On Symmetry: Platonic Solids and Ugly Wastes, Lampblack, Coal and Carbon | 47 comments (47 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Answers to each of your questions. (none / 1)

If I understand this correctly, though I am having to fill in a gap in Nnadir's comment, the accumulated environmental damage due to coal exceeds 10T as of today. Assuming that is the right interpretation of the claim, Nnadir then goes on to suggest using that amount (which you point out is 5 weeks of world GDP) not to repair the damage but to prevent future damage by replacing Nuclear with coal.

Can we please have an estimate of the external environmental cost, and the internal operating cost, per GW-h for coal [cleanest technology] and nuclear [cleanest technology] as well as the cost of replacing generating capacity from coal to nuclear [per GW-h]? That way we can begin to thimk about the time scales involved.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 03:20:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That should help you: (4.00 / 2)

And some stats for the EU in 2004:

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 04:04:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

I'm not sure uranium mining is included in the above.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:27:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

But you're sure coal mining is, right? Why the double standard?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

No, I was thinking of externalities. I would have to look up EU figures for the ratio of domestically produced and imported coal, but I'm certain that a significant part is not imported from coal while all of the uranium is imported.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

So imported coal creates no externalities?

That's excellent news!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

I don't think including part of the externalities for one resource and none for the other is a difference you can't recognise.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:58:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

Would you mind pointing out where such a difference in treatment is supposed to have taken place?

It seems that the externalities associated with mining are accounted for neither nuclear nor coal in the above table.

Maybe your point is that nuclear mining is a lot worse than coal mining (per kWh produced)? Or is it something else?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:06:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

Would you mind pointing out where such a difference in treatment is supposed to have taken place?

The title of your table says "in Germany", which implies to me the evaluation of effects in Germany. It is not clear just from the table what was and what wasn't included. But from the numbers for PV, it is clear that not only the costs of the very act of electricity generation were included, but apparently manufacture too. It stands to reason that mining was included, too, especially considering the ecosystems numbers.

Maybe your point is that nuclear mining is a lot worse than coal mining (per kWh produced)? Or is it something else?

I don't know which is worse, though I suspect that coal mining in Germany is less bad than uranium mining in some source countries for Germany. But I guess my main point is that your table means little without knowing the tablemakers' basic assumptions.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:52:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 1)

Dodo, can you dispute this calculation by ustenzel?

Ore grades will never degrade below 4ppm uranium and 12ppm thorium. That's the concentration in granite, and there's plenty of that. A 1GW fast breeder[1] will need about 3 tonnes of fuel per year, which at the above concentration amounts to about 500 tonnes of granite per day. Let's say 1000, allowing for inefficient extraction and some losses.
A coal plant of the same size requires 10 times that amount of coal, leaving a hole in the ground 10 times as large. This environmental impact is not considered larger than that of radwaste, so the same should go for mining rocks.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:42:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

can you dispute this calculation by ustenzel?

Not without looking up my own notes, which I can only do at home in the evening.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

On second thought though, I add that Jérôme's numbers are current figures and mine also based on projection from current technology (IIRC a projection about the energy yield of the EPR), not an as yet nonexistant 1GW thorium breeder.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That should help you: (none / 0)

The coal is burned with little processing cost. In contrast, I'd expect that extracting uranium and thorium from granite would be quite energy intensive. I wouldn't be greatly surprised if the energy used were comparable to the energy released in burning 10 times as much coal.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 04:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers to each of your questions. (none / 0)

replacing Nuclear with coal

I mean replacing Nuclear for coal or coal with nuclear. Ugh.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 05:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Answers to each of your questions. (none / 0)

the accumulated environmental damage due to coal exceeds 10T as of today

And I mean the accumulated environmental damade due to coal exceeds that due to nuclear by $10T as of today.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 05:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On Symmetry: Platonic Solids and Ugly Wastes, Lampblack, Coal and Carbon | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

Recent Diaries

Stoltenberg: A Big Win for Ukraine

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Xi - Joe Launch a New Communication Probe

The Israeli War Hoax of 40 Beheaded Babies

If Palestinians Are 'Animals'? What Are the Israelis?

Gaza Atrocities and the UN Fail

Clean Energy Wire's Fact Sheet on Upcoming Dutch Election

Broadening the War to Lebanon and Syria-Iraq

Occasional Series