I know Russell, and and he has been writing on this topic for over 30 years!
How long have YOU known about it? Nuke power is privately owned and publicly financed. The waste problem will Never be solved. Plants are built on fault lines, near oceans, over water tables, where they pollute groundwater. Seeing the first explosion, Oppenheimer said "Now I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds." After the awesome destruction in Japan, "the Peaceful Atom" was sold as a sign of Hope.
This guy's silly. The power produced by nuke plants dwarfs the amount of oil it took to create the plants. Otherwise they wouldn't be built in the first place.
All the pro nuke iddiots look pretty dumb now that Fukushima has gone up...We have no nuke power plants here in New Zealand, but when one of your plants blows up we cop the fallout.
i cant believe no one points out CLIMATEGATE and the global warming hoax, no common sense these days, i NEVER went for that stupidity. CO2 IS .3% NOT EVEN 1% OF THE ATMOSPHERE, more Co2 the better!!!!!!!! plants LOVE IT AND DIE WITHOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!! PLANTS PRODUCE OXYGEN!!!!!!!!! RETARDS THE WHOLE LOT OF YA!!!!!!!!! LOOK UP Lord Monckton, Godfrey Bloom,
On YouTube: "35 inconvenient truths" "doomsday called off" or go to
KillerSpray*com where you can see what the score is about Japan [weRfkd
@SprayOClockNews I'm sure somebody who is incapable of writing proper sentences is perfectly capable of understanding the complexities of climate change.
@furripupau ITS CALLED YOUTUBE SHORTHAND loser! ;-) THE DEBATE IS over, global warming is an utter FRAUD and only a retard such as yourself believes in it any more it has become the GREENHOUSE RELIGION pushed by the UN which is Luciferian [bet u did not know that, LOL!] SHOWS HOW clueless you are, LIKE A MONKEY IN THE CAGE AT THE ZOO LOOKING OUT, rofl, lmao, 31,000 scientists suing Al 'conman' Gore who was buying beachfront in California while telling u the water is rising ROFL! shameful u suck!
I suggest that those against nuclear power look up the thorium reactor. Same type of reactor as Uranium, but thorium is about as common as iron, and is dirt cheap, more energy efficient than uranium, and it's by-products cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. Plus, it can easily be made into a self-regulating fuel, rendering meltdowns impossible. And there's enough in 1400 acres of Lemhi Pass in the Rocky Mountains to power the entire United States for the next 1,000 years.
Nuclear power is the most enrgentic power source out of all of them. Surely the power produced quickly replaces the effect of the CO2 given off in processing etc.
Out of the 40 studies done in Australian about nuclears carbon impact on the world (measured in Kg/GWe), 37 said it was between 0-40kg. 2 studies said it was between 40-80kg. BUT ONLY ONE STUDY our of the 40 said it was over 140kg .
Theses studies took into acount the WHOLE life cycle of the planet including mining and trasnportation.
To put this into perspective wind is between 0-30kg/GWe. 37 studies said Nuke was 0-40kg. 1 study said it was 140kg
The Sovacool study, cited below, screened 103 studies on this issue of CO2 output. They found that the average study that made it through the qualification process projects 66 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour from nuclear, 6 times that of the life cycle of wind.
It would be even many more times that CO2 output of energy efficiency technologies.
CO2 for nukes increases dramatically when you account for future ore depletion and resulting CO2 increases in mining and milling.
It is interesting how the comments stray from the points made in this presentation. The main point is that nuclear energy produces, through the 20 steps of the fuel cycle, large amounts of greenhouse gas.
If you look at the Sovacool inventory of studies, the average of the qualifying studies indicated 66 grams of CO2/kilowatt-hour, compared to wind at 10.
With 6.6 times the CO2 output of wind, and about 3 times the CO2 of solar PV, nukes are vast emitters of CO2.
@russlowes I will address the main body of your argument. While construction steps will likely continue requiring diesel fuel for machinery and cement and steel production will also continue to require coal or oil for their production, the other steps require electricity, which can come from any source. Furthermore, wind also requires steel and cement, which means your arguments are equally level-able at wind power.
While the arguments as you say are "level-able at wind power," they are not "equally level-able." Sure wind uses fossil energy for production of the steel, construction process and even in the maintenance process, but it is so much less than in the case of nuclear energy.
If you use the highly regarded Sovacool report, which as I said earlier, screened 103 studies on this issue, CO2 produced from the nuclear energy cycle exceeds wind CO2 life cycle output by a factor of over 6.
talks alot about oil and carbon given off to mine for the materials. but the same is for wind and solar. you have to mine with non renewable ways to get the things to make them. as for the waste, nothing worth the effort in this world is free.
for nukes is over 60 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour produced. For solar 30; wind 10 grams; natural gas combined cycle 440. However, with the nuclear figure, all reports are assuming the current ore grades. The best-documented study indicates that nuclear will go up to over 400 grams CO2 when you look at the plummeting ore grades/40 years. These ore grades have gone from 0.3% in the 1970s to 0.15% today, and are likely to go to less than 0.013% in about 20 years.
