|
Posted by Jeff DeWitt on February 22, 2008, 10:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Mike hunt wrote:
> It appears you guys know little about nuclear power, coal and current
> environmental laws, if THAT is what you believe. Not all nuke plans use
> enriched fuel, electricity produced by anthracite coal produces LESS CO2
> than a plant generating electricity with fuel oil and the current bituminous
> power plants could easily collect CO2 IF current environmental laws did NOT
> prevent the plant operators from installing the equipment to do so. Fifty
> two percent of the electricity produced in the US is produced by coal. A
> simple change in the stupid environment laws, to allow them to install the
> proper equipment, would reduce their CO2 output by half ;)
>
>
>
> Do a search, would be advice.
>
>
>
>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:01:11 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids
>>>>>> being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on
>>>>>> that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ever wonder what the extra $5000 or so hybrids cost is for?
>>>>> Largely energy.
>>>>> To properly energy cost factor a car or anything else you must include
>>>>> all inception to salvage.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, the *source* of the energy needs to be considered in measuring
>>>> the carbon footprint. Hydro or nuclear (not that I support that) power
>>>> have little carbon emissions associated with them, but coal-fired power
>>>> plants are another story entirely. There are a lot of factors that need
>>>> to be considered, not just two or three.
>>>
>>> Nuke plants DO have a carbon footprint and it's pretty big. While
>>> it's true that the plant doesn't put out any carbon while running it
>>> needs enriched uranium to operate. Enriching the fuel requires a lot
>>> of electricity. The concentration of uranium in the ore is very low
>>> which requires a lot of processing (compared to coal). So getting the
>>> fuel for a nuke plant will result in more CO2 output than just using
>>> coal to generate the same amount of power.
>>>
>>> Nuke plants really only make sense when you need them to generate the
>>> material needed to make bombs.
>>>
>>> Jack
>>
>> That illustrates my point about complexity, anyway. Thanks for the
>> correction. Do you have any figures to support the 'worse than coal'
>> claim, though? Coal puts out a *lot* of CO2...
>
>
Not sure of your facts but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. If
something makes sense the greeenie weenies will be against it.
Jeff DeWitt
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap