You missed the point of the study

Diminishing availability of high quality ore incurs a significant carbon cost that is not being presented as part of the discussion regarding nuclear power. The study uses extremely conservative metrics and implies that the carbon costs are already being significantly underestimated and can be expected to rise substantially over time.

[NNadir]

8. There is ZERO "science" in the article, but it is unsurprising that you refer to it as such.

You apparently wouldn't know an article containing "science" if it bit you in the ass.

This is a pop press article and nothing more. For well more than half a decade here, we've been hearing pop press articles about "world's largest solar installations" and anti-nuke rhetoric identified as "science." One does not become a "scientist" by attending the Judith Miller School for illiterate journalism. Journalists are not scientists. You can't be a journalist if you know any science in this country.

One can always find a "study" by a fundie anti-nuke making this absurd claim about nuclear power, but usually it's Storm Van Leeuwen kind of stuff, where all of the cited "papers" are papers by, um, Storm Van Leeuwen.

Of course, although 100% of the contents of papers by Storm Van Leeuwen are nonsense (and lots of papers dismiss them with the same contempt as the papers of another self referential anti-nuke, Ernie "Baby Teeth" Sternglass) that has not called the vast circle jerk of self referential anti-nukes from declaring all of Storm Van Leeuwen's blabberings "studies."

There are thousands of scientific papers about the external cost of nuclear energy (and other forms of energy as well), but unsurprisingly you are familiar with zero such papers.

[kristopher]

10. Actually Marvin,

I'm the kind of person that tends to track down and read the original research press releases are based on. Here you go, http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i07/html/es702249v.html

I don't know if you'll have access, so I'll include an abstract:
Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society

Sustainability of Uranium Mining and Milling: Toward Quantifying Resources and Eco-Efficiency

Gavin M. Mudd*† and Mark Diesendorf‡

Institute for Sustainable Water Resources, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia 3800, and Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia 2052

Received for review September 7, 2007

Revised manuscript received December 9, 2007

Accepted December 27, 2007

Abstract:

The mining of uranium has long been a controversial public issue, and a renewed debate has emerged on the potential for nuclear power to help mitigate against climate change. The central thesis of pro-nuclear advocates is the lower carbon intensity of nuclear energy compared to fossil fuels, although there remains very little detailed analysis of the true carbon costs of nuclear energy. In this paper, we compile and analyze a range of data on uranium mining and milling, including uranium resources as well as sustainability metrics such as energy and water consumption and carbon emissions with respect to uranium production, arguably the first time for modern projects. The extent of economically recoverable uranium resources is clearly linked to exploration, technology, and economics but also inextricably to environmental costs such as energy/water/chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and social issues. Overall, the data clearly show the sensitivity of sustainability assessments to the ore grade of the uranium deposit being mined and that significant gaps remain in complete sustainability reporting and accounting. This paper is a case study of the energy, water, and carbon costs of uranium mining and milling within the context of the nuclear energy chain.

[wtmusic]

26. The conclusions the authors draw

are vague and could be made about natural gas, oil, or any energy resource:

"In summary, the extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology, and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and broader social issues. These crucial environmental aspects of resource extraction are only just beginning to be understood in the context of more complete life cycle analyses of the nuclear chain and other energy options. There still remains incomplete reporting however, especially in terms of data consistency among mines and site-specific data for numerous individual mines and mills, as well as the underlying factors controlling differences and variability. It is clear that there is a strong sensitivity of energy and water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions to ore grade, and that ore grades are likely to continue to decline gradually in the medium- to long-term. These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium mining and milling."

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i07/html/es702249v.html

[kristopher]

27. Except, unlike the others, the scale hasn't been previously considered for nuclear. nt

[jpak]

11. The supply of high grade uranium ore is infinite and mines itself without the aid of fossil fuels

la la la la la la la

How's the molten salt breeder coming along????

:rofl:

[hughee99]

2. Maybe I'm missing something...

Yes, mining generates CO2, no doubt, but if you're comparing a coal fired plant with a nuclear plant, don't you need to mine and transport far less material to produce the same amount of energy? Wouldn't a nuclear plant, at the very least, be better than a coal plant, which generates CO2 not just on the mining, but also on the burning?

[kristopher]

3. I think that's the wrong comparison

The only choices aren't coal and nuclear. A grid based on renewables like wind, solar, geothermal, and wave/current/tidal are also to be considered. The proponents of nuclear offer it as a zero carbon option, which it clearly isn't. The fact that the emissions are an ongoing part of price of nuclear is one element to consider in evaluating all available options.

[notesdev]

7. small problem

Tidal and geothermal energy technology doesn't exist, and the total combined impact of wind and solar is so small that it doesn't change the fundamental problem that we face.

It's a four-choice world right now for the amount of power that modern civilizations require: coal, oil, nuclear, hydro. The US, for its part, has already tapped all its hydro.

[kristopher]

9. You are incorrect on all points

Not only does the US (and the world) have enough wind and solar resources to meet all of our energy needs several times over, we also have the technology to extract those resources at a price that is within easy reach of a determined and coordinated national effort.