Although the nuke industry claims nukes are CO2-free, all energy production methods use fossil fuel for steel manufacture, components, etc. This is called life cycle assessment or cradle-to-grave analysis. There was a 2008 summation on 103 different studies on the CO2 from nukes. It filtered out studies that out-of-date, studies that used non-verifiable information, and those that only referred to other studies. The summation found that the average estimate of CO2 (continued. . .)
Any technology uses oil, coal and gas energy including renewables. This would not be the case if we already had 100 % nuclear and renewables but it is not.
Wind turbines use concrete, steel and aluminum too. Solar panels on a large scale will also have to use steel and other materials to support it (e.g canopy above car park).
Also, the large scale effects of wind pattern alternations caused by wind turbines and potentially covering reflective surfaces with absorbent materials is unknown.
Russ, no serious life-cycle analysis ever said nuclear power is carbon free. However the seem goes for renewables. Wind power requires steel, copper, concrete, transports, maintenance, dismantling, of of which emits pollutants. And let's not even talk about solar power, with its heavy use of rare materials and heavy life-cycle emissions.
So no powersource is emission free. We can all agree on that. Say that renewables are emission free in their life-cycle and you are lying.
So instead we start looking at amounts. How *much* CO2 and other emissions are produced by different power sources? For that we look at life-cycle assessments/analysis (LCAs).
As we do that, we find that your argument is faulty, because nuclear still has some of the lowest total emissions per TWh produced, even when mining, enrichment, transport and dismantling is included. Also we find that you assumption that milling and enrichment *must* consume oil and coal is wrong.
In fact for enrichment we can *choose* chich energy we use. So what we end up with is not an argument against nuclear power, but an argument against oil and col use, i.e. building of more nuclear plants. We replace the energy producers for milling and enrichment with power sources like nuclear... and the emissions drop like a stone.
So in effect Russ... your little video here is a load of bull. Noone serious said that nuclear is carbon free, but it is low in emissions. Lower than renewables.
Regarding UKRentor1605 comments, Im afraid that your ideology is getting in the way of your perception. In addition to manufacturing steel for reactor construction, coal-generated electricity is used for fuel enrichment, for example. The theme of this video is that nukes produce a substantial amount of greenhouse gas, including CO2 and others. It is a matter of how much. The studies I have listed in previous remarks show this GHG production to be very high.
No one should listen to this anti-capitalist extremist. He wants to convince gullible people that a fact of energy propogation is some kind of "conspiracy" to fool everyone. Yes, fossil fuel will be necessary to get nuclear STARTED, but guess what.. it will be necessary for ANY power source to get off the ground.
According to Russ's logic, if horse drawn carriages were necessary to move the equipment needed to begin construction on the first internal combustion engines (they were) then they would always be needed!! Does anyone see any horse drawn carriages working at any automobile plants? Anyone who does not see that this is EXACTLY what this charlatan is saying should pay closer attention.
I have already posted a number of great studies, in comments below, that have come out lately on the absurdity of building more nuclear power plants. For starters:
1. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research's "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free"
2. Greenpeace's "The Economics of Nuclear Power"
3: Jim Harding's "Economics of New Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon Constrained World"
These three are stars among literally thousands of documents so far reviewed.
Nuclear reactors have about an 85% capacity factor, on average, which might lead you to think they are efficient. While this video indicates otherwise, the thermal efficiency denotes otherwise. Reactors are only 32% thermally efficient (TE); of every 100 kilowatt-hours of heat, only 32 are converted to electricity. Coal is about 40% TE, natural gas 45% and combined cycle, where waste heat is recaptured and used, is 55-65%. Nuclear is the worst. Considering the whole cycle, it further worsens.
Actually, nuclear power plants have around a 95%+ capacity factor, and with multiple cores can run, refuel, and maintain continuously. The data you are going off of is from the early 90s. The newest design reactors have about a 98% capacity factor, and are between 40-50% efficient in terms of thermal transfer. The problem is that all of our current reactors are 1970's technology and specs. Thats why anti-nuke idiots think they've got a case. They never say what the 2008 data is, just 1979s.
Why is it that people who oppose nuclear energy only give one-sided stories? For instance, it's all very well to say that it takes 20 steps and 18 of them are based on fossil fuels - but what's the alternative? How many 'steps' does it take to create, say wind turbines? And why does enriching uranium, building the reactors etc. use oil? Is it the power needed to do this comes from coal stations?
Lowes is far from an idiot. He has written economic studies on the True costs of nuclear energy-- ones that the pushers of nukes never let you see. The nuclear industry is NOT self-supporting, but taxpayers PAY AND PAY AND PAY, and then we have to deal with the wastes for millions of years. How stupid is this? In California, Nuke plants are built on FAULT LINES! and how about the toxic mining in Navajoland? the ruination of the Colorado River water (it's all connected upstate AZ)The Columbia R?
