Skip to main content

Nuclear, Wind, Coal, Gas and Oil Footprints

Here's some food for thought ... copying from Pro Nuclear Democrats' post, check out how much one million barrels of oil looks like compared to a person and a house (see if you can find the person):

The US consumes nearly 21 of these cubes each day!

Jason Ribeiro also created a picture of what 1,600 wind turbines looks like compared to the Empire State Building:

If we assume those wind turbines equal 2 MW each, then the array of wind turbines above would produce less electricity in a year than the average proposed new nuclear plant in the US.

For comparison, here's NEI's picture of what one nuclear plant looks like compared to the Pentagon and World Trade Center:

And here's the energy comparison numbers of uranium, coal, oil and gas from Cameco:

Great job on the pics Ribeiro!

Update:
After a suggestion from a fellow blogger, Jason created a picture to show how much Uranium 235 is equivalent to the energy in one million barrels of oil. Just as he notes, though, "a uranium cube represented in this model would never be assembled for use in a reactor." The uranium a light-water-reactor uses is about 3-5% U235 and 95-97% U238.


Another Update:
Luke Weston ran some of his own numbers on coal and carbon dioxide:
The volume of CO2 produced each year from coal-fired generators in the United States corresponds to a cube of CO2 with a dimension of just under 10 kilometers on a side. Over the course of a decade, that adds up to a column of CO2 which is 9.90 km on a side and occupies the entire thickness of Earth’s atmosphere.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Might be useful in pictures to show equivalent fuel usage and volume taken up per year next to each type of power plant with the same output or use some other familiar structure that people can relate to just as was done here.
Jason Ribeiro said…
Thanks for the props David. Studying energy issues, I see a lot of numbers being thrown around, charts, and graphs, but rarely drawings, so I make my own with google sketchup to better visualize these quantities.

The 1600 wind turbines drawing has been criticized as being inaccurate because "they would never be clustered together like that"-- meaning of course they would be spread even farther apart to work well. The array is 20x40 kilometers, or 13x the land area of Manhattan. I had to crop off some turbines so the Empire State building would be somewhat recognizable at that zoom.

I agree with Anonymous that more can be done with comparisons and that's slowly in the works.
Anonymous said…
Hi,

A good start, good enough for some folks.

This doesn’t account for land used to mine coal or nuclear fuel, assuming the nuclear fuel is mined and not recycled.

Also it doesn’t account for resources for processing of raw materials into usable fuel. I’m sure that some concerned folks would be, ultimately, interested in this information too. Or maybe there’s another simpler way to make this illustration such as production cost or total cost of energy production over a 30 year period.

DN
Because current nuclear designs use a subcritical steam cycle (only 32% of the heat energy is converted to electricity) they require the most cooling water of any thermal power plant design. Even dirty coal plants use less water, combined cycle plants use far less water (because 2/3 of the energy is produced using the Brayton cycle) and wind uses none. Thus, while the actual footprint of the nuke plant is small, where is all the water?
Anonymous said…
Don't make the mistake of confusing cooling water with potable water. They are not the same. A nuclear plant may use lots of water, but not all of that is used to supply potable water. The Palo Verde plant is a good example of this.

The water is also not "used" in the sense of being unavailable in the future to the biosphere. Some of it evaporates and some is returned to the source as liquid at slightly elevated temperature. And the amount that evaporates joins the moisture already in circulation, some of which condenses as liquid water in the overall cycle of evaporation and replenishment.

Contrast that with the massive depletion of non-replaceable resources such as those used by carbon fuels combustion processes. Once you burn a cubic foot of natural gas or a gallon of gasoline, it's gone forever.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…