Is nuclear power the only answer to energy crises?

Question

Now, I know the greens among you will say it is dangerous, bnut there has not been any accidents since Chernobyl. The manager of Sizewell says, 'We have a site which only needs a man and a dog to run it. The man feeds the dog, and the dog bites the man if he wants to touch any of the controls.' There is the issue of waste, but, what else is .............. for? Fill in the gap with any country or region for which you have an antipathy!!

Answer 1

Economically nuclear power is the long term cheapest source of electrical energy there is if you assume away the cost of externalities everywhere but the United States.  In the US coal power is actually slightly cheaper.

If you make the assumption that carbon emission causes global warming then you have to ask if its better to create nuclear waste that will be around for thousands of years or to continue with the carbon emissions.

Renewable energy sources do not cost more energy or money to manufacture than the energy they produce.  The payoff times for small solar are down to 2 years in many parts of the world now.  Wind power easily pays for itself.  The problem with these sources is reliability and energy storage.  Hydro is a great option, unfortunately all the big hydro areas have already been developed.

Solar doesn't work at night, or in clouds, or in rain or.... you get the point.  Wind power doesn't work when the wind is too slow, or too fast...  They can feasibly provide up to 15% of load without the reliability problems overwhelming the grid.  Right now 5% is more likely.

The good thing about solar power is that it puts out the most right when demand is the highest.  When the sun is super bright everyone turns on the air conditioner and that's when the solar has the most output.

The only way to negate the effects of unreliability in solar and wind is to create a world wide grid.  The sun always shines somewhere and the wind always blows somewhere.  Unfortunately this means a lot of capital doing nothing.  Alternately better research into electrical storage could help.

I hope that another technology comes along (Fusion maybe) that can replace all our dirty technologies, but until that happens we are stuck with the choice between nuke and carbon emitting power solutions.

Answer 2

It is either nuclear or use less electricity.  In North America most of the rivers than have been dammed are dammed and that is not exactly green.

Answer 3

I'm not quite sure what the fill in the blank part is for but...

Sure nuclear power is dependant and can provide a large source of power but so can the other variations of alternative renewable energy.

If any country uses any or all of it's sources of renewable energy they can replace the need for nuclear power.  But also takes cooperation with larger countries in cases where smaller unwealthy countries do not have the resources to power themselves.

Answer 4

It is the cleanest source of energy we posess that can work as a base load power source. ( available when it is needed most at a constant output )

Answer 5

using less energy would be the obvious answer

but of course thats impossible in a capitalist world where economic growth is a 'necessity'

it makes me puke that UK plc is trying to get individuals to use less energy just so that theres more for them and their corporate buddies

i'll start taking them seriously when they stop opening airport terminals

kyoto is a joke - theyre just trying to look like theyre tackling the problem of CO2 emissions

i wonder how much CO2 they produce when they all fly and meet up for their holidays oops i mean conferences in lovely sunny places like bali...

Answer 6

As of now, Yes. Nuclear Power is the only alternative that has the ability to provide the Massive amount of RELIABLE 24/7 power needed to offset fossil fuels. Solar, Wind, etc. can help in locations where it is practical, but these sources are not very useful in most areas, and their cost is much higher.

Our energy engineers and scientists realized this fact in the 70's and 80's after spending billions testing wind, solar, etc., but our wonderful "Environmentalists" killed our Nuclear program so now we are in the fix we are in. Isn't it ironic that the owe our level of CO2 emissions in large part to our "Environmentalists". Even now in the US, we could be driving nice small cars getting 60MPG like in Europe and around the world, but our "Environmentalists" have put such requirements on our cars that we are forced to produce more CO2. Here again, our well informed, far thinking "Environmentalists" are the primary cause we do not have cars available to us that out perform even Hybrids in terms of CO2 emissions.

Will the masses ever realize that "Environmentalists" are just un-informed, poorly educated political activists just pushing their personal agenda based on nothing but "Feelings", and not scientific and economic facts.