Great video saying the same thing as others professing to protecting our earth...your failure to mention once that the coal, oil and uranium needed for nuclear power is found on Native American, Australian aborigine and African land...mention these facts and you might get my attention.
Oh don't forget about Kazakhstan, Canada, South Africa, and the Appalachian mts. all have higher concentrations of Uranium. Oh, and don't forget that Nuclear power plants don't require oil or coal to run, maybe some oil for lubricant, but not to run, but def. no coal. The oil and coal "required" to run a NPP is based upon transportation (oil) and materials production (electricity which to the stupid means coal). NPPs only use 2 things, their fuel, Uranium, and their coolant, ex. water.
The reason there are so many plants go unfinished is because people like this moron protest them. Two thirds of the cost of building a nuclear plant is legal fees.
This guy is a lunatic. A 6MW wind turbine is 650 ft high and has a 413 ft span. We would need to build HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of them to replace the potential of nuclear. Are the Amish building them? Their construction would result in MASSIVE use of fossil fuels. Not to mention maintenance and replacement. The foundations would be concrete, the metal would be mined. Idiot.
Some people do not think that renewables are going anywhere, because they have not kept up with the news. Over 2500 wind turbines were built last year alone (2007)in just the U.S. with about 3500 turbines in the U.S. scheduled for 2008. However, the point of this video is that nuclear energy uses vast amounts of fossil fuels for the lifecycle of twenty steps. The nuclear industry is trying to deceive the public by claiming that nuclear energy is greenhouse gas-free or CO2-free.
No more than you are trying to deceive the public by claiming that the wind and solar INDUSTRY is CO2 or greenhouse gas free. It is not. I captilized industry because I find it funny how you so-called experts use the term industry when talking about nuclear, and use the term energy when talking about wind and solar. You are no engineer or scientist you are merely an anti-corporate activist.
I did metallurgy on parts for nuclear reactors and as a result of that experience I don't want to live in a country next to a country that has nuclear plants. usbiker is just doing advertizing for his industry. Advertizing is not science.
oh and did i mention that fossil fuel plants emit, literally, millions of times the radioactive contamination to the environment? no joke. each n-plant is allowed a .22 curie realease total every year, which no plant even comes close to reaching, mind u that is actually extremely conservative as far as the environmental im pact is concerned. coal plants gush rad-contaminants at the rate of over 100,000 curies per plant per year. i cant tell u that is an ass load.
Nuclear reactors cost a lot to set up but once done are very efficient, thus inexpensive. Keep in mind that nuclear power is many times more efficient than renewable sources - 3 times more so than wind turbines for example. So to have the same amount of power produced you'd need 3 times the number of turbines. So any saving in cost is blown out of the water due to the fact that you need 3 times the number of turbines to produce the same amount of power.
you are amusing, i operate a nuclear plant, several reactors. i can tell you my friend we emit no green house gasses. the mining operations consume no more ff's than mining of coal, in fact less due to higher ore densities. There is by far less metal in the construction of a n-plant the ff and thereforw requires less construction energies. also, nuclear plants require 1/4 the annual operating cost of an ff plant.
Cost of Electricity Generation Below is a chart of the California Energy Commission's estimate of the cost of electrical energy. Cost of Electricity Generation Technology Current Cost of Electricity (2003 data, cents/kWh) Hydroelectric 0.25 to 2.7 Nuclear 1.4 to 1.9 Coal 1.8 to 2.0 Natural Gas 5.2 to 15.9 Solar 13.5 to 42.7 Wind 4.6
Is that the book by Robert C Morris? A great read and a must for anyone who is concerned about our future. Also, take a look at 'A case for Nuclear generated Electricity'-Scott Heaberlin
Talk about misleading! Gen4 is a myth. Each nuclear plant is different from all the others in a substantial way. We have 104 commercial reactors operating. The next reactor will be gen105. They keep trying, but the result is the same. Money-sucking, globally warming, radiation-polluting nuclear power, all endorsed by GW Bush's last stand. Let's let the 50-year mistake of commercial nuclear power end.
Its been a resounding success in countries such as Sweden, France and Belgium. Nuclear PLants can be built to budget and in time if we can control militant anti-nuclear activists.
so the 90+ Gen I PWRs are all completely different? Well thats like saying that your house is different than your neighbor's house. Does it have 4 walls? Does it have heating, windows, doors? Yes there are some variations, but they are all fundamentally the same. Gen IV is fact, and they are going through certification right now. Nuclear Power saves money, creates thousands of jobs, releases almost no radiation, and produces no CO2. So iow you need to actually know something b4 u speak.
Most of those production processes could be powered with electricity or hydrogen produced by other gen4 nuke plants or even renewable sources. Stop misleading people!!!
It would be virtually impossible to take all fossil fuels out of the nuclear process without trillions of dollars invested in the great hydrogen boondogle. Invest in wind now, cuz the only thing you will get out of the latest giveaways for nukes is cost overruns and radioactive waste.
