The Forum > Article Comments > Climate change's ugly sister > Comments
Climate change's ugly sister : Comments
By Graham Young, published 14/3/2011When banning CO2 was just a good idea it was popular, but not now that it comes with a cost.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
-
- All
But Mark D- I'm not in the position to question steel and concrete tonnages per MWe, but the point that I constantly make is that the resources required aren't just those used on-site. As I have said, ultimately one has to track every skerrick of energy used at all stages of the life-cycle of the generator- not just the excavators digging uranium ore, but the energy used to build the dongas for the fly-in/fly-out miners, the things they buy with their salaries etc etc. But as I hypothesise, money is a reasonably good proxy for energy and it all gets accumulated in the final cost- so long as externalities are included- such as decommissioning, environmental spoilage, etc.
Yes, at present nuclear scrubs up quite well economically. I suspect that costs will go up significantly after 3/11- both more engineering and higher insurances.
In the meantime, as I have said, the cost of renewables are reducing- you can't take a snapshot of the past decade's average cost and infer future costs from that- you have to loook at cost projections- which are pretty well known. You can get them all via Google pretty quickly.