I just wanted to do a quick study using Wikipedia. Well, that didnt happen. On the other hand, now i learned alot about nuclear power. Starting with 1 tab open, i eventually had to open a metatab in Firefox. The number of tabs in this metatab rose exponentially from 1 to 38 tabs. I have sorted them below here.
Economics and politics
This book is very often cited in various articles. It is against NP. I want to read it. So far, it was not convicing in the places it was mentioned.
Another paper by the same guy, which finds that altho NP is not CO2 free, it is much better than fossil-fuel based power. Also, this is for current reactors, not future reactors. With future reactors, some of the fossil-fuel using infrastructure can be replaced becus we can make hydrogen fuel with future reactors.
“This article screens 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas-equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants to identify a subset of the most current, original, and transparent studies. It begins by briefly detailing the separate components of the nuclear fuel cycle before explaining the methodology of the survey and exploring the variance of lifecycle estimates. It calculates that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the lifetime of a plant, reported from qualified studies examined, is from 1.4 g of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh (g CO2e/kWh) to 288 g CO2e/kWh, the mean value is 66 g CO2e/kWh. The article then explains some of the factors responsible for the disparity in lifecycle estimates, in particular identifying errors in both the lowest estimates (not comprehensive) and the highest estimates (failure to consider co-products). It should be noted that nuclear power is not directly emitting greenhouse gas emissions, but rather that lifecycle emissions occur through plant construction, operation, uranium mining and milling, and plant decommissioning.”
From the conclusion:
“The ﬁrst conclusion is that the mean value of emissions over
the course of the lifetime of a nuclear reactor (reported from
qualiﬁed studies) is 66 g CO2e/kWh, due to reliance on existing
fossil-fuel infrastructure for plant construction, decommissioning,
and fuel processing along with the energy intensity of uranium
mining and enrichment. Thus, nuclear energy is in no way ‘‘carbon
free’’ or ‘‘emissions free,’’ even though it is much better (from
purely a carbon-equivalent emissions standpoint) than coal, oil,
and natural gas electricity generators, but worse than renewable
and small scale distributed generators (see Table 8). For example,
Gagnon et al. (2002) found that coal, oil, diesel, and natural gas
generators emitted between 443 and 1050 g CO2e/kWh, far more
than the 66 g CO2e/kWh attributed to the nuclear lifecycle.
However, Pehnt (2006) conducted lifecycle analyses for 15
separate distributed generation and renewable energy technolo-
gies and found that all but one, solar photovoltaics (PV), emitted
much less g CO2e/kWh than the mean reported for nuclear
plants. In an analysis using updated data on solar PV, Fthenakis
et al. (2008) found that current estimates on the greenhouse
gas emissions for typical solar PV systems range from 29 to
35 g CO2e/kWh (based on insolation of 1700 kWh/m2
/yr and aperformance ratio of 0.8).” (my bold)
Another interesting book. Freely available.
“Addressing the sustainable energy crisis in an objective manner, this enlightening book analyzes the relevant numbers and organizes a plan for change on both a personal level and an international scale—for Europe, the United States, and the world. In case study format, this informative reference answers questions surrounding nuclear energy, the potential of sustainable fossil fuels, and the possibilities of sharing renewable power with foreign countries. While underlining the difficulty of minimizing consumption, the tone remains positive as it debunks misinformation and clearly explains the calculations of expenditure per person to encourage people to make individual changes that will benefit the world at large.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY (Not in my backyard!)
4 non-Wikipedia links, that try to show that the accidents so far were really not that bad, and i agree.
About the radioactivity of coal
Specific designs and proposals
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 (lots of these are being built in China)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapower (Bill Gates is a supporter, see video below)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (The design used in soviet reactors at Chernobyl)
I probably shud have refreshed my knowledge of particle fysics before reading these.
One interesting report is mentioned which found that education was a predictor of positive opinions towards NP. The report is here: ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_271_en.pdf