Cost blowouts associated with Nuclear Plants are due mainly to the activities of anti-nuclear groups. Nuclear Energy lends itself ideally to the production of Hydrogen based fuels. This will go a long way toward reducing pollution in the transport sector.
. . .As a follow-up, Energy efficiency cuts across peak, intermediate and base load, and reduces energy at all times. For every dollar you put into nuclear power you only produce the ability to generate 1/7th the power you would save with the same dollar going to energy efficiency, on average. If we do what it takes to do the least expensive and environmentally damaging thing, through efficiency improvements, this nation will not have to build any more power plants for many years.
the steam plants cannot get anymore efficient than they are now. we have super high heat flux's, the highest we can. we have optimum heat xfer mediums and materials and turbine designs are at their pinnacle. these steam plants are shared between nuclear and fossil fuel plants, the only differance is the heat source. They are designed with a minimum of rejected energy and the goal is energy reclaimation. i can tell u a solar pannel is only 4-8% efficient and wind aint much better, the prop thing.
I'm afraid there is a bit of confusion about this issue with the last posting. "Surge" sources of power, or "peak" power is best supplied with a cheap capital investment cost source, or better yet, with energy efficiency. Nuclear is the opposite a low-capital cost source. It is very pricey, at $5000 per kilowatt of capacity, versus wind at $750-1500 per KW.
You also forgot to mention land purchases. Don't forget about the millions and billions of dollars you'd need for you hundreds and thousands of acres of land to produce the same energy as a 20 acre nuclear site. Also, maintianace of NPPs is very low, while for wind, it is basically like by a new windmill. the effect is that after about 10 years, the cost of wind is much higher than nuclear, but initial construction is what gets people because they only think about next year.
The real crux of the matter is this, we need surge sources of power, and oil will not be around for ever. So you have two choices for that surge energy source, nuclear or coal. I pick nuclear because over all it is cleaner than coal. Solar and wind are great, except they are infant industries with nearly no lobby power and they don't run all the time and put out varying loads.
do you know the formal co-founder of greenpeece is now pro-nuclear? i say former because greenpeece has disowned him. they arent very nice to their elders...
Also, those costs are artificial and inflated by nuclear-phobia and an immature industry. Monetary costs are also irrelevant(not just because this country has loads of cash). The currency you need to worry about, which you mentioned, is barrels of oil. Once you start producing many more times the energy equivalent of the barrels of oil you put in, you are now self sustaining, and this is an achievement that is questionable in the case of the other "green" technologies
You say we shouldn't use nuclear because it takes oil to create it. Ok, so what do you think they use to create solar panels and wind turbines? Fairy dust?
In computing it's called bootstrapping. You need oil to kickstart WHATEVER the next energy economy will be.
As of this day, as of this hour, nuclear is the only viable, long term and proven solution to our energy needs. Not that I don't encourage research into wind and solar, but at this point they are just that, research.
Very well said. We (the general public) need to get over the unfounded fears of nuclear power. It is safe and environmentally friendly. It may not be the only piece of the puzzle for clean power in the future but it is one of the biggest pieces. Knowledge is king and those of us that know the truth about nuclear power need to help educate the rest and put the myths to rest.
I know Russell, and and he has been writing on this topic for over 30 years!
How long have YOU known about it? Nuke power is privately owned and publicly financed. The waste problem will Never be solved. Plants are built on fault lines, near oceans, over water tables, where they pollute groundwater. Seeing the first explosion, Oppenheimer said "Now I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds." After the awesome destruction in Japan, "the Peaceful Atom" was sold as a sign of Hope.
sabymoon 3 months ago
nuclear power the future!!!!!
soverato3 5 months ago
This guy's silly. The power produced by nuke plants dwarfs the amount of oil it took to create the plants. Otherwise they wouldn't be built in the first place.
FantasticBob7000 7 months ago
Solar will be cheaper than coal in 10 years - game over
BeondaPale 7 months ago
Regardless of anything else, I wonder has a single nuclear plant ever been operated profitably without subsidies/and or government help?
furripupau 8 months ago
All the pro nuke iddiots look pretty dumb now that Fukushima has gone up...We have no nuke power plants here in New Zealand, but when one of your plants blows up we cop the fallout.
Greenasbro 10 months ago
i cant believe no one points out CLIMATEGATE and the global warming hoax, no common sense these days, i NEVER went for that stupidity. CO2 IS .3% NOT EVEN 1% OF THE ATMOSPHERE, more Co2 the better!!!!!!!! plants LOVE IT AND DIE WITHOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!! PLANTS PRODUCE OXYGEN!!!!!!!!! RETARDS THE WHOLE LOT OF YA!!!!!!!!! LOOK UP Lord Monckton, Godfrey Bloom,
On YouTube: "35 inconvenient truths" "doomsday called off" or go to
KillerSpray*com where you can see what the score is about Japan [weRfkd
SprayOClockNews 10 months ago
@SprayOClockNews I'm sure somebody who is incapable of writing proper sentences is perfectly capable of understanding the complexities of climate change.
furripupau 8 months ago
@furripupau ITS CALLED YOUTUBE SHORTHAND loser! ;-) THE DEBATE IS over, global warming is an utter FRAUD and only a retard such as yourself believes in it any more it has become the GREENHOUSE RELIGION pushed by the UN which is Luciferian [bet u did not know that, LOL!] SHOWS HOW clueless you are, LIKE A MONKEY IN THE CAGE AT THE ZOO LOOKING OUT, rofl, lmao, 31,000 scientists suing Al 'conman' Gore who was buying beachfront in California while telling u the water is rising ROFL! shameful u suck!
