[solarguy]

renewable nuclear...

Most published analyses of the energy costs of the nuclear fuel cycle end up using a lot of hand waving. The biggest problem is the storage of the high level wastes.

Best imaginable scenario for waste storage is a relatively short 300 years by avoiding storing the uranium and plutonium waste streams. Then we burn the uranium waste and plutonium waste in Mixed Oxide reactors built for the purpose. The biggest problems are, fuel reprocessing itself is quite energy intensive, quite dirty, quite expensive, and unavoidably produces bomb grade plutonium, which is a terrorist's dream.

How many countries can 100% reliably keep that out of terrorist's hands? For hundreds of years? Really!?! And even the 300 years worth of storage, what is the energy cost for that, considering that industry proponents paint this as the best case scenario.

If you don't go down the fuel-reprocessing path, then the uranium and plutonium high level waste must be securely stored for, ummmmm, 300,000 years. That has an exquisitely expensive price tag in terms of energy and money, and the whole thing becomes a net energy loser. Further, just burning the uranium once, we will run out in a relatively short time. Unworkable really.

And how many breeder reactors and reprocessing plants are planned or being built right now? Just because it is theoretically possible doesn't do us much actual good in the real world. And how many would we need to drive the new electric transportation sector?

I am not opposed to nuclear energy, just show me the positive EROEI for the whole fuel cycle, including long term storage. That also has to include the energy costs associated with a few clean ups, like Cherynoble, Three Mile Island, and a couple future events.


Finest regards,

troy