You are yet again going to information provided by the company that makes money building and operating nuclear power plants. The analysis you offer basically amounts to "trust us, we keep good records and we wouldn't lie to you".
Your claim that any information critical of the nuclear industry that is produced by these top level professionals is a result of a pre-existing bias against nuclear is absurd on its face. It is an exact parallel to the claims of the fossil fuel industry and the claims they make about climate science.
The British Energy report does NOT deal with declining ore quality Pam. They gloss the issue over with a very incomplete, non-rigorous review of current claimed emissions and extrapolate from that to what they say would be worst case. They do not, in fact, explore the global picture and the impact of fleet consumption on "worst case", thus producing an analysis of exactly the sort that motivated van Leeuwen to do the work that he did.
We can cite the section in van Leeuwen Part G to make the point of how incomplete the offering by the nuclear power company is:
• Em+m
Em+m is the energy input of the uranium extraction: the mining + milling processes (nrs 4a and 4b in Figure G.2). Em+m strongy depends on the ore grade and other physical parameters. Due to its exponential rise with decreasing ore grade, this energy input may be of major concern when the nuclear system has to be fed by poor uranium ores.
Em+m = Emining + Emilling eq G.1
• Efront
Efront is the energy input of the three processes needed to fabricate nuclear fuel for the reactor from the natural uranium, as delivered by the mining industry. This group comprises conversion, enrichment and fuel element fabrication, nrs 3, 2 and 1 in the chain of Figure G.2 The energy input per Mg enriched uranium of this group is a con- stant factor in the energy balance of the reference nuclear system.
Efront = Econv + Eenrich + Efuel eq G.2
• Eomr
Eomr is the energy needed to operate and maintain the nuclear power plant, including
the energy input of the major refurbishments required to keep the reactor safe and up to date (see also Part F5). In this study Eomr is assumed to have a constant value per reload period D, which has been introduced in Part C2.
• Econ
Econ is the energy input of the construction of the nuclear power plant, see Part F4.
This amount of energy is part of the ‘energy debt’, which has been introduced in Part C4 and which will be discussed in more detail in Part G6. The construction energy is assumed to be balanced with the energy production of the reactor.
• Ewaste
Ewaste is the energy required to pack and sequester the radioactive operational waste
from the processes of the front end of the chain (see also Part E2). For a given amount of prepared nuclear fuel this energy input has a fixed value. This group comprises three processes: reconversion of depleted uranium (nr 5 in Figure G.2), packing of the operational waste including reconverted depleted uranium (processes nrs 7a + 7b) and the definitive sequestration of the waste in a safe geological repository (processes nrs 8a + 8b).
In Figure G.2 the reconversion of depleted uranium and the disposal of it has been kept separated, because these processes are not practiced up until today. In fact the energy input related to depleted uranium contributes to the energy debt (see Part G6). Of all waste handling processes, only the packing of the operational waste, process 7b, is actually current practice in the nuclear industry.
Ewaste = Ereconv + Epack + Eseques eq G.3
• Espent
Espent is the energy required to handle spent fuel: for interim storage (nr 10), packing (nr 11) and definitive sequestration (nr 12) in a safe geological repository. None of these processes are operational today, so the value of this energy input has to be esti- mated and consequently has a large margin of uncertainty. Espent has a fixed value for a given amount of spent fuel.
Espent = Einterim + Epack + Eseques eq G.4
• Edism
Edism is the energy required for decommissioning and dismantling the nuclear reactor after final shutdown (process 6 in Figure G.2) plus packaging and sequestration of the radioactive parts of the nuclear power plant (processes 7c + 8c). In Part F6 this chain of processes is called the ‘reactor-to-grave sequence’. The dismantling waste is assumed to be packed in similar containers like operational waste and to be sequestered in the geologic repository along with the operational waste.
Edism = Edecom + Edismantl + Epack + Eseques eq G.5
In this study a fixed value of Edism is assumed, independent on the operational lifetime. For more details see Part F6. In the following calculations the energy requirements for construction and the reactor- to-grave sequence are added to Ec+d:
Ec+d = Econ + Edism eq G.6
The sum Ec+d is called the ‘energy debt’ in previous parts of this study. As it happens to be, more unavoidable processes related to the generation of nuclear power are being postponed to an unspecified future. For that reason the concept of the energy debt is more complicated than introduced in Part C4 and therefore will be discussed in more detail in Part G6.
• Ereclam
Ereclam is the energy required for the reclamation of the uranium mine area (see also Part E2). This energy inputs depends on the ore grade of the uranium ore being mined, in addition to other factors, such as the depth and geology of the deposit.
Would you like to see the specificity with which he details and assess each of those inputs?
In reviewing data from the nuclear industry and its captured government and academic community an ethicist of unimpeachable character finds that the practice of "data trimming" is a widespread practice use by those entities to make and publish false claims regarding the capabilities of nuclear power.
Even when they consider GHGE from most nuclear-fuel-cycle stages, climate-necessity (nuclear) proponents typically trim nuclear-GHGE data through unrealistic assumptions, e.g., considering only nuclear-GHGE associated with higher-grade, not lower-grade, uranium ores. Yet cleaner, higher-grade ores are nearly gone [17]. Nuclear-fuel cycles using ten-times-less-concentrated ore (\0.01 percent yellow- cake) have total GHGE equal roughly to those for natural-gas-fuel cycles; all other things being equal, lower-grade-uranium-ore nuclear cycles release 12 times more GHGE than solar cycles, and 49 times more than wind cycles [18]. Some scientists even claim that low-grade-uranium-ore cycles could require more energy than they produce [14], [19].
Nuclear energy may be not only less effective than wind/solar for GHGE- avoidance, but also detrimental to it. UK business-school studies show capital- intensive, heavily-subsidized nuclear plants undermine funding for efficiency/ renewables and delay more-effective technologies for GHGE-avoidance [20].
Page 21
Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23 DOI 10.1007/s11948-008-9097-y
Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
= new reply since forum marked as read