SprayOClockNews 8 months ago 2
I suggest that those against nuclear power look up the thorium reactor. Same type of reactor as Uranium, but thorium is about as common as iron, and is dirt cheap, more energy efficient than uranium, and it's by-products cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. Plus, it can easily be made into a self-regulating fuel, rendering meltdowns impossible. And there's enough in 1400 acres of Lemhi Pass in the Rocky Mountains to power the entire United States for the next 1,000 years.
halo07guy2 1 year ago
f--k anti-nuclear jerks...They know nothing about it . And the arguments of this guy are more tahn ridiculous..
tonydrumsmontreal 2 years ago
Nuclear power is the most enrgentic power source out of all of them. Surely the power produced quickly replaces the effect of the CO2 given off in processing etc.
mackat4ck 2 years ago
It does. This guy is feeding you a bunch of BS.
tuttt99 2 years ago
Out of the 40 studies done in Australian about nuclears carbon impact on the world (measured in Kg/GWe), 37 said it was between 0-40kg. 2 studies said it was between 40-80kg. BUT ONLY ONE STUDY our of the 40 said it was over 140kg .
Theses studies took into acount the WHOLE life cycle of the planet including mining and trasnportation.
To put this into perspective wind is between 0-30kg/GWe. 37 studies said Nuke was 0-40kg. 1 study said it was 140kg
The guys a liar
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago
The Sovacool study, cited below, screened 103 studies on this issue of CO2 output. They found that the average study that made it through the qualification process projects 66 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour from nuclear, 6 times that of the life cycle of wind.
It would be even many more times that CO2 output of energy efficiency technologies.
CO2 for nukes increases dramatically when you account for future ore depletion and resulting CO2 increases in mining and milling.
russlowes 2 years ago
Argument against nuclear used against wind/solar.
Wind mills have been around for 1000s of years. Why are there so few? Solar was exalted in 70's. Why does it provide less than 0.001% of power?
Wind/Solar are soooo cheap? And no costly security or licensing. So why haven't THOUSANDS of PRIVATE companies built MILLIONS of wind turbines?
Nuclear operators pay for decommissioning and waste storage. Who is going to pay to tear down thousands of wind turbines?
deimos47ca 2 years ago
It is interesting how the comments stray from the points made in this presentation. The main point is that nuclear energy produces, through the 20 steps of the fuel cycle, large amounts of greenhouse gas.
If you look at the Sovacool inventory of studies, the average of the qualifying studies indicated 66 grams of CO2/kilowatt-hour, compared to wind at 10.
With 6.6 times the CO2 output of wind, and about 3 times the CO2 of solar PV, nukes are vast emitters of CO2.
russlowes 2 years ago
@russlowes I will address the main body of your argument. While construction steps will likely continue requiring diesel fuel for machinery and cement and steel production will also continue to require coal or oil for their production, the other steps require electricity, which can come from any source. Furthermore, wind also requires steel and cement, which means your arguments are equally level-able at wind power.
stratochief 2 years ago
While the arguments as you say are "level-able at wind power," they are not "equally level-able." Sure wind uses fossil energy for production of the steel, construction process and even in the maintenance process, but it is so much less than in the case of nuclear energy.
If you use the highly regarded Sovacool report, which as I said earlier, screened 103 studies on this issue, CO2 produced from the nuclear energy cycle exceeds wind CO2 life cycle output by a factor of over 6.
russlowes 2 years ago
@russlowes and compared to coal/oil?
slash3rr 10 months ago
Prof Zimmerman told me in 2001, how to do nuclear FUSION from water. Clean, safe, cheap power. With no topxic death!
JonThm 2 years ago
Nuclear Power is fatal: They made up GW, before the world started cooling in 2005.
JonThm 3 years ago
talks alot about oil and carbon given off to mine for the materials. but the same is for wind and solar. you have to mine with non renewable ways to get the things to make them. as for the waste, nothing worth the effort in this world is free.
