The environmental footprints of coal and uranium mining.
Here’s something worth thinking about.
This is a coal mine. Specifically, it’s the Blair Athol coal mine in central Queensland, Australia, but there’s no special reason why I chose this specific example of a coal mine. The mine produces 12 megatonnes of coal per year. (This is just a satellite image taken from Google Maps, which anybody can of course easily access.)

Coal has a thermal energy content of about 25 MJ/kg, and therefore 12 megatonnes of coal corresponds to a primary energy content of about 2.9 x 1017 J.
This is the Ranger uranium mine, near Jabiru in the Northern Territory of Australia. Again, nothing special about this specific uranium mine, it’s just an example.
All these satellite images are at a consistent scale factor, or zoom level/resolution.

In 2007-2008, Ranger produced 5273 tonnes of U3O8.
A conventional, relatively inefficient low-enriched uranium fuelled LWR with a thermal (primary energy) power output of about 3 GW requires approximately 200 tonnes of U3O8 to be mined to fuel it for one year, assuming that newly mined uranium is used for all its fuel.
Therefore, the annual uranium output from Ranger corresponds to about 2.5 x 1018 J of primary energy, or about 8.6 times the primary energy content supplied by the coal mine.
That is, that one uranium mine supplies the same amount of energy content as nine of the coal mines – one seemingly quite small uranium mine, which is about a third of the size of the coal mine, supplies the same amount of primary energy content as this. (I won’t embed that image in the post, since it will probably completely destroy the formatting of the page.)
7 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- May 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (4)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (3)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (20)
- September 2008 (11)
- August 2008 (7)
- July 2008 (15)
- June 2008 (5)
- May 2008 (5)
-
Categories
- ABC
- Abengoa Solar
- abuse of units
- academia
- activism
- alternative energy
- americium
- Amory Lovins
- analytical science
- Andrew Bolt
- ANSTO
- anthropogenic climate change
- anthropogenic greenhouse gases
- anti-nuclear activism
- anti-nuclear ignorance
- anti-nuclear movement
- anti-nuclear quote of the day
- anti-nuclear quote of the week
- anti-nuclear-energy activism
- anti-nuclear-energy dogma
- anti-nuclear-energy ignorance
- anti-nuclear-energy stupidity
- atmospheric science
- atomic engines
- Australia
- Australia 2020
- Australian Greens
- AWU
- bad science
- banana dose
- Barack Obama
- beryllium
- black holes
- blogging
- blogs
- Blue marble
- books
- bullshit
- cap and trade
- carbon dioxide
- cargo cult science
- Carl Sagan
- CCS
- CERN
- chemistry
- Chernobyl
- China
- clean coal
- clean energy
- climate change
- coal
- coal mining
- community engagement
- construction time for nuclear energy
- construction time for renewable energy
- cost of solar energy
- cost of solar power
- cost of wind power
- dangerous fossil fuels
- David Lochbaum
- debate
- defence
- democracy
- depleted uranium
- desalination
- dirty bombs
- distributed energy
- dubious claims
- Earth Hour
- earth science
- economics
- economics of solar power
- education
- Edward Teller
- EFMR monitoring network
- electric vehicles
- electricity generation
- electronics
- emissions trading
- energy
- energy analysis
- energy conversion
- energy demand
- energy density
- energy economics
- energy generation
- energy independance
- energy intensity
- energy policy
- energy politics
- energy resources
- energy systems
- energy technology
- environment
- environmental protection
- environmental remediation
- environmental science
- environmentalism
- EROEI
- Europe
- fast reactors
- Feynman
- Fischer-Tropsch
- fossil fuel waste
- fossil fuels
- france
- free energy
- fruitcake
- FUD
- fuels
- fusion
- Garnaut review
- gas turbines
- Gavin Mudd
- geeky stuff
- genepax
- georeactor
- georeactor hypothesis
- geosequestration
- GNEP
- greenhouse forcing
- greenhouse gas emissions
- greenhouse gas emissions reduction
- greenhouse gases
- Hanford
- Hans Bethe
- health effects of energy systems
- health physics
- heat engines
- Helen Caldicott
- humor
- hydrogen
- HyperCar
- Hyperion
- IDGCC
- idiocy
- IFR
- industry
- Integral Fast Reactor
- IPCC
- Israel
