Comments on: Nuclear Energy’s Tiny Environmental Footprint http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=926 News, Podcast & Blog. Nuclear Energy for a Cleaner, Safer, More Prosperous Tomorrow. Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:07:13 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=926&cpage=1#comment-475 John Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:45:12 +0000 http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=926#comment-475 Great question! Actually, I wondered about that myself. I checked the background info of the study and found they included the impact of uranium mining. In <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006802.s001" rel="nofollow">"table S1" </a>they state "Capacity factor based on EIA Reference scenario, 2030 value. Values for plant area, mining requirements per KW-hr, and waste storage requirements per KW-hr are based on Spitzley, and Keoleian [6]." Reference [6] is Spitzley DV, Keoleian GA (2004) Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparison with other renewable and non-renewable sources. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan Neither The Nature Conservancy nor the University of Michigan are viewed as pro-nuclear, so I have a high degree of confidence that they applied sound methods. Uranium is thousands of times more energy dense than any fossil fuel and that translates into much less volume of ore that must be removed from the earth to generate an equivalent amount of energy. Thanks! John Great question! Actually, I wondered about that myself. I checked the background info of the study and found they included the impact of uranium mining. In “table S1″ they state “Capacity factor based on EIA Reference scenario, 2030 value. Values for plant area, mining requirements per KW-hr, and waste storage requirements per KW-hr are based on Spitzley, and Keoleian [6].”

Reference [6] is Spitzley DV, Keoleian GA (2004) Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of willow biomass electricity: A comparison with other renewable and non-renewable sources. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan

Neither The Nature Conservancy nor the University of Michigan are viewed as pro-nuclear, so I have a high degree of confidence that they applied sound methods.

Uranium is thousands of times more energy dense than any fossil fuel and that translates into much less volume of ore that must be removed from the earth to generate an equivalent amount of energy.

Thanks!

John

]]> By: Chris http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=926&cpage=1#comment-473 Chris Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:46:42 +0000 http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=926#comment-473 What about the land destruction and land use for uranium mining. C'mon... What about the land destruction and land use for uranium mining. C’mon…

]]>