Lunargolfball 3 years ago
(. . .continued from last post)
for nukes is over 60 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour produced. For solar 30; wind 10 grams; natural gas combined cycle 440. However, with the nuclear figure, all reports are assuming the current ore grades. The best-documented study indicates that nuclear will go up to over 400 grams CO2 when you look at the plummeting ore grades/40 years. These ore grades have gone from 0.3% in the 1970s to 0.15% today, and are likely to go to less than 0.013% in about 20 years.
russlowes 3 years ago
Although the nuke industry claims nukes are CO2-free, all energy production methods use fossil fuel for steel manufacture, components, etc. This is called life cycle assessment or cradle-to-grave analysis. There was a 2008 summation on 103 different studies on the CO2 from nukes. It filtered out studies that out-of-date, studies that used non-verifiable information, and those that only referred to other studies. The summation found that the average estimate of CO2 (continued. . .)
russlowes 3 years ago
Any technology uses oil, coal and gas energy including renewables. This would not be the case if we already had 100 % nuclear and renewables but it is not.
Wind turbines use concrete, steel and aluminum too. Solar panels on a large scale will also have to use steel and other materials to support it (e.g canopy above car park).
Also, the large scale effects of wind pattern alternations caused by wind turbines and potentially covering reflective surfaces with absorbent materials is unknown.
Wardenski86 3 years ago
Russ, no serious life-cycle analysis ever said nuclear power is carbon free. However the seem goes for renewables. Wind power requires steel, copper, concrete, transports, maintenance, dismantling, of of which emits pollutants. And let's not even talk about solar power, with its heavy use of rare materials and heavy life-cycle emissions.
So no powersource is emission free. We can all agree on that. Say that renewables are emission free in their life-cycle and you are lying.
mkarnerfors 3 years ago
So instead we start looking at amounts. How *much* CO2 and other emissions are produced by different power sources? For that we look at life-cycle assessments/analysis (LCAs).
As we do that, we find that your argument is faulty, because nuclear still has some of the lowest total emissions per TWh produced, even when mining, enrichment, transport and dismantling is included. Also we find that you assumption that milling and enrichment *must* consume oil and coal is wrong.
mkarnerfors 3 years ago
In fact for enrichment we can *choose* chich energy we use. So what we end up with is not an argument against nuclear power, but an argument against oil and col use, i.e. building of more nuclear plants. We replace the energy producers for milling and enrichment with power sources like nuclear... and the emissions drop like a stone.
So in effect Russ... your little video here is a load of bull. Noone serious said that nuclear is carbon free, but it is low in emissions. Lower than renewables.
mkarnerfors 3 years ago
Regarding UKRentor1605 comments, Im afraid that your ideology is getting in the way of your perception. In addition to manufacturing steel for reactor construction, coal-generated electricity is used for fuel enrichment, for example. The theme of this video is that nukes produce a substantial amount of greenhouse gas, including CO2 and others. It is a matter of how much. The studies I have listed in previous remarks show this GHG production to be very high.
russlowes 3 years ago
No one should listen to this anti-capitalist extremist. He wants to convince gullible people that a fact of energy propogation is some kind of "conspiracy" to fool everyone. Yes, fossil fuel will be necessary to get nuclear STARTED, but guess what.. it will be necessary for ANY power source to get off the ground.
drabarne 3 years ago
According to Russ's logic, if horse drawn carriages were necessary to move the equipment needed to begin construction on the first internal combustion engines (they were) then they would always be needed!! Does anyone see any horse drawn carriages working at any automobile plants? Anyone who does not see that this is EXACTLY what this charlatan is saying should pay closer attention.
drabarne 3 years ago
I have already posted a number of great studies, in comments below, that have come out lately on the absurdity of building more nuclear power plants. For starters:
1. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research's "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free"
2. Greenpeace's "The Economics of Nuclear Power"
3: Jim Harding's "Economics of New Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon Constrained World"
These three are stars among literally thousands of documents so far reviewed.
Enjoy!
russlowes 3 years ago 2
Nuclear reactors have about an 85% capacity factor, on average, which might lead you to think they are efficient. While this video indicates otherwise, the thermal efficiency denotes otherwise. Reactors are only 32% thermally efficient (TE); of every 100 kilowatt-hours of heat, only 32 are converted to electricity. Coal is about 40% TE, natural gas 45% and combined cycle, where waste heat is recaptured and used, is 55-65%. Nuclear is the worst. Considering the whole cycle, it further worsens.
russlowes 3 years ago
Actually, nuclear power plants have around a 95%+ capacity factor, and with multiple cores can run, refuel, and maintain continuously. The data you are going off of is from the early 90s. The newest design reactors have about a 98% capacity factor, and are between 40-50% efficient in terms of thermal transfer. The problem is that all of our current reactors are 1970's technology and specs. Thats why anti-nuke idiots think they've got a case. They never say what the 2008 data is, just 1979s.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago
Why is it that people who oppose nuclear energy only give one-sided stories? For instance, it's all very well to say that it takes 20 steps and 18 of them are based on fossil fuels - but what's the alternative? How many 'steps' does it take to create, say wind turbines? And why does enriching uranium, building the reactors etc. use oil? Is it the power needed to do this comes from coal stations?
