Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Maybe you are of the opinion that efficiency improvements and reduced demand are working somewhere on the planet?

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.

by NNadir on Mon Jan 8th, 2007 at 09:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
putting "happily" and "Nigeria (has) announced the intention to build nuclear power" in the same sentence gives me a stomach ache.  They can't keep a refinery running safely, how in hell are they going to keep a nuke up and running without Chernobyl 2?

Can you justify Nukes in the face of wind mill costs?  

by HiD on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:31:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuclear can be made safe, but it can also be made very unsafe.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't fear nukes.  I do fear nukes run by Homer Simpson or religious fruitcakes.
by HiD on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

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.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:39:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

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.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 06:48:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would like to see that calculation.

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 06:55:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I couldn't wait so dug up some numbers from various sources in advance. For coal:

  • A 'typical' hard coal powerplant: 8.5 TWh electricity from 2.5 million tons, that's about 0.3 kg mined for 1 kWh.

  • The most recent German brown coal (lignite) powerplant: 1.3 TWh electricity from 1 million tons, that's 0.77 kg mined for 1 kWh.

For nuclear: calculating with 0.85% U in U3O8, and a ratio of feedstock and enriched uranium of 8.5,

  • With the 'current average' ore grade of 0.15%, a current modern plant extracting energy for 45,000 kWh electricity from 1 kg, we get 0.15 kg mined material for 1 kWh.

  • With the 'current average' ore grade of 0.15%, and an EPR expectation of 60,000 kWh electricity from 1 kg, we get 0.11 kg mined material for 1 kWh.

  • With current peak grade of 0.05% and the EPR, we get 0.33 kg mined for 1 kWh.

  • With a cutoff grade of 0.02% and the EPR, we get 0.83 kg mined for 1 kWh.

  • With a 0.0004% grade granite and the EPR, we get 41.7 kg mined for 1 kWh.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 09:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are the grades of ore included in the coal calculation?

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 09:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Brown and hard coal. That's a grade difference.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 09:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regrettably I can't find my file, but I think I can reproduce parts of it as addition to the above. I remember looking at actual mining figures, so I did again.

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 DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 05:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, one more figure: 2005 global average yield in nuclear plants was around 38,500 kWh from 1 kg of lightly enriched uranium.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 05:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series