Nukes are marvelously efficient once they're up and running but people forget the huge energy expediture required to construct a plant. I heard a caller from the nuclear industry this morning on a radio talk show say that the payback in years for a plant is 15 years to recover the energy required for the plant construction. I don't have any independent confirmation of this claim but, knowing the huge energy requirements for uranium processing, and the stringent building codes required for the plants, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
I think we need nuclear power in our world but let's not get illusions that it's a cureall for our huge dependence on energy. It's just a piece of the puzzle.
Art
Current Events » in reply to 40 of Britain’s leading energy and climate scientists...
Nuclear efficiency
The whole thread (28 posts)
- 40 of Britain’s leading energy and climate scientists...
- Nuclear efficiency
- Touchy subject obviously
- Nuclear power is the ONLY medium term option...
- Invest in Uranium.
- That is because you do not know the OTHER, superior near term options. (n/t)
- Why solar power cannot be THE answer...
- Wrong. Especially about Hawaii. Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawii's needs.
- Did you even know what the power consumption of hawaii is when you made that statement...?
- Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawaii's needs.
- It will work almost anywhere in the 40,000,000 square kilometers
- If he is talking about the thermal gradient, then that is of NO use for the vast majority of the world....
- :-) Yeah, we'll get right on that, David (n/t)
- I agree
- Wrong. Especially about Hawaii. Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawii's needs.
