Guest post by Michael Dickey (cross posted from his website matus1976.com)
The decline of nuclear power has had a significant effect on global carbon emissions and subsequently any anthropogenic global warming effect. To see the extent of this influence, let us first take a look at total U.S. carbon emissions since 1900.
According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, from 1900 to 2006, US carbon emissions rose from 181 MMT (million metric tons) to 1,569 MMT.
Taking a look at US electricity generation by type, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. generates 51% of its power from coal, and cumulatively about 71% of its power from fossil fuel sources.
Comparing the energy source to Carbon emissions, the burning of coal to generate electricity alone emits more CO2 than any other single source, about one-third of the total.
As the US Electrical Generation by Type figure shows, about 20% of the U.S. electrical supply comes from nuclear power. Let us now imagine that the U.S. never built any nuclear power plants, but instead built more coal plants to generate the electricity those nuclear plants would have generated.
According to the Energy Information Administration, since 1971, 18.6 billion MW•h (Megawatt hour) of electrical power have been generated by nuclear sources (1). According to the US Department of Energy, every kW•h (kilowatt hour) of electricity generated by coal produces 2.095 lbs of CO2 (2).
As the calculations in the table above show, every MW•h of electricity generated by coal generates 2,095 pounds of carbon dioxide. For 18.6 billion MW•h at 2,095 pounds of CO2 per MW•h, this amounts to 39.0 trillion additional lbs of CO2, or 17.7 billion metric tons. Finally, converting the 17.7 billion metric tons of CO2 to carbon results in 4.842 billion, or 4,842 million metric tons of carbon.
What all this shows is that had this power been generated by coal plants, an additional 4,842 million metric tons of carbon would have been released into the atmosphere. Breaking this calculation down by year, what would this have made our carbon emissions record look like?
Again in blue we see the real world US carbon emissions, but in green we see what the carbon emissions would have been if all the electricity generated by our nuclear infrastructure had instead been generated by coal power plants.
In all, carbon emissions would have been 14.6% higher, with 1,782 MMT of carbon released without nuclear power plants, while only 1,552 MMT are released with our current nuclear infrastructure. This is why many leading environmentalists, such as James Lovelock (author of the Gaia Hypothesis) are vocal supporters of nuclear power.
But this chart is not entirely fair to nuclear power, because the growth of nuclear power was severely derailed by environmentalist hyperbole and outright scaremongering. Because of the attacks by environmentalists on nuclear power, many planned power plants were cancelled, and many existing plants licenses were not renewed. The result, according to Al Gore himself in “Our Choice” was:
“Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage…Thus, only about one-fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating.” (3)
Let us take a look then at U.S. carbon emissions if the U.S. had simply built and operated the power plants that were originally planned.
Yup, that’s right people: if the US had simply built and operated the nuclear power plants it had planned and licensed, it would today be producing not only less carbon emissions than it did in 1972, but would in fact be emitting almost half the carbon emissions it is now.
But let’s not forget that the very planning and licensing of nuclear power plants was drastically affected by the anti-scientific opposition. Looking again at the Energy Information Administrations figures, the average sustained growth for nuclear generating capacity was increasing by about 28.8 million Megawatt hours for a 20 year period from 1971 to 1989
Here we see a chart taken from the EIA data which shows the growth of real nuclear generating capacity in blue, and the projected growth in red, had the growth of the previous 20 year period been sustained (remember, this is still only about one-fourth of the intended capacity). In this graph, any year which produced less than the average of the previous 20 years was increased to that average of 28.8 million MW•h.
Now let’s take this projected growth and imagine the U.S. had actually built a nuclear infrastructure at this level. What would our carbon emissions look like?
Incredibly, U.S. carbon emissions today would be almost one-fourth of what they are currently. These numbers are estimated by taking the average yearly increase from 1971 to 1989 in nuclear generating capacity and projecting it to the current day, and since these numbers are only one-fourth of the original planned capacity, the result is multiplied by four. In case you think my numbers are fanciful, let’s see if there are any countries out there that did not get entirely persuaded by the anti-nuclear hysteria, and how that affected their carbon emissions.
After the energy crisis of the 70s, France, which was highly dependent on imported oil for electricity production, decided to divest themselves of Middle Eastern oil dependence. Lacking significant fossil fuel deposits, they opted for a nuclear infrastructure. Today nuclear power generates about 78% of France’s electrical power supply, and it is today the world’s largest exporter of electrical energy. France alone accounts for 47% of Western Europe’s nuclear generated electricity (3).
