Reply to post: Re: RET plan

18 seconds that blacked out South Australia

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: RET plan

The CO2 emissions from a Coal vs Nuclear powerstation over their lifetimes are orders of magnitude in difference. Don't forget, you have to build and decommission a coal fired power station too. Even if processing nuclear fuel produces CO2 you are only looking at a few tonnes a year as opposed to hundreds of thousands of tonnes of coal per year.

This chart shows overall lifecycle emissions for most common forms of power generation:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided.aspx

In addition, burning coal pumps radioative particles into the atmosphere:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

We are not in any danger of running out of Uranium any time soon. It would make sense to use this as an interim step for low CO2 baseload generation until a better option comes along (renewables with efficient storage, thorium reactors, depleted uranium reactors, fusion, whatever).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019