mp on Sat, 6 Nov 2021 16:21:13 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Energy Dilemma |
On 06/11/2021 14:39, Heiko Recktenwald wrote: > Why dont you mention the nuclear option? Why is it taboo? Some people > say that it is too expensiv, but the energy is more or less CO2 free. I guess there is a somewhat slightly toxic substance involved with a half-time beyond human scale, for which a carbon-intensive mining industry - involving displacement of people - is also required, as far as I know, but then I haven't really done serious investigations of nuclear power since I was 14 in a school project back in the 1980s, so please enlighten me! So for now, for me: You are right, it just feels taboo. Anyway, here are some figures from a quick search: What's the carbon footprint of nuclear power? "....There have been nearly three hundred papers on the carbon footprint of nuclear power in scientific journals and reports in recent years. Two peer-reviewed papers have critically assessed the literature in the way Nugent and Sovacool compared renewable LCAs. The first was by Benjamin Sovacool himself [1]. He reviewed 103 published LCA studies and filtered them down to 19, which had an acceptably rigorous scientific approach. The carbon footprints ranged from 3 to 200 gCO2/kWh. The average carbon footprint was 66 gCO2/kWh, which is above the CCC limit. In 2012, four years after Sovacool's paper, Ethan Warner and Garvin Heath found 274 papers containing nuclear LCAs [2]. They filtered them down to 27 for further consideration. These yielded 99 estimates of carbon footprints which the authors describe as "independent". Their data for carbon emissions ranged from 4 to 220 gCO2/kWh. They did not report an average but rather a median value: half the estimates were below 13 gCO2/kWh. These two reviews of the published literature, often called meta-analyses, produced conflicting results. One suggests the carbon footprint is above the CCC limit, the other well below..." And "...Using 0.005% concentration uranium ores, a nuclear reactor will have a carbon footprint larger than a natural gas electricity generator. Also, it is unlikely to produce any net electricity over its lifecycle..." >From an obviously biased source: https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon And when done, do we pay Musk and Bezos to shoot it out into space? Not asking rhetorically, I'm admittedly ignorant, since I simply consider it taboo. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: