Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
(OP)
In the UK at the moment there are strong mutterings about building more nuclear power stations. I feel this may be intrinsically sensible given that we already have about a dozen very radioactive sites anyway, some with active plants, some not.
However, someone told me that if you evaluate all of the energy (not monetary costs) required to build, maintain, and decomission a nuclear power station, you end up with a net loss. The point being that if you were trying to use nuclear power to avoid using oil, you might be wasting your time.
I have been told that for wind-turbines, the energy payback time is very low, of the order of 2-5 years with a machine life of about 25 years. Solar cells are worse, maybe 5 years to pay back the energy to produce them and 10 years life. etc.
Does anyone have any information on the energy balance on nuclear power stations, and on any other forms of energy like renewables?
However, someone told me that if you evaluate all of the energy (not monetary costs) required to build, maintain, and decomission a nuclear power station, you end up with a net loss. The point being that if you were trying to use nuclear power to avoid using oil, you might be wasting your time.
I have been told that for wind-turbines, the energy payback time is very low, of the order of 2-5 years with a machine life of about 25 years. Solar cells are worse, maybe 5 years to pay back the energy to produce them and 10 years life. etc.
Does anyone have any information on the energy balance on nuclear power stations, and on any other forms of energy like renewables?





RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/
Anyone care to shoot this down?
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
I haven't had time to read the paper, but let's just say I'm prepared to read it, the idea of doing a whole of life energy balance is a very sensible one, for all power generating technologies.
In particular I'd like to see the same methodology applied to wind generators, I find it amazing that they are made from aluminium.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
I would also like to see one for a wind generator. I don't understand how it can be said that a power generating system that needs no fuel can be less cost effective then one that needs a fuel supply.
Sorry gwolf but I don't actually have the time to look into this. I think it would take to much time but I will be watching to see if anyone takes you up on it.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
I think these gentlemen have some credibility as persons able to comprehend and explain the technology involved. They seem capable as technology analysts, but could stand to buttress their credibility as industry analysts.
If their sources and numbers can be trusted, I think they are on to something. As a student in the US Navy nuclear power school, actually had a similar thought: "By the time U235 is mined, refined, used, and discarded, is it worth the effort?
The answer for the US Navy was simple: we need it, and there's no other way to keep a submarine on station under water for months at a time. However, the Navy's goals do not include net energy production, greenhouse gas control, or profit.
I quickly came to believe that current nuclear technology is not a sound economic venture. However, I believe it is an invaluable ecumenical exercise. It's something we had to try in order to learn some important lessons along the way.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
I was just thinking about my free market observation above. Maybe in the USA the the market has spoken, and that's why you have no new nukes. ! That is, society has bundled in /all/ the costs (financial, social, environmental) associated with nuclear power, and decided agin it.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
I still reckon Hydro is the best. The energy still being generated from the Grand Coulee dam's most recent (early 1970's) turbine replacement is just awesome.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Now, I do think it is important that these kinds of analysis be done for all the energy sources that we are considering using. I just don't trust the "free market" as the tool to determine the answer.
Nukes are unpopular in the U.S. because of three mile island and "The China Syndrome". I doubt very many in the U.S. who oppose nuclear energy do so because they think it is a net energy loser.
Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas
"All the world is a Spring"
All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Firstly oil, pretty much the number one choice for energy, is not supplied by companies and countries operating on free market practices.
Secondly the whole price is not applied to most forms of energy. The cost of fossil fuel to the consumer does not account for the environmental damage it will cause, particularly in low tax economies such as the US.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Decommisioning and waste disposal costs are still unknown and we all know what a can of worms politically that is. No matter what anybody says someone will disagree.
My source follows:
http://www.wcnoc.com/news_view.cfm?id=152
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
http://www.etaengineering.com/
I have no affiliation with this company other than stated above. He is not a direct retailer, although it appears that way. This company does the math to determine your needs, files the paperwork, and acts as general contractor to get you alt fuel system built.
Most important of this sight, though, is the links to the left that have lots of info and links to non-profit organizations about alt fuels.
--Scott
For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
IMHO "it costs more energy than it delivers" is a highly subjective discussion that depends strongly on where you put the system boundaries. Given the inherent loss as heat, anything you do "costs" more energy than it delivers. But it may convert one form of energy into another, more useful one.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Plant decommissioning and waste disposal aren't technically infeasible, they're politically infeasible. How do you assign a cost for that?
You can argue about the payback on the HUGE capital investment for a nuclear plant, or the societal risk/benefit ratio of nuclear energy (particularly if the plants are constructed or operated by private for-profit companies operating under an accident insurance exemption, such that the cost of the risk is borne by the public NOT the for-profit entity), or about acceptable means for the waste disposal from the plant- but the operating cost per kilowatt-hour for these plants is far lower than any fueled alternative, full stop. And if they ARE operated safely, the environmental impact of these plants is far lower than any of the fueled alternatives.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
By the way you save half the cost for safety/environmental contingencies if you locate your plant close to the border as many countries do.
RE: Nuclear stations yield less energy than they cost to build?
Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.