While we do not see the production in France dropping to half of its 1970s levels as we would have in the U.S. had it continued the transition to a nuclear infrastructure, nevertheless the 40% reductions are close and tremendously significant.
Consider from the presented information what the total potential nuclear generating capacity for the US would be if it sustained the high level growth and achieved its planned capacity.
By the year 2000, the US nuclear infrastructure could have been generating 100% of the domestic electrical supply. This is not an extraordinary claim considering, again, that France generates 78% of electrical energy from nuclear power.
Extrapolating this to the global climate, let’s take a look at the global carbon emissions levels and compare them against a world where the U.S. sustained the first two decades of its nuclear infrastructure growth perpetually and ultimately achieved the original planned capacity.
In green, we see the existing global carbon emissions levels and in purple is the U.S. carbon emission levels if it continued to adopt a nuclear infrastructure. In red then, as a result, we see the global carbon levels would have been almost 15% lower than current levels.
I invite readers to extrapolate then where the total global carbon emissions would be if all the post-industrialized nations had adopted nuclear power – as their natural technological progressions would have dictated – if it were not for the hijacking of this process by anti-scientific hyperbole by scaremongering environmental activists. Many organizations – such as Green Peace, still ardently oppose nuclear power. And these levels, mind you, are only about one-tenth of what the Atomic Energy Commission was projecting based on demand during the 60s, where at its height 25 new nuclear power plants were being built every year, and the AEC anticipated that by the year 2000 over 1,000 nuclear power plants would be in operation in the U.S.. Today only 104 operate.
Let us project an educated guess as to what the resulting reduction in carbon emissions would have been had the European Union (which in 2005 generated 15% of their electricity with nuclear) Japan (34.5% nuclear) and finally, going into the future China and India as they fully industrialize.
All of these facts lead to one conclusion: if manmade global warming is a real problem, then it was in fact caused by environmental alarmism. That is not to say that some environmentalism has not been good, but this atrocious abandonment of reason hangs as an ominous cloud over everything environmentalists advocate. Rational environmentalists, such as James Lovelock, who want a high standard of living for humans and a clean planet are quick to change their minds about nuclear power. Irrational environmentalists who actually do not desire wealthy, comfortable lives for all people on the planet–as well as a clean planet–actively oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is a litmus test for integrity within the environmentalist community.
If you want to spur the economy, stop global warming, and undermine the oil-fueled, terrorist-breeding, murderous theocracies of the world, the solution is simple: build nuclear power plants.
– Sources –
Energy Information Administration – http://www.eia.doe.gov/
US Electrical Generation Sources by Type – http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/node/164
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
CDIAC US Carbon Emissions – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/usa.dat
CDIAC France Carbon Emissions – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/fra.html
(1) – “18.6 billion MW•h (Megawatt hours) of electrical power have been generated by nuclear sources” – Energy Information Administration – http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf
(2) – “every kW•h of electricity generated by coal produces 2.095 lbs of CO2” – US Department of Energy “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electrical Power in the United States” – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/co2emiss00.pdf
(3) – Al Gore (2009). Our Choice, Bloomsbury, p. 157.
(4) – “France alone accounts for 47% of western Europe’s nuclear generated electricity” – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2008 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/reports/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-report/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-re-1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh I see, so “proliferation risk” is just a fairy tale.
Not.
93% Pu-239 is the magic number for bomb making although the plutonium weapon dropped on Japan in WWII was less than 90% Pu-239 and it worked well enough.
I do need to correct a mistake I made. PWR and BWR reactors are sub-types of light water reactors and must be shut down to remove the fuel. Thus it’s easy for the IEAA to determine that PWR and BWR reactors have been shut down early when the fuel has a high percentage of weapons grade plutonium. After operating for four continuous months enough Pu-240 has accumulated to make it unsuitable for reliable high yield weapons. However even the normal spent fuel from an LWR (30% Pu-240) makes a jim dandy dirty bomb that will do greater harm from poisoning the air and land with plutonium particles (Pu-240 is just as toxic as Pu-239) than a clean bomb would do from blast radius alone. The greater the concentration of Pu-239 the less plutonium is left over after the bomb detonates.
@Dave Springer
“Weapons can be produced from uranium.”
“All uranium reactors produce plutonium.”
