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.
"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news:CaIuj.4855$0%3.263@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Retired VIP wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:01:11 GMT, "mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"
>> <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS>"@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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...
|
