Can we please have an estimate of the external environmental cost, and the internal operating cost, per GW-h for coal [cleanest technology] and nuclear [cleanest technology] as well as the cost of replacing generating capacity from coal to nuclear [per GW-h]? That way we can begin to thimk about the time scales involved. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
And some stats for the EU in 2004:
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That's excellent news! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
It seems that the externalities associated with mining are accounted for neither nuclear nor coal in the above table.
Maybe your point is that nuclear mining is a lot worse than coal mining (per kWh produced)? Or is it something else? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The title of your table says "in Germany", which implies to me the evaluation of effects in Germany. It is not clear just from the table what was and what wasn't included. But from the numbers for PV, it is clear that not only the costs of the very act of electricity generation were included, but apparently manufacture too. It stands to reason that mining was included, too, especially considering the ecosystems numbers.
Maybe your point is that nuclear mining is a lot worse than coal mining (per kWh produced)? Or is it something else?
I don't know which is worse, though I suspect that coal mining in Germany is less bad than uranium mining in some source countries for Germany. But I guess my main point is that your table means little without knowing the tablemakers' basic assumptions. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Ore grades will never degrade below 4ppm uranium and 12ppm thorium. That's the concentration in granite, and there's plenty of that. A 1GW fast breeder[1] will need about 3 tonnes of fuel per year, which at the above concentration amounts to about 500 tonnes of granite per day. Let's say 1000, allowing for inefficient extraction and some losses. A coal plant of the same size requires 10 times that amount of coal, leaving a hole in the ground 10 times as large. This environmental impact is not considered larger than that of radwaste, so the same should go for mining rocks.
A coal plant of the same size requires 10 times that amount of coal, leaving a hole in the ground 10 times as large. This environmental impact is not considered larger than that of radwaste, so the same should go for mining rocks.
Not without looking up my own notes, which I can only do at home in the evening. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I mean replacing Nuclear for coal or coal with nuclear. Ugh. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
And I mean the accumulated environmental damade due to coal exceeds that due to nuclear by $10T as of today. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
10 trillion dollars! But that's over 15% of GWP for a year!
(Now I'm outraged, but by my previous number.) Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
