Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr
Interesting report, aVegetable, the studies I've seen have shown that nuclear energy has a higher footprint than wind, though not by that much. I'm also guessing that this report uses shaft mining for uranium extraction rather than pit mining. If so, there would be a large increase to the carbon footprint.
I still believe that both sources have their uses, wind in more decentralized locations and nuclear for urban areas.
|
This a UK government report; I believe (althought I have no proof) that in this situation a proportionately weighted average of all techniques would be used. Otherwise the report would be purposefully favouring nuclear engergy over wind by glazing over this topic. However, the report mentions it briefly:
"The most energy intensive phase of the nuclear cycle is uranium extraction, which accounts for 40% of the total CO2 emissions."
The margins are slight:
onshore wind farm (4.64gCO2eq/kWh)
offshore wind farm (5.25gCO2eq/kWh)
nuclear power station (~5gCO2eq/kWh)
The crucial factor is the spread of the data - the graph shows that the least environmentally damaging technology available is nuclear, although less effectively built stations have a similar footprint to offshore windfarms.
I agree both technologies have their uses, but as energy requirements worldwide outpace resources (in terms of fuel and space) surely only the safe application of nuclear fission (or fusion) will fill the breach.
Or possibly the moon. I wonder what this "inexhaustible, clean, pollution-free" energy source's carbon footprint is estimated at:
source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6533169.stm
Data collected from the Apollo Moon landings have indicated that large deposits of an extremely rare gas called helium 3 are trapped in the lunar soil.
Scientists believe that this helium 3 could be used to create a new source of almost inexhaustible, clean, pollution-free energy on Earth.
One of them is Dr Harrison Schmitt, a member of the 1972 Apollo 17 mission and the only trained geologist ever to walk on the Moon.
"A metric ton of helium 3 would supply about one-sixth of the energy needs today of the British Isles," he claims.
Plans are already afoot in the US and Russia to strip-mine lunar helium 3 and transport it the 240,000 miles (385,000km) back to Earth.