So I'm gonna reignite the discussion on the future of energy production that is the most beneficial to the planet (very broad I know). The purpose of this discussion is the enter without bias (even if you work in the solar industry or at a nuclear power plant). After some enlightenment I can now see an issue in the last discussion (unfortunately the thread is now archived). The issue in itself was somewhat looked at but in a very narrow field. I'm talking about Life Cycle Analysis and ALL of the impacts that the entire life cycle has on everything. We mainly focused on things like pollution and mining. However I believe its important to take into consideration the following:
-terrestrial ecotoxicty
-ozone layer depletion
-abiotic resource depletion
-freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity
-human toxicity
-eutrophication
-marine aquatic ecotoxicty
-photochemical oxidation
-climate change
-acidification potential
-economic impact
Also to be taken into consideration is the location, supply and demand, weather and whether or not there will be a base load.
This discussion will aim to look at the following methods of generating power:
-coal fire
-gas
-solar PV
-solar thermal
-wind
-thermal
-wave
-tide
-hydro
-nuclear fission
-biomass
(fusion is purposefully left off this list)
You may be asking why I have chosen to revisit this, and I have recently been doing some stuff in LCA aswell as picking up a book (however outdated to 2006) that may have a point, even if the data is wrong must be considered.
From said book (Nuclear Power is not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else by Helen Caldicott) I will present how a LCA can bring a new perspective to something. I would like to emphasise that I currently have not reached any conclusions based on this one book as the data is outdated and would need to be checked for reliability. However allow me to demonstrate:
Life Cycle of Nuclear Fission:
1. Mining and collection of raw materials
"A greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from a mine containing a low-grade uranium concentration of 0.1% than from one containing 1%...
...energy expenditure largely dependent on ore grade...
...the point at which concentration is so low that energy required to extract and refine a dilute uranium concentration from the ground is greater than the amount of electricity generated by the nuclear reactor"
Aside from what could be an extremely inefficient way of generating power due to the locations ore deposits, fuel and other minerals are used to extract and refine these materials. You can already imagine the possible impacts (listed above) just for this.
2. Processing raw materials
3. Construction of plant
Large amounts of steel and concrete plus the large expenditure of money.
4. Upkeep and operation
Fuel, maintainence, cooling systems etc
5. Decommissioning of plant and clean up
'Materials must be allowed to decay before the reactor can be entered, therefore must be guarded for many years
After which dismantling and demolition can take place.
6. Disposal of waste
'Construction of very expenisive highly specialised waste sites and containers...
...so hot they (rods) need to be cooled for 30-60 years otherwise the zirconium coating can combust and release its radioactive inventory...
...long term storage of 240 000 years'
The book finishes with
'using the richest ores a reactor must operate at full load before its energy debt is paid off'
At this point however the it has become very complicated to find a simple solution. Of course then from LCA we come across more problems in the form of inaccuracies and limitations. These can include but are not limited to:
-old data
-lack of dynamic calculations
-inflation
-unexpected events
-type of LCA
In conclusion there is no conclusion without extensive research that rely on countless factors. Please discuss whatever you believe is directly or indirectly related.
Time of Tea
Still in the Dark Age
Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday
-terrestrial ecotoxicty
-ozone layer depletion
-abiotic resource depletion
-freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity
-human toxicity
-eutrophication
-marine aquatic ecotoxicty
-photochemical oxidation
-climate change
-acidification potential
-economic impact
Also to be taken into consideration is the location, supply and demand, weather and whether or not there will be a base load.
This discussion will aim to look at the following methods of generating power:
-coal fire
-gas
-solar PV
-solar thermal
-wind
-thermal
-wave
-tide
-hydro
-nuclear fission
-biomass
(fusion is purposefully left off this list)
You may be asking why I have chosen to revisit this, and I have recently been doing some stuff in LCA aswell as picking up a book (however outdated to 2006) that may have a point, even if the data is wrong must be considered.
From said book (
Life Cycle of Nuclear Fission:
1. Mining and collection of raw materials
...energy expenditure largely dependent on ore grade...
...the point at which concentration is so low that energy required to extract and refine a dilute uranium concentration from the ground is greater than the amount of electricity generated by the nuclear reactor"
Aside from what could be an extremely inefficient way of generating power due to the locations ore deposits, fuel and other minerals are used to extract and refine these materials. You can already imagine the possible impacts (listed above) just for this.
2. Processing raw materials
3. Construction of plant
Large amounts of steel and concrete plus the large expenditure of money.
4. Upkeep and operation
Fuel, maintainence, cooling systems etc
5. Decommissioning of plant and clean up
'Materials must be allowed to decay before the reactor can be entered, therefore must be guarded for many years
After which dismantling and demolition can take place.
6. Disposal of waste
'Construction of very expenisive highly specialised waste sites and containers...
...so hot they (rods) need to be cooled for 30-60 years otherwise the zirconium coating can combust and release its radioactive inventory...
...long term storage of 240 000 years'
The book finishes with
At this point however the it has become very complicated to find a simple solution. Of course then from LCA we come across more problems in the form of inaccuracies and limitations. These can include but are not limited to:
-old data
-lack of dynamic calculations
-inflation
-unexpected events
-type of LCA
In conclusion there is no conclusion without extensive research that rely on countless factors. Please discuss whatever you believe is directly or indirectly related.
Still in the Dark Age
Don't be a melodramatic clown. ~Mr Wednesday
[This message has been edited by MrMew (edited 03-31-2018 @ 07:49 PM).]