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Lowes is far from an idiot. He has written economic studies on the True costs of nuclear energy-- ones that the pushers of nukes never let you see. The nuclear industry is NOT self-supporting, but taxpayers PAY AND PAY AND PAY, and then we have to deal with the wastes for millions of years. How stupid is this? In California, Nuke plants are built on FAULT LINES! and how about the toxic mining in Navajoland? the ruination of the Colorado River water (it's all connected upstate AZ)The Columbia R?
sabymoon 3 years ago
Great video saying the same thing as others professing to protecting our earth...your failure to mention once that the coal, oil and uranium needed for nuclear power is found on Native American, Australian aborigine and African land...mention these facts and you might get my attention.
NO COAL
NO NUKES
NO MINING
NO MORE LIES
igmuska 3 years ago
Oh don't forget about Kazakhstan, Canada, South Africa, and the Appalachian mts. all have higher concentrations of Uranium. Oh, and don't forget that Nuclear power plants don't require oil or coal to run, maybe some oil for lubricant, but not to run, but def. no coal. The oil and coal "required" to run a NPP is based upon transportation (oil) and materials production (electricity which to the stupid means coal). NPPs only use 2 things, their fuel, Uranium, and their coolant, ex. water.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago
The reason there are so many plants go unfinished is because people like this moron protest them. Two thirds of the cost of building a nuclear plant is legal fees.
Kikarok 3 years ago
This guy is a lunatic. A 6MW wind turbine is 650 ft high and has a 413 ft span. We would need to build HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of them to replace the potential of nuclear. Are the Amish building them? Their construction would result in MASSIVE use of fossil fuels. Not to mention maintenance and replacement. The foundations would be concrete, the metal would be mined. Idiot.
drabarne 3 years ago
Some people do not think that renewables are going anywhere, because they have not kept up with the news. Over 2500 wind turbines were built last year alone (2007)in just the U.S. with about 3500 turbines in the U.S. scheduled for 2008. However, the point of this video is that nuclear energy uses vast amounts of fossil fuels for the lifecycle of twenty steps. The nuclear industry is trying to deceive the public by claiming that nuclear energy is greenhouse gas-free or CO2-free.
russlowes 3 years ago
No more than you are trying to deceive the public by claiming that the wind and solar INDUSTRY is CO2 or greenhouse gas free. It is not. I captilized industry because I find it funny how you so-called experts use the term industry when talking about nuclear, and use the term energy when talking about wind and solar. You are no engineer or scientist you are merely an anti-corporate activist.
drabarne 3 years ago
They said that the Titanic would never sink.
It sank on it's first voyage.
There will probably be another Chernoble.
bimmjim 3 years ago
low cost renewable energy... sorry there are none at the moment you retard. Nuclear is the future. especially fusion baby!
baihbalm 3 years ago
I did metallurgy on parts for nuclear reactors and as a result of that experience I don't want to live in a country next to a country that has nuclear plants. usbiker is just doing advertizing for his industry. Advertizing is not science.
bimmjim 4 years ago
oh and did i mention that fossil fuel plants emit, literally, millions of times the radioactive contamination to the environment? no joke. each n-plant is allowed a .22 curie realease total every year, which no plant even comes close to reaching, mind u that is actually extremely conservative as far as the environmental im pact is concerned. coal plants gush rad-contaminants at the rate of over 100,000 curies per plant per year. i cant tell u that is an ass load.
usbiker133t 4 years ago
Nuclear reactors cost a lot to set up but once done are very efficient, thus inexpensive. Keep in mind that nuclear power is many times more efficient than renewable sources - 3 times more so than wind turbines for example. So to have the same amount of power produced you'd need 3 times the number of turbines. So any saving in cost is blown out of the water due to the fact that you need 3 times the number of turbines to produce the same amount of power.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
sorry, i didn't mean to post my comment as a reply to yours.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
you are amusing, i operate a nuclear plant, several reactors. i can tell you my friend we emit no green house gasses. the mining operations consume no more ff's than mining of coal, in fact less due to higher ore densities. There is by far less metal in the construction of a n-plant the ff and thereforw requires less construction energies. also, nuclear plants require 1/4 the annual operating cost of an ff plant.
usbiker133t 4 years ago
jeffhoteling 4 years ago 3
You are a FRAUD!!!!!! WHAT"S YOUR PLAN TO KEEP BURNING COAL? WHERE IS YOUR REALISTIC SOLUTION? WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR FACTS?