“However, all you have to do to get high quality weapons grade Pu-239 from a PWR or BWR reactor is remove the fuel after about 4 months of operation.”
Sticks and stones has been used to heat homes and for weapons for hundreds of thousands of years.
However, and although the PU-239 is, well, “high grade” PU-239, it’s still very much mixed with the rest of the radioactive ingredients in the fuel rod, so it’s probably a tad bit harder to get to than what you seem to believe. But hey if you want to try and get it, I’m sure the North Koreans are all ears to any and all wikipedia solutions to their problems. :p
Lady Life Grows says:
March 30, 2011 at 11:11 am
“All this assumes the nuke industry is telling the truth about risks and deaths.”
Tobacco and nuclear power industry boffins appear to be indistinguishable in this regard. Follow the money.
Another correction to me:
levelized cost of electrical production (no subsidies)
combined cycle natural gas
$0.69/mwh$69/mwhconventional coal
$0.95/mwh$95/mwhnuclear
$1.14/mwh$114/mwhRelative cost doesn’t change. I just put the decimal point in the wrong place for megawatt hours. Kilowatt hour cost would be 6.9 cents, 9.5 cents, and 11.4 cents respectively.
Some responses to some of my responses:
Apparently there is a problem with the concrete sarcophagus around Chernobyl. They’re working on re-sealing it. This isn’t that bad.
And at the person who said “look at all the children with the deformities” – I specifically said you can visit but you wouldn’t want to live there for a year. And yes, you CAN visit the area. You can even pay for a guided tour. Also, all birth defects in the area are attributed to Chernobyl (even though, y’know, birth defects happen everywhere sometimes), and the majority of the damage from the blast comes from Radiated Iodine getting into milk, which then caused Thyroid cancer in children (this is luckily one of the easiest types of cancer to treat).
Chernobyl was awful, let’s not mince words. It was, however, not as bad as we thought it was going to be, and it doesn’t even compare to the worst hydroelectric disaster in terms of loss of life/damage.
And Fukushima is so far removed from that that it’s laughable. Fukushima cannot generate the continuous graphite fire that caused the radiation from Chernobyl to spread so badly.
And, of course, coal kills thousands every year, even if you’re a climate change skeptic. Coal miners get crushed, plants explode, and lots of things other than CO2 are released into the atmosphere. Nuclear isn’t a magic bullet, but it’s the best weapon in our arsenal by a long shot.
Ursula von den Laien says:
March 30, 2011 at 12:26 am
“[…] Amid increasing fears of workers being exposed to high levels of radiation at the plant, hospitals in Tokyo called on the workers to provide samples of their blood-forming hematopoietic stem cells ahead of possible massive exposure.
Haemopoietic syndrome occurs only after very high radiation doses of one or more Grays. Even severe accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima only expose people very rarely to this level of dose. Only workers in the immediate vicinity of a damaged reactor will receive such doses. Contamination related doses experienced by many more people are many orders of magnitude less.
Can you suggest a prophylactic organ transplant that would have saved the lives the 11 workers burned to death on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, or the 150 or so who burned on the Piper Alpha rig in the North sea? What medical intervention would have prevented 160,000 Chinese from drowning when a hydroelectric dam burst recently? How about the dozens of coal miners who die every month worldwide? What should they transplant to avoid such risks?
Does anyone know what a mound of nuclear fuel pellets (no zirconium cladding, but enough to start a reaction) piled on a sand dune in the dry desert would do?
Does it just keep getting hotter and hotter until it vaporizes and creates uranium gas?
Is that the end result of an unimpeded meltdown… radioactive gas… ?
or don’t we know?
I know that silica has a boiling point, that seems to indicate a gaseous state for silica.
Thinking of glass boiling away is difficult to visualize…
Did the US or anyone else ever conduct a nuclear “meltdown” experiment ?
At the time, I probably would have done that if I were boss during the 50’s or 60’s just out of curiosity. I can’t imagine them not having done that.
I can’t imagine the residual effects of that being any worse than the thousands of nuclear bombs that we set off…
Enquiring minds want to know…
Tenuc says:
March 30, 2011 at 1:31 pm
After the Fukushima disaster….Without these conditions being met there will be no new reactors projects being started in the West, politics and common sense will ensure this.
I wouldn’t bet any significant amount of money on that. Acceptance of nuclear power varies widely with region. There will be lots of handwaving and those regions that generally had positive views of nucear power will still have positive view.