Answer 7

its one answer among many, not the best, but one we will be getting, as it provides technicians, kit and a smokescreen for the government's nuclear weapons program.

you are quite wrong about renewables;

a typical wind turbine sited in a sensible place (i.e. where it will be working at least 25% of the time, achievable in most of Britain) pays for the energy of its production in less than 2 years.

solar photovoltaic might take 10 or even 20 years to pay back cost as they are still expensive, but only takes a couple of years, if that, to pay back the energy cost of production.

Answer 8

No there are other energy sources that are growing by the day and becoming cheaper and more efficient, hydro power, solar power, wind farms

Answer 9

Well here in Austria most of our power comes from Hydro- Electric stations, that does not have to many effects on the environment, Austria said no to Nuclear many years ago when one plant was built. but the near countries in the Eastern block all have old nuclear power stations, we all wait on the next melt down here. we also have 20-30% of power from wind and solar.

But this machine I am using is a contributer to global warming. we all have to think of using the computer less, as well as the car. and stop taking holidays in countries that you have to fly to. until we have an electric plane that powers itself from solar power. every one of us is a contributer, we should stop blaiming others.

Even in Austria we have a major problem with environmental issues , The govenment has put mandates to stop polution all our heating units are tested our cars and trucks are being cleaned up, our busses burn gas not diesel and still the air is getting worse since this is a main link through Europe, and some trucks from other countries and cars are burning heating fuel and low quality fuels.

Bio-diesel was a short term answer to mineral oils, the crop was supposed to be grown on land not used for food. But people got greedy and found they got more money for the crops when sold for fuel. I used it in my van, the first was good quality fuel, then the last few times it was poor and fumed more. I think diesel has a short future as a fuel for large machines and commercial vehicles. it can be produced from waste products, even old cooking oil and bio-waste. but there should be better filters on the exhaust. and cleaner burners by heating the fuel up before burning. As nations we should be asking for better rail transport run by clean generated power. and cut down on road transport by internal combustion engines. We need to look to cut down on car ownership, one car to a family not 3 and 4. and think practical, not sports 4X4's when they are not needed and big engined  cars just to drive around the city's because they look good. I think here in Austria and Germany we are one of the worst for that and the new states are following us. with BMW and Merc. Porsche 4X4's and VW big engined 4+ litre just to take the kids to school and mum shopping!!!. OK if you live in the country in winter and the roads are not cleared, so much each one of us can do. even turning some thing off during the day even the computer when not in use. none of us can be called green. since we all pollute. even stop smoking would save so much since the burning cig. is just as bad as a bad running car. and the power it takes to make one packet and the drying processes of the leaves to make them. gives off so much CO2. We all need to stop and think what can I do to help. since there will be no future for your children, no food, little fuel, just the rich will be able to afford, at the price of the normal person who then will be the poor.

Answer 10

Nuclear is a good short term stopgap to allow us to cut CO2 emissions to zero while we work on renewable technologies.  Solar power is advancing, albeit slowly, but solar chimneys look promising.

The waste from nuclear reactors can be made into solid form which removes the leakage problem and reduces the problem to one of storage.

The figures for numbers of workers killed and injured in the Nuclear Power industry are minute to those in the coal based electricity industry, so safety in that regard is OK.  I would not want a melt down in my area though.

It's also worth noting that nuclear fuel is not unlimited, so using it to replace coal is simply putting off the problem of having to employ renewable energy in a serious way.

Roger.

Answer 11

nuclear is what's available now, in the needed capacity.

bio-diesel is unlikely to be viable in significant quantity.

solar cells are likely to be major.

small wind turbines are likely to be major.

Answer 12

No way.  There are many ideas and research gone into knowing better ways using renewable solar, wind, wave.... energy.  Look at Dunrae to see that honesty and nuclear energy managers do not mix well.  Forget the littel particles on the shoreline, there are a few concrete blocks with workers within (who did not have family to notice them gone) dotted around the ocean floor!

Answer 13

Plasma gasification plants that use waste products/garbage for fuel with little or no harmful residue and create energy along with solving the landfill/refuse problems. Just about any form of organic refuse can be burned in the process.

Thin-cell solar energy plants should cut the cost by 1/2 to 1/3 of current prices per watt produced.

Methane hydrates from the ocean floors could power the world for hundreds of years.

Many options yet to explore.