Lots More Nuclear Power - Good Thing or Bad Thing?
Nuclear power – an abundant source of carbon free energy, or a dangerous and expensive power source with huge risks to our health and environment?
Britain may not have much choice in this matter as its government seems determined to take the nuclear route in an effort to bring Co2 emissions in line with its reduction pledges and mitigate its dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.
Announcing plans to enter into a technology partnership with France, the UK government proposes replacing its 24 aging reactors - which currently provide 20% of the nation’s electricity - with a new set of nuclear power plants which will double Britain’s nuclear power generating capacity. In doing so, Britain hopes to become a “world leader in nuclear technology”, according to Energy Secretary John Hutton.
- » See also: #4 Copenhagen, Denmark: Great Bicycle City Photo Tour
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
Whilst nuclear energy has at least one advantage in providing plentiful carbon free power, there are numerous objections, not least due to concerns over safety, long term handling and storage of radioactive waste and the potential distraction from long term renewable energy projects. Indeed, there are many complex arguments behind the nuclear question, a topic which cannot be succinctly summarised in a single blog post, and on which I must admit I lack a clear opinion.
Therefore I decided to call in some people who actually know what they are talking about.
Rod of Atomic Insights and Matt from TalkClimateChange have agreed to lend their expertise to this discussion in a currently ongoing debate on our discussion boards, which I am sure will provide the necessary depth of argument and cover the full range of pro’s and con’s.
We’ll be back with a follow-up post containing the highlights (and maybe a final opinion) from this debate next week. In the meantime, feel free to watch the debate or chime in with your views.
heyyyyy
ummmm.
what r the
bad things???
i kinda have
to kno this for
a project im
working on!!!
=]
i think we should stick to solar energy GO GREEN
hello and i agree with nuclear power so that if you need any more convicing then you should think about global warming!
Nuclear Facts
Nuclear Resources: The 2026 deadline on Uranium reserves is grossly inaccurate. At current uranium usage with known reserves and at what is currently economically recoverable, there is at a minimum enough uranium to last for 100 years. Combined with the improvements in uranium extraction as well as reprocessing most text books estimate that fissionable materials can power the earth for the NEXT MILLENIUM!
Safety: The first thing one must understand is that a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb. A nuclear explosion from a nuclear reactor has never happened nor will it ever happen. They are by design not able to achieve this. What happened at Chernobyl was a steam explosion caused by overheating in the core. When a transient–an unexpected change in power occurs– within a reactor, control rods are inserted automatically within a fraction of a second and the nuclear chain reaction is shut down. The potential problem is that the radioactive fuel is releasing heat as it decays. Most of this energy in a power reactor is released over the first few days afer shutdown. The primary safety consern is the ability to continue to remove heat from the core during this time. TMI melted its core long after it was shut down because of a loss of coolant that was largely due to operators mis diagosing the problem. Modern reactor are designed to be inherantly safe in that they employ safety systems that use natural forces such as convection and gravity to keep the reactor cool for up to 72 hours without human intervention in the event of an accident. There is no truth in the China Syndrome of a reactor melting and burrowing into the core. And the disaster of Chernobyl would have probably resulted in nearly zero deaths if a containment building was actually surrounding the reactor pressure vessel which is required for all U.S. reactors. The regulations and safety assessments on nuclear power place the probability of a catastrophic nuclear accident as probable as the risk of a catastrophic asteroid impact.
Nuclear Waste
First off, because the energy density of fission is so great, the amount of nuclear waste is actually quite small. All of the spent nuclear fuel for the last 40 for all U.S. reactos (which generated about 20% of U.S. electrical power) is about 56,000 tons and could fit on a football field only 10 feet high. Although that seems like a lot, in one year this country consumes 1.053 billion tons of coal.
However a plan for the build up of nuclear waste must still be addressed. The two options are geological depository or reprocessing. Many people are concerened with the risks associated with storing fuel that is radioactive for thousands of years and the potential that overtime these products might somethow escape and contaminate the environment and second that some future relatives of ours would unearth it or terrorists would. First, most people aren’t aware that a natural fission reaction ocurred on earth underground in Oklo Africa about 1.7 billion years ago. Water seeped into a uranium deposit there an created a critical reaction several times. What’s important to note, is that the fission product plutonium that were created from this incident ( that had no protective barrier like a fuel cask would) moved only 10 feet in 1.7 billion years. Secondly the casks the spent fuel is stored in are virtually impossible for terrorist to open. They are extremely massive and require very heavy equipment and extensive time to move.
