G'day Tord and Bob, I'm working from memory and rough estimates late at night so you may want to check my reasoning. If you believe the Uranium Information Council costings of $1500 - $2000 capital cost per kilowatt generating capacity then its highly unlikely that the embodied energy of a nuclear plant represents a significant contribution to CO2. You just couldn't buy enough energy with that kind of money to absorb the output of the plant. Where the real problem lies is in whether high grade or low grade ore is used to supply the uranium fuel. Low grade ore costs much more in energy to discover and mine than a non breeder reactor can produce whereas hi grade ore does allow a net positive energy production. Theres not much high grade ore around, most of it is in Australia! And there's only enough to supply all the world's energy needs for about 20 years or so. Fast breeder reactors can extend this to a thousand years and thorium reactors likewise several thousand. So if we can ever overcome the problems of nuclear proliferation Nuclear may have a useful role to play. Most strategies for the future rely on a mix of energy technologies including carbon sequestration for coal fired stations, biofuel, and most importantly solar and wind. Its way too late to think we can manage on solar and wind alone for the next several decades. Nuclear is still problematic from economic and of course weapons proliferation perspectives. I wouldn't advocate nuclear but I would advocate research into making it proliferation resistant. If you'd like to see why I think this in more detail you could try my web site: www.energysustained.com All the best and thanks for the discussion and thoughts, Peter ------- Original Message ------- On 7/2/2007 05:26 AM Tord Eriksson wrote:On Monday 02 July 2007 02:14, you wrote: > This is, prima facie, an utterly ridiculous statement. > > On 7/1/07, Tord Eriksson wrote: > > Learned a long time ago that you use more fossil fuel energy to > > build and run a nuclear reactor during its entire active life, than > > the electricity it produces! Oh, is it?! Considering the millions of tons concrete that is needed, and knowing how concrete is made, it sure uses up a lot of energy, plus all the metal, transports, et cetera, I am not that sure it isn't correct. But in those days a nuclear power station had a practical life of 20 years, now they more like 50, or more! But the older they get the more service they need, and the higher is the risk for something catstorphic to happen. What irritates me more is the conclusion that electric cars, boats, even planes (all three kind exist, as you probably know) are good for the environment, as the losses involved are massive (for instance charging batteries usually involve a 40% loss in the form of heat), and in most places the power stations feeding the battery chargers involved spews out massive amounts of CO2, NOX and sulphur (the latter two can be lessened by advanced technology, but just a minority of the world's powerplants have access to sulphur free fuel). Switching to only nuclear power would at least quaddruple (sp?) the number of nuclear plants needed, which in turn does the same with the risks and the amount of waste produced, that nobody wants to take care of. I'll applaud the day when all our energy needs come from wind power, photovoltaic power and solar panels for heating - we sure are a long way off! And in the event of war I want as few nuclear installations as possible, world wide, and I, for one, don't see a future where no nuclear countries (like Sverige (aka Sweden), La France, the US, et cetera) aren't involved in war (one way or other - Sweden has troops in Afghanistan - under US command), or exposed to terrorism (one's terrorist, the other's freedom fighter). What use of going paddling in a radioactive sea?! I will not, for sure, enjoy paddling in a dead sea, with no seals, no fish, no birds nor any whales! Tord S Eriksson, Sweden *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mike wrote: - >resource price at the wellhead is zero - >no one pays Mother Earth Peter Chopelas wrote: - >The lower the purchase and ownership costs, >the less the resources consumed. This should >also correspond to a lower carbon "foot print". G'day, The following will prove that I'm neither an economist or a Life Cycle analyst:~) The sort of approaches you both suggest are similar to one I've tried that subtracts profit margins and wages (including taxes) from every part of a product's value chain and then makes the assumption that "no-one pays mother earth" and that all infrastructure and material costs are ultimately spent on energy. Of course this assumption can break down. For example if you built a kayak out of concrete that gives off CO2 as it sets. But concrete kayaks aside and making some rough estimates based on a guess that the wages and profit margin for all stages contributing to the manufacture of a kayak are about 67%. Then the remaining 33% could be attributed to an energy cost. I came to the conclusion that the cost of energy going into manufacturing the boat was probably about 30% of the cost of energy used in transporting it during its working life. So if one wanted to calculate a carbon offset value then Dave is almost certainly right that the difference between manufacturing techniques is not worth considering. But it does seem possible that the energy used in making a kayak is significant. It would be interesting to have better estimates of profit margins, wages, and the average cost of fuel used in transporting a kayak during its working life. