Re: background vs man-made emissions

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Hi Andy,

You forgot the interminable running of emergency diesel generator
surveillances! :-)

But seriously: It takes 1000 tons of coal/day, a mile-long train a day, to run
a large plant. The mining/processing is high-energy; transportation; crushing
coal is high-energy; providing scrubbers/materials/handling; then haul the 20%
left in "ashes," and the scrubber sludge; and processing and
converting/reclaiming. 

Consider that we could have nuclear oil tankers, but NO!  Consider the fuel
burned by US Forces to keep the mideast oil supply open!

Only enrichment takes any meaningful energy in the nuclear fuel cycle/MWH, and
if the anti-nukes hadn't prevented building nukes for enrichment, we wouldn't
need that!

Regards, Jim
============

"Karam, Andrew" wrote:
> 
> In our enchantment with nuclear power, let's not forget that it also takes
> resources to mine uranium ore, transport it for processing, enrich it,
> fabricate fuel, construct reactor plants, etc.  The Portsmouth plant alone
> takes a very large amount of electricity to run, and that comes from fossil
> fuel plants.  However, even if we posit nuclear reactors powering the
> enrichment facilities, we still have diesel-powered trucks and trains
> carrying uranium ore and UF6, carrying reactor components and assembling
> them into a reactor, and so forth.
> 
> Nuclear power is likely one of the cleaner and safer forms of energy,
> especially once the reactor is built and fueled, but it is NOT free of
> greenhouse gas emissions if you look at the entire fuel and reactor plant
> cycle.  No matter what, there is no such thing as an emissions-free source
> of power yet.
> 
> Please note that I am NOT an anti-nuke.  I tend to think that nuclear power
> is one of our better alternatives.  However, we tend to lose credibility if
> we continue to insist that nuclear power is completely free of greenhouse
> gas and other emissions.  Let's try to look at the whole picture instead of
> only the parts that best support our arguments.
> 
> Andy
> 
> Andrew Karam, CHP              (716) 275-1473 (voice)
> Radiation Safety Officer          (716) 275-3781 (office)
> University of Rochester           (716) 256-0365 (fax)
> 601 Elmwood Ave. Box HPH   Rochester, NY  14642
> 
> Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu
> http://Intranet.urmc.rochester.edu/RadiationSafety
> 
> Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship which
> grinds you stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you
> get out depends on what you put in; and as the grandest mill in the
> world will not extract wheat-flour from peascods, so pages of formulae
> will not get a definite result out of loose data.  (T.H. Huxley, 1869)
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html