tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post6568436068136231319..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: David Walters Returns to Nuclear BloggingCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-55858099140005046762010-06-30T18:19:27.093-05:002010-06-30T18:19:27.093-05:00Thanks for Charles for this summation and overview...Thanks for Charles for this summation and overview of my blogging.<br /><br />Donb is correct: what is *best* to reduce carbon by phasing out coal and other fossil fuels...and renewables like charcoal made in developing countries from cutting down forests!<br /><br />One of the best lines you get, Caldicott is famous for this...is that it takes massive fossil fuel burning to power nuclear processing and reprocessing. She cites, accurately, the two medium sized coal plants built to power a Kentucky radioactive processing facility. What she fails to point out is that if those coal plants were NUCLEAR there would be no carbon emissions. So she ignores the obvious example of France which powers 80% of it's reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities with...ZERO carbon nuclear! Gotta love it!<br /><br />DAvidDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03070034894266417461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-4615768849569541182010-06-30T11:49:33.528-05:002010-06-30T11:49:33.528-05:00Osha Davidson wrote:
Both of the complete citation...Osha Davidson wrote:<br /><i>Both of the complete citations you provided (Meier and the British Energy study) exclude a critical factor: the GHG emissions associated with spent fuel disposal. I didn’t see any reference to this omission in Meier (although I may have missed it). And the BE study refers to it obliquely, saying only “The final route of disposal for high level radioactive waste in the UK is currently under consideration.” Translation: “Since we haven’t solved the disposal issue, let’s just assume that whatever is done won’t emit GHGs.”</i><br /><br />No, let's assume we do it right and reuse/recycle the spent nuclear fuel. In this case, we get even more energy out of it to displace carbon-based sources. Depending on how this is done, the amount of energy generated from this "waste" can dwarf the amount of energy extracted on the first go-around.<br /><br />Can we guarantee that not a single molecule of carbon escapes to the atmosphere if we do this? Of course not. The goal is not to completely eliminate all CO2 into the atmosphere, but to reduce it to a level that nature can handle. Nuclear energy is not 100% CO2 free. It is just better than the alternatives when realities like storage and back-up generation are taken into account.donbnoreply@blogger.com