The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
When exactly do you propose for these magical events to occur?
Where do you expect them to occur? Let me guess...
...in Germany.
It does not happen that nuclear energy is in a position right now to cover all of the demand for energy by either first world or third world countries. However there is nothing else that is even close.
You may think that I am speaking in code words for rich people living in luxury, but I am not doing so at all. On the other hand, I am not asking the citizens of Chad or Cameroon to "conserve" their way out of this matter. They live on less continuous power than you and I are using to light our monitors.
Later I will post a diary entry here about Cameroon and its energy profile, which is connected with the destruction of some of the most important forests on earth. When I am speaking in pro-nuclear terms, it is exactly these people I am speaking about and not the Greenpeace Coffee Klatch in Hamburg.
If you add the words "affordable for all citizens of the planet" the pro-nuclear case becomes far more obvious, and frankly it's irrefutable already.
Happily Nigeria and Vietnam are two third world nations that have announced the intention to build nuclear power. Right now two nations with vast underclasses, China and India - where people have not been living the high life until very recently - account for most of the nuclear construction in the world.
It seems like the first world has a big problem with other people trying to live like they do. Platitudes about efficiency and conservation - and everyone likes both efficiency and conservation - are hardly realistic under the circumstances.
The Chinese, the Indians, the Cameroonians, the Nigerians, the Chadeans are all real people and they matter just as much as you and I do.
The real environmental crisis is Malthusian. We may choose to exterminate the mass of humanity through the agency of wholesale catastrophe or through the use of reasonably safe options like the increased use of nuclear power.
Can you justify Nukes in the face of wind mill costs?
Safe, well regulated nuclear should be promoted, not just nuclear. Safe, well regulated nuclear seems difficult in a number of places, like Nigeria. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Bophal, broken dams, unprotected workers dismantling ships with high-grade industrial waste, coal mine accidents. Your faith in Finnish-level safety in such environments seems to be GE Coffee Klatch in Atlanta. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That quite phantastic projection (even less likely than broad reduction of consumption, yet commonly repeated in nuke-boosterist cafee klatch) relies on illusory levels of investment and the use of reserves to such a low grade that the environmental destruction from uranium mining would outstrip that from coal. (I once made a calculation on that.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
For 2004, I find total global coal production was 5.524 billion tons, of which three-quarters, around 4.1 billion tons went for the production of 39.8% of a global electricity generation of just under 15,000 TWh, that is around 6,000 TWh. This gives an average of 0.68 kilograms of coal for 1 kWh. The figure is closer to the German brown coal power plant's figure I gave not because of the dominance of low-grade borwn coal (it is less than a fourth) but that of old inefficient plants. If we expect increasing efficiency for nuclear (EPR and all), we can also safely predict increased efficiency for coal, say to 0.55 kg giving 0 kWh.
For Uranium grades, current production (which is insufficient for current needs once material from decommissioned weapons runs out 5-7 years from now) seems to go rarely below 0.1%. (The current maximum is a staggering 18% at a Canadian mine, the minimum 0.035% at a Namibian mine.) But IAEA considers recoverable proven reserves those below $135/kgU, while most production is below $50/kgU. For a greatly broadened share of nuclear, these (and probably even more expensive) reserves have to be tapped. Unfortunately, in my current search I haven't found numbers on the grade of proven reserves close to $135/kgU, only found single examples that trend to above 0.01%.
At any rate, the figures for mined tonnage for coal and greatly increased non-breeder, non-thorium nuclear are in the same range. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Oui - Dec 9 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 5 10 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 97 comments
by Oui - Dec 820 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 510 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 189 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments