Re: Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power

On Apr 10, 2:36 pm, "stopglobalwarmingcan...@xxxxxxxxx"
<stopglobalwarmingcan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Did some digging on Google for a couple hours and what I found was:

This link is to a Dutch study that shows that in most cases it will
take years before a nuclear plant (counting the emissions to construct
it and mine its Uranium) emits less greenhouse gases than does a
natural gas plant.

And if the purity of the Uranium is low it will take a decade or more
for the nuclear option to emit less than the natural gas option.

http://www.elstatconsultant.nl

This link shows the time periods of how long exactly it will take a
new nuclear plant to emit less greenhouse gases than a natural gas
plant:

http://www.elstatconsultant.nl/Chap_1_CO-2_emission_of_the_nuclear_fu...

The carbon emissions of nuclear power are thus I must say much higher
than I would have hoped.

I think with the waste problem and the chance of an accident (no
system is 100% safe) nuclear would have had to be much lower in carbon
emissions to make it a sensible choice.

And still we have more of the same ongoing topic/author banishment,
especially within the likes of org.mailgate/Usenet, whereas GOOGLE/
Usenet has 7+ replies and the otherwise badly infomercial skewed
MailGate/Usenet server offers zero replies, as though it's a bad/dead
topic.

Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d936f9f285f0466/df0e8af453ebdb12?lnk=gst&q=%22Greenhouse+gas+emissions%22&rnum=4&hl=en#df0e8af453ebdb12

There's nothing that's honestly birth-to-grave (aka all inclusive)
worthy about nuclear derived energy data. Fuzzy ENRON style book
keeping is still their status quo norm, thus spewing spendy
infomercials plus cloak and dagger *** covering as being their
priority No.1 is about as good as it gets.

It's all pretty much hocus-pocus physics and otherwise at best need-to-
know, and/or as fully nondisclosure/taboo as our mutually perpetrated
cold war amounted to.

What I can offer to say is that renewable energy alternatives offer a
good 100 fold better energy footprint density than the typical nuclear
energy footprint. I can even back that one up with real hard numbers
and facts of replicated science. (terribly sorry about all that)

Some of the best nuclear energy options are good for 400 w/m2, with
lots of off-limits and alternative usage restrictions imposed for
thousands of years. That's not saying nuclear energy isn't one of our
safer and otherwise clearner alternatives, it's just not very space
efficient or all that human DNA friendly once the entire birth-to-
grave cycle is taken into account, such as 100 years from now we're
going to be seriously screwed by some of our very own nuclear energy
options (by then expect to be paying as much as $10/kwhr, unless some
moderation and/or extremely good ideas are put to work).
-
Brad Guth

.

Quantcast