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mike wrote: - >> resource price at the wellhead is zero - no one pays Mother Earth This is true of all recourses (and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of value). The sun shines for free, the wind blows for free, water flows from the mountains to the ocean for free, trees grow for free, oil, coal, natural gas, uranium, etc. all are found in the ground for "free". But that is irrelevant because we pay for all things based on their market value, which is what the supplier adds. For example, you can grow a tree for free, wait a long while, cut it down yourself, mill it into lumber yourself and build yourself a boat, house, etc. Or you could buy the wood, paying someone else to grow it, harvest it, mill it, ship it to your neighborhood where you can buy it. Or you can pay big $ to a craftsman to build you a nice wood kayak. What you are paying for for someone else to get it, rework it, and deliver it. Each adds value, making it worth more at each step. So in once sense all recourses only carry a value based on the added value, which is what someone is willing to pay for it. The "profit" that each person that handles the goods in the system is the value that each one adds to the item. A kayak builder has to sell the kayak for more than the material and labor costs to make it or the builder goes out of business. If people are not willing to pay more than the cost of making a product, than the builder either has to find a way to make it less expensive (use less resources), or change the design to make it more desirable (customers willing to pay more for it). This is true of all products, cars, houses, computers, etc. The fact that most are willing to pay more for milled lumber than raw logs is how the miller makes a living, it is how the kayak builder makes a living. If you make everything yourself from raw materials you will have NO time to do anything besides feed and cloth yourself, all your waking hours will be spent making food and clothes. That is the basis for all market systems, what we call an "economy". And it is the reason we have time to enjoy kayaking, the value of our work is worth more than the cost of buying clothes, food, housing, etc. what is left over is good for kayaking. You hopefully add value to your employer more than the cost for you to work there (or the employer will go out of business and you will be unemployed). To not understand that means you do not understand how all things have value, and how our economy works, employs people, and provides a pretty good living for most people that have skills to offer. Profit is only a measure of the value added by the supplier, the more the profit, the more value added over the cost of the raw materials, that means the moret people are willing to pay to get their goods or services rather than do it yourself. The more raw materials and labor that goes into a product, the higher the cost, and the higher the recourse consumption. The only exception to that is cost of unnecessary government regulations and taxes. That is why both are "evil" costs to any economy, they bog it down without adding value. Note I used the words there "unnecessary", for the sake of public health and safety (including environmental protection), stability and well being, certain regulations and taxes are necessary. The real debate is what is a benefit to us as citizens, and what is really necessary. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter Chopelas wrote: > Mike wrote: - >>> resource price at the wellhead is zero - no one pays Mother Earth > > This is true of all recourses (and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of > value). The sun shines for free, the wind blows for free, water flows > from the mountains to the ocean for free, trees grow for free, oil, > coal, natural gas, uranium, etc. all are found in the ground for > "free". But that is irrelevant because we pay for all things based on > their market value, which is what the supplier adds. However, the holder of the resource, since they don't pay for it, does not value it. They see it as a source of profit but not as an expense that they have to cover. Since it is free, they never see its price as a function of scarcity or long term value. Their primary incentive is short-term profit rather than long-term value. If it's a non-renewable resource, it is not preserved and when it disappears, they move on to exploit something else. That has happened with whaling, many types of fishing, some logging and hunting etc. There are many resources that can't be purchased legally at any price since it is too scarce or completely absent. It is happening now with water and clean air. It will happen with oil and virtually every other resource. Added costs do not make the holder of the resource responsible. In the absence of responsibility at source, the only response for consumers is to take that responsibility on for themselves. Unfortunately, it appears that personal responsibility is inversely proportional to wealth. Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mike wrote: - >resource price at the wellhead is zero - >no one pays Mother Earth Peter Chopelas wrote: - >The lower the purchase and ownership costs, >the less the resources consumed. This should >also correspond to a lower carbon "foot print". G'day, The following will prove that I'm neither an economist or a Life Cycle analyst:~) The sort of approaches you both suggest are similar to one I've tried that subtracts profit margins and wages (including taxes) from every part of a product's value chain and then makes the assumption that "no-one pays mother earth" and that all infrastructure and material costs are ultimately spent on energy. Of course this assumption can break down. For example if you built a kayak out of concrete that gives off CO2 as it sets. But concrete kayaks aside and making some rough estimates based on a guess that the wages and profit margin for all stages contributing to the manufacture of a kayak are about 67%. Then the remaining 33% could be attributed to an energy cost. I came to the conclusion that the cost of energy going into manufacturing the boat was probably about 30% of the cost of energy used in transporting it during its working life. So if one wanted to calculate a carbon offset value then Dave is almost certainly right that the difference between manufacturing techniques is not worth considering. But it does seem possible that the energy used in making a kayak is significant. It would be interesting to have better estimates of profit margins, wages, and the average cost of fuel used in transporting a kayak during its working life. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:45 PDT