Those regions that would rather pay 50 cents/KWh for solar power and have rolling blackouts when the sun doesn’t shine will still be happy to pay 50 cents/KWh for solar power and suffer rolling blackouts.
Dave Springer says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:15 am
Jer0me says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:38 am
“How many nuclear power workers have died from their job, and how many coal miners?”
The salient question would be how many uranium miners have died from their jobs.
And the salient answer to your salient question is a bloody site fewer. Hundreds die every month worldwide in coal mines, a tiny fraction of this in uranium mines. Since nuclear power is much more concentrated in a smaller volume of ore than the chemical energy in coal, less mining is needed, so less deaths. Mine deaths are all tragic even if they are Chinese.
You people seem to think uranium fuel rods grow in trees. One might also inquire about how many nuclear weapons there would be on this planet if there weren’t any nuclear power plants churning out the fissionable materials required to make them.
And it is questionable whether “you person” have even come down out of your tree. Strange – on other questions here about climate here on WUWT you seem knowledgable and balanced, but on the nuclear question you are irrationally hysterical and delusional. What happened to unhinge your views on this subject?
What is wrong with nuclear weapons? Cant be un-invented. What would you like, for the USA and NATO to unilaterally disarm? The nation making nuclear weapons the fastest today is Pakistan. Go and spend a few months there haranguing them to stop making nukes – and while you’re at it, throw in a few insults against the prophet Muhammed.
Once one rightly eliminates lower carbon emission as a virture then nuclear power is all downside and no upside.
Please list for us the litany of deaths and disasters that have befallen the nation of France as a result of having derived 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for the last few decades. By your “logic”, there cant be many of them left by now. But then again, maybe they’re no better than the Chinese.
Dave, I’ve been over this with you before. You don’t listen and you keep repeating false statements. Power reactor fuel is nearly useless for weapons purposes because it is oxidized. All weapons production systems use uranium metal targets which cannot be put into any power reactor.
kbray, in the absence of a moderator, it does nothing, and there is no nuclear reaction. It simply radiates.
Yes, there was indeed a nuclear meltdown experiment. It’s called Three Mile Island. As the fuel melted, it flowed down the sides of the vessel. As such, the surface area increased, thus increasing the rate of cooling, and it solidified into a solid mass at the bottom. What TMI demonstrated is that the China Syndrome is in fact impossible for power reactors, because the fuel doesn’t have enough thermal energy to melt through the vessel.
The consequence of all melting of nuclear fuel is a solidified mass in the bottom of the vessel as long as the vessel has not been breached by some external force. It may be radioactive, but there’s no nuclear chain reaction in the absence of a moderator.
Under more controlled conditions, all nuclear fuel is tested for its consequences under destruction so that the effects are known. Please try to understand this; no nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb. It is literally impossible because the quantity of fissile material is far too low.
Gilbert K. Arnold says:
March 30, 2011 at 11:09 am
JP says:
March 30, 2011 at 4:40 am
JP: Your statement that accidents like Fukushima occur every 17000 years is erroneous. What that number represents is what is called “a recurrence interval” which is simply the probability that such an accident will occur in any year. 1/17000=5.88^-5 (0.006%/year) Keep in mind that number stays the same every year. That’s a pretty low probability that such an event is likely to occur in any given year.
GK Arnold: The probability of at least one event per reactor in N years is,
J = 1 – (1-P)^N
For a service life of 40 years this becomes, 0.235%. It is assumed here that the events are not serially correlated.
That is for a single reactor. We have some 300 reactors or so in service. So the likelihood of a single reactor of all these having an accident in 40 years is more like 70%. We have had 3 or 4 major accidents in 50 years, and this is about what we should expect.
@Bob sykes
“We have some 300 reactors or so in service. So the likelihood of a single reactor of all these having an accident in 40 years is more like 70%.”
For your probability calculations to begin to work you have to disregard the fact that the Fukushima nuclear power plants didn’t have any accidents what so ever. It was mother nature that had an upheaval and that’s not an accident but a natural disaster.
kbray in California says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Does anyone know what a mound of nuclear fuel pellets (no zirconium cladding, but enough to start a reaction) piled on a sand dune in the dry desert would do?
If someone could start a nuclear reaction by just piling a mound of uranium pellets in the desert we would have a lot to worry about. How many old nuclear bombs do you think are sitting somewhere ‘out in the desert’?