On the reprocessing side, when nuclear fuel is “burned” in a reactor plutonium is also created. This also has the ability to fission and can be reprocessed–separated from the non useful products and made into another fuel bundle for the reactor. Reprocessing not only allows for more efficient use of materials and would increase the amount of power per unit of original fuel by as much as 10 times that of the current “once-through” cycle used in the U.S. Additionally, by reprocessing there is much less overall waste, and what is left at the end decays much more rapidly and would only need to be stored for a few hundred years. Many people express concern over weapons proliferation because when reprocessing occurs potentially, weapons grade material can be extracted. However, there are technological ways to reprocess without ever creating the potential for weapons grade material. Furthermore, the U.S. is the only major country with nuclear power that doesnot reprocess due to Federal law. France and Japan both reprocess.
Cost: Yes it is true that nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and decommission. Currently a nuclear plant costs between 7-10 billion dollars to build. However that same plant produces 1000 MW of electrical power. South Carolina has decided to build two new nuclear plants a total power generation of 2000 MW. To produce the same amount of power as those two plants that sit on a few acreas of land, would require South Carolina’s entire coast to be covered with windmills several miles thick. The upfront cost of nuclear power is expensive but if the entire life cycle cost is acounted for, and one looks at it from a cost per unit energy basis nuclear is the most cost effective low greenhouse gas emitting solution.
Nuclear: 2-3 cents/kWhr
Coal: 2-3 cents/kWhr
Gas: 6-7 cents/kWhr
Wind 4-7 cents/kWhr
Solar 20-30 cents/kWhr
Additionally, nuclear reactors have the highest capacity factors meaning they are up and operational the most amount of time out of a year. Typical capcity factors are below.
Wind farms 20-40%.
Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%
Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%
Nuclear U.S. average 92%
Environment: Release of radiation to the environment is virtually zero. Coal plants release more radiation than nuclear plants. The average annual radiation dose people receive is 360 mrem. Less than .1 mrem can be attributed to nuclear power or nuclear waste in any form. To put some perspective on that if you fly in an airplane once you are likely to receive about 3-5 mrem from the additional exposure because there is less atmosphere protecting you from the solar radiation.
Greenhouse gasses. Nuclear is actually the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy source per energy unit created with the exception of hydroelectric. The construction related CO2 emissions for creating the massive solar arrays or windmills needed to generate equivalent power to one nuclear plant exceed the CO2 emissions for the contruction of the nuclear plant.
Hydrogen production. In the recent future high temperaturat gas core reactor will be able to provide not only electrical power generation but also processing heat that can be used to generated clean and renewable hydrogen for automotive and other small scale accidents.
Summary: I’m not saying that nuclear is all we need. Like everyone I would love if all our power was renewable, and clean. I sincerely hope solar technology and battery technology continue to make breakthoughs so that it can truly fulfill our energy needs. In the near term, wind and solar are not nearly sufficient by themselves to meet our energy needs. And it is unrealistic, not practical, not feasible, to severely change our energy demand without reducing our population. Therefore, it makes sense that if we must fulfill our energy requirements with energy sources other than renewables then those sources should be of ample supply, safe to use, not harmful to the environment, and as cheap as can be. Nuclear power has resources to last the world for another 1000 years. It is safe, from everystep of the way safety is a key component to all nuclear engineering and operating. Through proper management of the fuel cycle it is among the least destructive forms of power generation, period. It is currently cheaper than coal to produce electrical power from nuclear power
wait hold on right there Dale n
before you say something do you have ever learned nuclear power before because if you don’t know what is then don’t say it and to wind and solar it made be good for cars but what about planes how about we use hydrogen for planes sports cars, rockets and helicopters
it good
Good
yes published on the 28th march 2008 in in europe dosent make no sense im 6 years old and even i no that its not right u silly boys:)
So is it a good thing or a bad thing?
so good or bad?