- italy
- John Gofman
- John McCain
- John Wheeler
- Joseph Mangano
- Joseph Romm
- junk science
- Kansas
- Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
- Kentucky
- Kevin Rudd
- kilotons
- Kyoto protocol
- Large Hadron Collider
- LFTR
- LHC
- life-cycle analysis
- linear no-threshold
- linear-non-threshold
- linux.conf.au
- liquid fluoride reactor
- loan guarantees
- Manhattan Project
- Mark Lynas
- materials science
- media
- Media irresponsibility
- meet the millirem
- microcontrollers
- micropower
- Middle East
- mineral extraction
- mineral resources
- mining
- Naive Environmentalist Quote of the Day
- nanomaterials
- natural gas
- natural nuclear fission reactors
- neutrinos
- neutron science
- new build
- NNadir
- not even wrong
- nuclear astrophysics
- nuclear bailout
- nuclear chemistry
- nuclear debate
- nuclear energy
- nuclear energy economics
- nuclear energy institute
- nuclear engineering
- nuclear fission
- nuclear fuel cycle
- nuclear fuels
- nuclear fusion
- nuclear madness
- nuclear medicine
- nuclear physics
- nuclear power
- nuclear power education
- nuclear proliferation
- nuclear pulse propulsion
- nuclear reactors
- nuclear reprocessing
- nuclear safety
- nuclear terrorism
- nuclear waste
- nuclear weapons
- nukefree.org
- numbers
- Oklo
- olympic dam
- OPAL
- open hardware
- oxygen
- Paducah
- particle physics
- petroleum
- photovoltaics
- physics
- planetary science
- plutonium
- politics
- polling
- pollution
- probabilities
- proliferation
- proliferation studies
- propaganda
- psuedoscience
- public policy
- radiation
- radiation hormesis
- radiation safety
- radioactive decay
- radioactive waste
- radioactivity
- radionuclides in the environment
- radiophobia
- radon
- reactor physics
- reactor technology
- renewable energy
- renewable energy costs
- renewable energy economics
- renewables
- reprocessing
- resources
- rhetoric
- risk
- Rod Adams
- Russia
- safety of energy systems
- science
- scientific method
- Scott Ludlam
- SLS
- small-scale nuclear power
- society
- solar
- solar energy
- solar power
- solar thermal
- space exploration
- stars
- StormSmith
- sustainability
- sustainable energy
- synroc
- Syria
- terminology
- The Oil Drum
- their actions
- thermal engines
- thermodynamics
- thorium
- three mile island
- transportation
- Uncategorized
- unions
- units
- uranium
- uranium mining
- uranium resources
- van Leeuwen
- Victoria
- VVER
- waste
- water
- water use of energy systems
- white elephant
- wind energy
- wind power
- Yucca Mountain
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
These are the types of comparative and informative post that I really like! And this is the type of information that scientist, environmentalist, and politicians need to be looking at when they’re making the big decisions about our energy future. Excellent post!
Yes, and uranium mines also do not have the ash and mine tailings problem that nine coal mines would give you. Not to mention that there is no such thing as uranium mine fires.
Very good post Luke. I’m definitely going to link to this post as part of an ongoing visual comparison series. More people need to see this type of information and realize the propaganda feed to them about uranium mining is false.
Nuclear waste, on the other hand, does tend to stick around. Plutonium has a half life of 240,000 some odd years. Coal ash actually gives off more radiation, due to trace amounts of Radium and Cesium.
Plutonium (plutonium-239, specifically, which has a half-life of approximately 24,000 years) is not “waste” – it’s a valuable, potent, useful fuel.
If “nuclear waste” is such a big deal, the most important and obvious solution is to stop calling such materials “waste” for no especially good reason, and to stop wasting it.
Good job Luke. Also consider that seawater uranium can provide several hundred years of electricity using Gen 3 reactors, and caps the price at less than $150 / lb. See two comments.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4558#comment-413193
thank you for your post on the REAL cost comparisons of power generation: nuclear, solar, wind.
Nuclear seems to be the most efficient but how do we stop the industry from creating depleted uranium from nuclear power generation biproducts? Depleted uranium is making them lots of money as they produce lethal DU weapon that are rained downon civilian worldwide.