Nuclear Power gets CO2 taxed and demonised in the UK…
While nature and reality responds at Fukushima in Japan…
The Fukushima-Daiichi Incident, Dr. Matthias Braun, AREVA, March 29, 2011
http://energyfromthorium.com/pps/FukushimaDaiichiAREVA.pps
Amazing insights….
[[[ brackets for Colin ]]] ( for kbray )
[[[ Colin says:
March 30, 2011 at 3:37 pm
kbray, in the absence of a moderator, it does nothing, and there is no nuclear reaction. It simply radiates. ]]]
kbray (I am not convinced of what you say because within the reactor, the correct number of fuel rods are close enough together to hit each other with neutrons, causing an excitement reaction and the release of heat. Boron control rods can be inserted between the fuel rod clusters to halt the reaction. Putting that same quantity of nuclear fuel pellets in a pile on the sand would allow an identical reaction to occur as is inside the reactor, but no way to stop it. It is a proximity event.)
[[[ Yes, there was indeed a nuclear meltdown experiment. It’s called Three Mile Island. As the fuel melted, it flowed down the sides of the vessel. As such, the surface area increased, thus increasing the rate of cooling, and it solidified into a solid mass at the bottom. What TMI demonstrated is that the China Syndrome is in fact impossible for power reactors, because the fuel doesn’t have enough thermal energy to melt through the vessel.]]]
kbray ( T-M-I does not qual-i-fy.) (there was probably water in the reactor, there was zirconium, and it was not an experiment, it was a mistake. Plus everything was done to stop it. Sorry. I want to eliminate most of those variables in my setup.)
[[[ The consequence of all melting of nuclear fuel is a solidified mass in the bottom of the vessel as long as the vessel has not been breached by some external force. It may be radioactive, but there’s no nuclear chain reaction in the absence of a moderator.]]]
kbray ( what moderator are you speaking of…? a WUWT moderator ? … you must mean like boron…? A nuclear bomb explosion needs exacting conditions. It needs the right kind of fuel, and it needs a spherical compressive explosion to slam the molecules together to create the fission. Of course, that cannot occur in a meltdown, even with a hydrogen bang. The problem is that the nuclear fuel can boil a lot of water during its lifetime and that energy has to be dissipated over time somehow or the reaction needs to be slowed by interference from a neutron absorber.)
[[[ Under more controlled conditions, all nuclear fuel is tested for its consequences under destruction so that the effects are known. Please try to understand this; no nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb. It is literally impossible because the quantity of fissile material is far too low. ]]]
[[[ controlled conditions ? tested for its consequences ? under destruction ? effects are known ?]]] kbray ( What are you talking about ? and I never implied it could explode.)
kbray ( Colin, suppose a nuclear fuel rod was traveling into earth’s atmosphere from outer space at the speed of a meteor say 50,000 mph… Most meteors burn up in the atmosphere and vaporize before they hit earth. This radioactive fuel rod will also vaporize as it hits the atmosphere, unless uranium behaves in some different manner than I know of.
As it vaporizes, it must be leaving a radioactive trail of oxidized ash. But in the end, alas, it is gone… vanished. The uranium has to be somewhere, where does it go ? And is it still radioactive ?)
Malaga View says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:13 am
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow provided you don’t disclose the true costs
No, no, nuclear is great. No such thing as cost not talked about. Nuclear is cheaper than coal.
Rational minds can understand easily that nuclear powered electricity generation is the sensible path to follow provided future generations keep paying your nuclear waste disposal bills
No, no, no such thing as depleted rods problem. Nuclear is safe. Nuclear is great.
/sarc/
So which country is rich in rocks that can be used as nuclear fuel? Could the US just be exchanging one form of dependence for another?
[[[ harrywr2 says:
March 30, 2011 at 4:24 pm
kbray in California says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Does anyone know what a mound of nuclear fuel pellets (no zirconium cladding, but enough to start a reaction) piled on a sand dune in the dry desert would do?