READ THE BOOK: ENIRONMENTAL CASE FOR NUCLEAR POWER
jeffhoteling 4 years ago 3
Is that the book by Robert C Morris? A great read and a must for anyone who is concerned about our future. Also, take a look at 'A case for Nuclear generated Electricity'-Scott Heaberlin
jplieges 4 years ago
Talk about misleading! Gen4 is a myth. Each nuclear plant is different from all the others in a substantial way. We have 104 commercial reactors operating. The next reactor will be gen105. They keep trying, but the result is the same. Money-sucking, globally warming, radiation-polluting nuclear power, all endorsed by GW Bush's last stand. Let's let the 50-year mistake of commercial nuclear power end.
russlowes 4 years ago
Its been a resounding success in countries such as Sweden, France and Belgium. Nuclear PLants can be built to budget and in time if we can control militant anti-nuclear activists.
jplieges 4 years ago 2
so the 90+ Gen I PWRs are all completely different? Well thats like saying that your house is different than your neighbor's house. Does it have 4 walls? Does it have heating, windows, doors? Yes there are some variations, but they are all fundamentally the same. Gen IV is fact, and they are going through certification right now. Nuclear Power saves money, creates thousands of jobs, releases almost no radiation, and produces no CO2. So iow you need to actually know something b4 u speak.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago
Most of those production processes could be powered with electricity or hydrogen produced by other gen4 nuke plants or even renewable sources. Stop misleading people!!!
matsai6 4 years ago
It would be virtually impossible to take all fossil fuels out of the nuclear process without trillions of dollars invested in the great hydrogen boondogle. Invest in wind now, cuz the only thing you will get out of the latest giveaways for nukes is cost overruns and radioactive waste.
tekno2600 4 years ago
Cost blowouts associated with Nuclear Plants are due mainly to the activities of anti-nuclear groups. Nuclear Energy lends itself ideally to the production of Hydrogen based fuels. This will go a long way toward reducing pollution in the transport sector.
jplieges 4 years ago
. . .As a follow-up, Energy efficiency cuts across peak, intermediate and base load, and reduces energy at all times. For every dollar you put into nuclear power you only produce the ability to generate 1/7th the power you would save with the same dollar going to energy efficiency, on average. If we do what it takes to do the least expensive and environmentally damaging thing, through efficiency improvements, this nation will not have to build any more power plants for many years.
RussellJLowes 4 years ago
the steam plants cannot get anymore efficient than they are now. we have super high heat flux's, the highest we can. we have optimum heat xfer mediums and materials and turbine designs are at their pinnacle. these steam plants are shared between nuclear and fossil fuel plants, the only differance is the heat source. They are designed with a minimum of rejected energy and the goal is energy reclaimation. i can tell u a solar pannel is only 4-8% efficient and wind aint much better, the prop thing.
usbiker133t 4 years ago
I'm afraid there is a bit of confusion about this issue with the last posting. "Surge" sources of power, or "peak" power is best supplied with a cheap capital investment cost source, or better yet, with energy efficiency. Nuclear is the opposite a low-capital cost source. It is very pricey, at $5000 per kilowatt of capacity, versus wind at $750-1500 per KW.
RussellJLowes 4 years ago
You also forgot to mention land purchases. Don't forget about the millions and billions of dollars you'd need for you hundreds and thousands of acres of land to produce the same energy as a 20 acre nuclear site. Also, maintianace of NPPs is very low, while for wind, it is basically like by a new windmill. the effect is that after about 10 years, the cost of wind is much higher than nuclear, but initial construction is what gets people because they only think about next year.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago
The real crux of the matter is this, we need surge sources of power, and oil will not be around for ever. So you have two choices for that surge energy source, nuclear or coal. I pick nuclear because over all it is cleaner than coal. Solar and wind are great, except they are infant industries with nearly no lobby power and they don't run all the time and put out varying loads.
Sirveri 4 years ago 2
There are a number of new studies that have come out lately on the absurdity of building more nuclear power plants. For starters:
1. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research's "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free"
2. Greenpeace's "The Economics of Nuclear Power"
3: Jim Harding's "Economics of New Nuclear Power and Proliferation Risks in a Carbon Constrained World" Enjoy!
RussellJLowes 4 years ago
do you know the formal co-founder of greenpeece is now pro-nuclear? i say former because greenpeece has disowned him. they arent very nice to their elders...
usbiker133t 4 years ago 4
Also, those costs are artificial and inflated by nuclear-phobia and an immature industry. Monetary costs are also irrelevant(not just because this country has loads of cash). The currency you need to worry about, which you mentioned, is barrels of oil. Once you start producing many more times the energy equivalent of the barrels of oil you put in, you are now self sustaining, and this is an achievement that is questionable in the case of the other "green" technologies
obbydotnet 4 years ago 3
You say we shouldn't use nuclear because it takes oil to create it. Ok, so what do you think they use to create solar panels and wind turbines? Fairy dust?
In computing it's called bootstrapping. You need oil to kickstart WHATEVER the next energy economy will be.
As of this day, as of this hour, nuclear is the only viable, long term and proven solution to our energy needs. Not that I don't encourage research into wind and solar, but at this point they are just that, research.
obbydotnet 4 years ago 3
Very well said. We (the general public) need to get over the unfounded fears of nuclear power. It is safe and environmentally friendly. It may not be the only piece of the puzzle for clean power in the future but it is one of the biggest pieces. Knowledge is king and those of us that know the truth about nuclear power need to help educate the rest and put the myths to rest.
nuclearcarnie 4 years ago 5