A paper, "Greenhouse-gas Emissions from Solar Electric- and Nuclear Power: A Life-cycle
Study," by Vasilis M. Fthenakis and Hyung Chul Kim of Brookhaven National Lab contained a passage that caught my attention:
"Our analysis shows that, although the construction cost per kWh electricity produced is similar for both structures, the amount of steel used for the NPP [nuclear power plant] is 3-10 times less than the PV BOS. There are two ways to explain this anomaly. First, the steel components used in NPPs may be more expensive, labor intensive, and perhaps, energy intensive. Second, the cost of constructing NPPs is relatively high due to expenses unrelated to steel and concrete components."
Yes, I thought, just as I anticipated. Relative costs will be heavily dependent on the costs of things like steel and concrete. What is the case for PV generating facilities will also be the case for ST facilities. No doubt there will be a concerted effort made to make the PV and ST power plants get by with less material. However, that is still some way off. We know how to make reactors loose concrete and steel, and become safer, and also become less dependent on CO2 generating mines, and Uranium enrichment plants. That is to shift our reactor technology from LWRs to Molten Salt Reactors.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Future Energy Costs: A Short Revisit
Labels:
Molten Salt Reactors,
PV technology,
ST technology,
Steel use
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Blog Archive
Contributors
Some neat videos
Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
links The Weinberg Foundation
- The Weinberg Foundation
- Deregulate the Atom
- LFTRS to Power the Planet
- Sustainable Energy Today
- ANS Nuclear Cafe
- Thorium Power
- The Nuclear Alternative
- Yes Vermont Yankee
- Nuclear Townhall
- NNadir's underground blog
- oz-energy-analysis.org
- Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
- Save The Climate (Sauvons Le Climat0
- The Energy Tribune
- masterresources.org
- Nuclear Fissionary
- Nuclear Archer
- This week in batteries (TWIB)
- Gerald E. Marsh & George S. Stanford on Nuclear Policy
- The Capacity Factor
- Canadian Energy Crisis
- Institute for Energy Research
- Energy from Thorium Documents
- Energy from Thorium Discussion Forum
- Next Big Future
- RadiationAnswers.org
- Knowledge Problems
- Brave New Climate
- Thorium electronuclear
- AREVA Blog
- The Energy Collective
- Climate Change Politics
- Reactor Physics Group Publications
- Alexander DeVolpi on nuclear-weapons nonproliferation
- ECOWorld
- New Papyrus Magazine
- Pronuclear Democrats
- American Energy Independence
- coal2nuclear
- Energy Density
- SUSTAINABLE ENERGY - WITHOUT THE HOT AIR
- The Atomic Show
- Atomic Watch
- Pebble Bed Reactors
- The Thorium fuel cycle
- Simon Nisan on Nuclear Desalination
- Dr. Ralph Moir
- National Wind Watch
- Wind Energy Resource Atlas
- solar calculator
- THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION by Bernard L. Cohen
- Oil Drum
- Solar Buzz
- Clean Brake (Tyler Hamilton)
- GM-Volt
- Fuel Cycle Week
- Depleted Cranium: Dr. Buzzo's Bad Science Blog
- Blogging About the Unthinkable
- Uranium Information
- Frank Munger
- The Information Bridge
- Alvin Weinberg Papers
- Left-Atomics (David Walters)
- bartoncii
- Real CLimate
- 1 nuclear place
- World Nuclear News
- David Walters
- NNadir
- NIE Nuclear Notes
- nuclearstreet
- Idaho Samizdat
- Atomic Insights blog
- Energy from Thorium
- A Musing Environment
3 comments:
I seem to recall that wind uses significantly more concrete and steel than nuclear too. I am a little surprised that solar PV calculates out as high as that.
A small note, though - mines don't generated CO2 intrinsically, they just use energy (which currently is supplied by fossil fuels). Uranium enrichment is already undertaken without CO2 generation in France. Making concrete on the other hand has intrinsic CO2 generation as well as energy use.
Joggan, Mining does use diesel fuel, and other fossil fuels. Hence it generates some CO2. Milling also does fossil fuels. Uranium enrichment via gaseous diffusion draws a lot of coal fired electricity.
You are right though, Wind and Solar do require more building and structural materials. At the moment these are in short supply and growing more expensive. But if the Chinese stop building their economy, who knows.
My point was that mining uses energy which is supplied by fossil fuels at present, but could be sourced elsewhere. Carbon sources of energy in the nuclear power lifecycle is an argument for more nuclear to me.
Post a Comment