If someone could start a nuclear reaction by just piling a mound of uranium pellets in the desert we would have a lot to worry about. How many old nuclear bombs do you think are sitting somewhere ‘out in the desert’? ]]]
kbray ( I see there is big confusion here between a slow nuclear reaction ( a power plant) and a nuclear chain reaction (a bomb). The reaction in a nuclear power plant can be started and stopped at will. It is one type of nuclear reaction. Think of it like lying down on a tanning bed and turning the tanning lights on…. fairly harmless. The reaction in an atom bomb is an “out of control” nuclear chain reaction happening all at once with a tremendous release of energy. It is also a type of nuclear reaction but it cannot be stopped, and is finished in fractions of a second. Think of it like…. well… a big mushroom cloud..!!!! Please stay away from those and don’t do this at home !! That can never happen at a power plant. There is no comparison between the two.) ( I’m also certain one can start a little “glowing campfire” in the desert, if the pile of radioactive pellets, that is what is inside a fuel rod, is large enough. It would glow and get hot…. but to what natural end result ? That is my unanswered question.)
Dave Springer says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:15 am
You people seem to think uranium fuel rods grow in trees. One might also inquire about how many nuclear weapons there would be on this planet if there weren’t any nuclear power plants churning out the fissionable materials required to make them.
Dirty bombs? No such thing. All the world loves America and all other Western nations. No one would ever, not ever, smuggle a suitcase bomb into America, or any other Western nation, and set it off in a very big and very busy city. That could never happen. 9/11 was an aberration. All humans are gentle and non-violent. Once 9/11 was over all terrorist saw how awful it was and repented themselves of murderous, power hungry intentions towards all people not like them.
Nuclear is safe. Nuclear is great. Move to a big city and tell everyone you know to come along. Spend most of your time in that big city in crowded places like subways and malls. Those are, by far, the safest places on earth. Because the bigger the crowd the lower the odds are terrorists with dirty bombs would target that location. They want to bomb the most rural, deserted areas that have a very low likelihood of anyone being there. They go through the effort of buying and smuggling dirty bombs to set them off in places they hope, and hope, no one will be there.
What we should do is deliver all out used rods to known terrorists because we know how they will dispose of them in a safe way, never intending to construct dirty bombs. We can trust them. They’ve proven to us we can. What sort of Islamophobia would make anyone think otherwise?
Everything is safe in the world, most of all nuclear power. Nuclear reactors should be used as a place to improve your tan. Just minor burns will occur. Thank God for nuclear power. Coal? What backwards, redneck, hick would want to use primitive coal for electricity? What, are we going to go back to the stone ages?
/sarc
Pamela Gray:
So which country is rich in rocks that can be used as nuclear fuel? Could the US just be exchanging one form of dependence for another?
The worldwide production of uranium in 2009 amounted to 50,572 tonnes, of which 27% was mined in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia are the top three producers and together account for 63% of world uranium production. Other important uranium producing countries in excess of 1000 tonnes per year are Namibia, Russia, Niger, Uzbekistan, and the United States. (Uranium mining in Wikipedia)
@Colin on March 30, 2011 at 11:02 am
Re flood control dams.
I’m not sure where you are, nor your familiarity with the dams and flooding problems in the United States. However, I grew up in Texas and became very familiar with the Colorado River (Texas) and its flooding problems. The series of six dams on the Colorado were built for flood control, yet each has hydroelectric generation. The Lower Colorado River Authority, LCRA, operates the dams and generation.
A similar situation exists for the Tennessee Valley Authority, on the Tennessee River in a large part of the eastern United States. There are 29 hydroelectric generating stations, yet those were built for multiple purposes of flood control, water management, power generation, navigation, and others.
1DandyTroll says:
March 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm
For your probability calculations to begin to work you have to disregard the fact that the Fukushima nuclear power plants didn’t have any accidents what so ever. It was mother nature that had an upheaval and that’s not an accident but a natural disaster.
==================
This kind of reasoning is apt for vaudeville, and there is a lot of it here. The cause of an accident does not eliminate the accident. All accidents have some cause or other. There was a nuclear accident that was caused by a natural disaster. The natural disaster did not erase the nuclear accident by causing it. Quite the opposite: it brought it into existence. By bringing it into existence, nature proved that the accident was possible, and it proved it beyond all doubt. And if it was possible, then it must be part of probability calculations.
Note that your reasoning, if it were valid, could be extended to any cause you happen to dislike. If a plant operator receives the wrong medication from his psychiatrist and sabotages the nuclear plant in the middle of the night, you could say it wasn’t an accident, it was just a crazy operator gone wild, or an incompetent psychiatrist…and so on with any cause you care to imagine.
Believe me: there was a nuclear accident in Japan recently.