It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by C0bzz
Gramms CO2 per kWh electricity
Solar power, water power and wind power
10 - 40
Nuclear power plants
37 - 140
Combined heat and power in private houses
220 - 250
Gas buring plants
330 - 360
New coal burning plants
1'000 - 1'100
For low quality ores (less than 0.02% of U3O8 per tonne of ore), the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is EQUAL TO that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith = SLS
The Rossing mine has a lower Uranium concentration (0.03% vs 0.05% by weight) than Olympic Dam and the discrepancy is even larger in the case of Rossing. Here SLS predict Rossing should require 2.6 Giga-Watt-Years of energy for mining and milling. The total consumption of all forms of energy in the country of Namibia is equivalent to 1.5 GigaWatt-Years, much less than the prediction for the mine alone. Furthermore, yearly cost of supplying this energy is over 1 billion dollars, yet the value of the Uranium sold by Rossing was, until recently, less than 100 million dollars per year. Since Rossing reports it's yearly energy usage to be 0.03 GigaWatt-years, SLS overestimates the energy cost of the Rossing mine by a factor of 80.
Yes and a nuclear power plant and a earthquake is a safe thing:
The materials used to create the solar plant DO release some CO2, during construction, but to claim that Coal plants do NOT, is naive.
Radioactive elements are a limited resource, unless you want to go about manufacturing supernova.
The latest electricity generation data, released on Friday, showed that as the temperatures dropped, 45% of output was being produced from coal, 37% from gas, 15% from nuclear power — and just 0.2% from wind.
Spain have had wind turbines for years and only now the USA decides to 'give it go' of course there has to be a profit in it or it simply won't work.
Sure. Use it to run a couple of breeder reactors and regenerate about 45% of your used fuel. The rest is low level isotopes that can be used for things like X-ray machines . You can cut the waste by over 85% The drawback is that the left over 15% is mostly Plutonium.
On particular windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain, including nuclear. On November 8th 2009 wind power production reached its all-time maximum of 11,564 MW; a few hours earlier it had reached the highest percentage of electricity production, with wind farms covering 53% of the total demand.
Big Boost in Wind Power Doable but Complicated in Eastern U.S. -- Study
The eastern United States could get 20 or even 30 percent of its electricity from wind by 2024, but it would cost up to $175 billion and wouldn't take a big bite out of greenhouse gas emissions without a price on carbon, according to a study by released today by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wind energy could generate 20 percent of the electricity needed by households and businesses in the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but it would require up to $90 billion in investment, according to a government report released on Wednesday.
Originally posted by cushycrux
reply to post by mosesgunner
yes sure - a bit bigger
According to the Energy Information Administration, wind power capital cost is $1,923 per kilowatt for onshore wind, and $3,851 for offshore wind. These cost projections are extremely similar to the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Council for Capital Formation. In 2008, wind generating capacity in the U.S. totaled 25,170 megawatts and generated 52.0 million megawatt hours. That's a capacity factor of 23.5% (abysmal - unreliable). Therefore, as the wind does not blow at maximum speed all the time, each kilowatt of actual average output is likely to be closer to be $8,174 a kilowatt (2007 dollars) for onshore wind.
UK new nuclear build will not get government subsidies
(NucNet) The British government will not use taxpayers’ money to subsidize the construction of new nuclear power plants, Philip Hunt, (right) minister of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change said Jan 21.
In an online question and answer session with ‘The Guardian’ newspaper, Lord Hunt said the government had made it “absolutely clear” that the cost of new nuclear power plants must be met in full by the commercial companies themselves, including the cost of decommissioning and waste management.
“I can assure you that included in that will be safe, and secure interim storage of radioactive waste on site, followed by disposal in a geological facility,” Lord Hunt said.
He said the government expects the first new units to be up and running around 2018. “So far companies have said they aspire to up to 16GW,
Lord Hunt said the UK has been “keeping a very close eye on what has been happening in Finland” with construction of the Olkiluoto-3 Areva European pressurised water reactor. That's why the UK plans to ensure the reactor “is licensed before we start building it, rather than trying to license as it is being built.”
The sale of the Government’s interest in British Energy
"The Government sold its stake in British Energy when energy prices were at a peak, and got a good price. The biggest priority for the Government was, however, to ensure new nuclear power stations could be built from the earliest possible date and with no public subsidy. Whether it will achieve this remains to be seen. The Department of Energy and Climate Change now needs to make real progress on its contingency plans should EDF be unwilling to build new nuclear power stations."
While the Government no longer has a direct financial interest in British Energy, it remains responsible for funding any shortfall in the future cost of decommissioning British Energy’s existing nuclear power stations. The Shareholder Executive did not carry out a formal assessment of the impact of the sale on the risks that taxpayers might have to bear if, for example, the new owner operated British Energy’s power stations in a way that required earlier decommissioning.
UK - National Audit Office.