tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post5621183794996952474..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: The Net Positive of Mining UraniumUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-74657404276085145922008-05-02T07:19:00.000-04:002008-05-02T07:19:00.000-04:00ondrej,Yes, we've published quite a bit on this su...ondrej,<BR/><BR/>Yes, we've published quite a bit on this subject. The latest was titled "<A HREF="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/04/energy-payback-times-for-nuclear.html" REL="nofollow">Energy Payback Times for Nuclear</A>." The data is based on <A HREF="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html" REL="nofollow">this page from the World Nuclear Association</A> and finds that the payback time for a nuclear plant including all stages is about one year.David Bradishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439638522932781068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-32571229558696320782008-05-02T02:26:00.000-04:002008-05-02T02:26:00.000-04:00NEI, haven't you published some articles about tha...NEI, haven't you published some articles about that w.r.t. SLS controversy? I seem to remember energy payback time for a nuclear power plant to be about 18 months and another 18 months to pay back the energy needed for fuel fabrication etc. Within the (conservative) 40 years of the plant's life time this suggests EROEI=13 assuming 120 years lifetime EROEI=20. Is that correct?Ondrej Chvalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02031684443136544972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-60403086027734379282008-05-02T02:10:00.000-04:002008-05-02T02:10:00.000-04:00It's worth reading the actual paper, which like dv...It's worth reading the actual paper, which like dv8 points out, contains useful information. The two authors are known for their anti-nuclear views, but they're also academics and the journal is peer-reviewed.<BR/><BR/>The key information is the energy expenditure for mining and milling. In the worst case scenario published, assuming the assignment of the entire energy expenditure of the Olympic Dam mine to uranium production (it is mainly a copper mine), the emissions are a bit less than 400 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of uranium oxide produced.<BR/><BR/>If you need roughly 200 tonnes of ore per annum to get enough fuel for a 1 GW nuclear power station, that's 80,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. By contrast, Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria, Australia, which has eight 200-megawatt coal-fired generating units, puts out roughly 17,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum...<BR/><BR/>Clearly, even assuming the use of low-grade ore (and Olympic Dam is very low-grade ore), the energy costs of mining will be manageable for the foreseeable future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-15788508206897586832008-05-01T18:48:00.000-04:002008-05-01T18:48:00.000-04:00Uranium mining produces CO2 is new stick that the ...Uranium mining produces CO2 is new stick that the antinuclear movement is going to try and beat us up with now that most of their other lies have been exposed.<BR/><BR/>However I do not read this paper as being of much utility to the antinuclear movement as it does seem to supply reasonable base line numbers that can be applied to life-cycle greenhouse gas of nuclear issue, to show that indeed nuclear is among the lowest. To date we have missed this data, and it has prevented us from making real quantitative arguments on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Also this paper is notable for not invoking the van Leeuwen and Smith document which refreshing change for a study of the energy and greenhouse gas intensity of the nuclear fuel cycle.DV8 2XLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14595060432772287143noreply@blogger.com