Tidal/current/wave and are new but there are projects in place and the technology is attracting a great deal of attention from investors. Geothermal has literally been around for centuries, but we simply haven't needed to develop it until global warming made coal obsolete.

[depakid]

13. Repeating that mantra over and over doesn't make it true

[kristopher]

15. Suppose you tell me why it isn't true then

The majority opinion in the scientific community is that it is true. So unless you can point to some solid science behind your assertion...

[depakid]

16. I've gone through this before with you

and NO the majority of the scientific community does NOT think its true- indeed, most know damn well that practically speaking, its not.

You can hop up and down with cornucopian fantasies supported by one provisional DOE report (that admits itself that its projections are feasible or economical) but the bottom line is that you're going to run a society sucking out 103+ exajoules of energy on any combination of renewables.

Which is one reason why nuclear power is getting a second look by longtime opponents. It ain't because they like it- bit because they consider it the lesser among several evils.

[kristopher]

17. You are full of it.

The DOE report was a resource assessment in response to your claim last time that the resource itself doesn't exist. Now you are saying what, that it isn't economically viable to transition to a renewable infrastructure?
I can see why you keep your statements so vague; you can't support them and it leaves you room to try and wriggle out of your bullshit. If you say it can't be done, then explain - explicitly - why not and I'll show you why you are wrong.

[depakid]

18. One tires of cornucopian fantasies

It's like a child having a tantrum when the parent imposes limits to their behavior.

And like a child, you engage in magical thinking- somehow believing that the austerity ahead can be avoided "if only."

Well, as the DOE's Hirsch Report noted- the lead time for that has long since passed.

Even with a massive shift in priorities (which means, among other things getting out of the fucking cars and rebuilding rail systems) even assuming (which most people do not) that there are sufficient non-fossil fuel non-nuclear low entropy energy sources readily available, America, in particular, is going to suffer for its lack of foresight in economic and land use planning.

That's a given. Now, does that mean that we ought ot throw up out hand and abandon mitigation efforts?

No. There are promising technologies available (wind turbines for example) that can provide certain regions with intermittent electrical power. There are also technologies in the testing phases (solar thermal) that may provide other regions with gigawatt base load power.

See, e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm

(btw: I have have had a look at Liddel, for myself).

But on the SCALE and SCOPE required in the states as they are- you're not going to see them replacing fossil fuels & nuclear- nor will you see demand for energy drop significantly unless and until there's substantial economic hardship (the type which I guarantee that you can't imagine, unless you've traveled to 3rd world nations, where people live on much smaller energy and food budgets).

Reality vs. science fiction is what it boils down to.

[kristopher]

20. That's what I thought,

That's what I thought, more of the hand to the brow world weariness posturing and not one single cogent argument.

You're a sham. You offer ill-conceived, unsubstantiated, ignorance-based opinions and nothing else. Your 'predictions' have no grounding in the actual state of technology and are based on a totally flawed understanding of the way culture functions.

Explicit objections, my friend; explicit objections. Or at the very least, logically substantiated opinions.

[depakid]

22. Children throwing tantrums

Innumerate children, at that.

It's pretty obvious to me (and probably everyone) that you have no conception of scale or of macroeconomic constraints- much less a pragmatic understanding of "how the real world works."

[kristopher]

23. Right, it is the fault of my temperament that you are unable to substantiate

Right, it is the fault of my temperament that you are unable to substantiate your baseless assertions.

A sham.

A fraud.

[NickB79]

24. And despite all that, coal consumption is booming worldwide

I don't recall reading about China and India installing 100 GW of wind, solar, tidal, current, wave, or geothermal energy in 2007.

What I did read was that they installed 100 GW of new coal-fired capacity in just one year alone. The often-quoted figure is almost one new coal-fired plant PER WEEK.

I also read about how Bangladesh is eyeing their coal reserves to replace their declining natural gas supplies.

And how Germany is planning to build 30 new coal-fired plants as they phase out their nuclear powerplants, so much so that they will have to import millions of tons of coal from South Africa to satisfy their requirements.

Despite all the rosy, reassuring promises that have been repeated for decades, the current-day realities are far uglier.

[jpak]

12. The Geysers (California) geothermal energy facility has been operating for 40+ years

New Zealand and Iceland produce a substantial percentages of their electricity from geothermal sources.

Tidal power barrages have been operating in Canada and France for decades too.

Tidal turbines are operating in NY and the UK today.

The US does NOT have enough uranium to support its current fleet of reactors - let alone a "nuclear renaisance"...

Wind and solar "is so small" because Republicans have thwarted their development for the last 30 years.

OK??

[bananas]

6. Ore grades are getting very low

You have to process a lot of dirt to get the tiny specks of uranium out of it.
And then, most of the uranium isn't radioactive, you have to extract the radioactive isotopes out of it.
These three processes are called mining, milling, enrichment.
Here is a good description: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html

[bhikkhu]

25. Another good article on problems with uranium as a commodity:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/19/markets/uranium/

Though I don't see much future in an anti-nuclear argument based upon carbon concerns, there are plenty of other reasons to be anti-nuclear.

I'd rather see conservation and lifestyle changes myself.