nuclear energy is considered to be a very powerful alternative of fossil fuels . even then why it is not being used on a much larger scale?
Answers
Answer:
From a carbon capture and sequestration perspective, there’s exactly one sequestration project associated with a coal generation plant which is actually sequestering any reasonable amount of carbon. It’s in Saskatchewan, Canada. It was operating at 40% of targets for months and nobody noticed. It’s very expensive. I did an assessment of all sequestration efforts in Australia over the past 19 years recently and found that they had spent $4,300 AUD per ton to sequester a vanishingly tiny fraction of Australia’s emissions. The US CCS projects have gone vastly over forecasts and are abandoned and no new ones are projected. The UK government has stopped funding them.
She’s right that IPCC projections include a big chunk from CCS. I believe it’s a 20% contribution overall to the carbon budget. IEA cost estimates are targeted at 30% carbon capture at the source. But the problem with that is 30% not 100% and the cost of doing even 30% has been proven to be much higher. I’ve run the numbers using CCS industry projections of cost — very optimistic numbers reality has shown us — and actually getting to 100% would make coal generation cost 18–25 cents USD per KWH and gas generation 15–19 cents USD per KWH, both far out of the price point where they could continue to operate or receive financing. That almost all CO2 that has been pumped underground has been used in enhanced oil recovery is a serious problem with CCS as well. Using CO2 to get more CO2 isn’t a net win.
This is very powerful fuel
Thousands times as compare to coal .If any accidents is happen we have not good technology to stop this alpha Bita and gama rays 100 kms plant these rays take thousands people life (dead ). So we not use this fuel as a major fuel of
The fuel name Is URANIUM this is a radioactive element.
Aman 8529749297