Nuclear energy to the environmental rescue?
Given the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see summary here ) and the recent meeting of one of its working groups in Thailand there is increasing focus on what should be the actual fixes to try and slow and then reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases in order to stabilize climate change.
People disagree on what should figure into the solution, which, in and of itself, is not bad, as reasonable people can disagree. But usually most people say that nuclear power must be included in the mix. While one might expect opposition from environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, which has come out with a recent report on The Economics of Nuclear Power there are others who are also skeptical.
A case in point is the enormously status quo elite establishment group, The Council on Foreign Relations. A report it commissioned, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks found that:
nuclear energy, despite its attributes, is unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in strengthening energy security or in countering the harmful effects of climate change. In particular, the rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up construction costs and create shortages in building materials, trained personnel, and safety controls.
Related posts:
Regarding energy – and nuclear power – it’s unfortunate that the public has little understanding of how electricity is really made and what the pros and cons of each source are. This applies to boosters and detractors alike, be they politicians or pundits. I believe our society will make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present. And as a nuclear plant worker, I can tell you just about everything you see and read on the topic has little to do with the day-to-day goings on at an atomic plant or the real issues that effect safety. (I did find the CFR’s comments on the potential lack of trained personnel and safety controls with a nuclear expansion to be a very pertinent point, however. While it would be an issue in the US, it would be of particular concern in less developed countries or those building their first reactors.)
I would invite anyone wishing to get some solid background on real world of nuclear energy to read my novel “Rad Decision”, which is provided at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and is also now in paperback. It provides an excellent overview of the people, politics and technology of nuclear energy in the US. Comments at the website homepage have been quite favorable. Rad Decision has also been endorsed by Stewart Brand, the noted futurist and founder of “The Whole Earth Catalog” who has recently called for a second look at nuclear.
Comment on May 7, 2007 @ 10:31 am
nuclear is not solution. future is clean coal. no nuclear .nuke must die.
Comment on May 7, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
SOLAR, NOT NUCLEAR
There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
‘Concentrating solar power’ (CSP), employs the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient ‘HVDC’ transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US “could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity”.
In the ‘TRANS-CSP’ report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
Further information about CSP may be found at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk and http://www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
Comment on May 7, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Solar is no substitute for nuclear energy!
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state’s electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What’s more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are often “hybridized” with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx
Michael Stuart
Comment on May 17, 2007 @ 6:15 am