Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'm a nuclear sceptic too (and kept out of that debate for fear of it consuming too much of my time yet no opinions changed). However, this:

When you then add into the above that power generation accounts for 20% of greenhouse gases, and over half, for example, comes from transport & machinery, the greenhouse gases produced by the process of extracting low-grade uranium ore will be much greater than the reduction achieved by going nuclear.

Is illogical. The 20% share doesn't change anything, the transport & machinery part is included in lifecycle calculations.

On the other hand, there are too many factors to ignore in those calculations. As for the following:

but once the ore drops below 0.01% - which most known uranium ore deposits are - it takes more energy to extract the ore than it will produce. At 0.05%, you are putting in about half of the energy that you will eventually extract.

I read this with interest, could you give a source?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 07:19:09 AM EST
Here's an excellent article (2 page pdf) from Australasian Science, that encapsulates pretty much all my points above, and gives more detail on the Van Leeuwin & Smith article. I also sums up the problems with fast breeder reactors.

And here is Van Leeuwin & Smith's rebuttal of the criticisms offered by the WNA to their original article - it includes a link to the WNA response.

"This can't possibly get more disturbing!" - Willow

by myriad (imogenk at wildmail dot com) on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 04:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series