Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
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 ]
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 ]
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 ]
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 ]

Display:

Occasional Series