Is there an alternative to going nuclear,that is financially viable?

Question

Is there an alternative to going nuclear,that is financially viable?

Answer 1

research why the chinese have purchased the worlds neodymium mines,,,,

Answer 2

Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Oxygen.....to name a few.

Answer 3

Short term (10-50 years), no.

In the long run solar, wind, and other "natural" technologies can do it, but we'll need nuclear to smooth the transition away from fossil fuels.

Answer 4

I am glad you are looking for an alternative to nuclear because there are many worries about nuclear that suggest it is a very bad option.  Even the financial viability of nuclear is in doubt because the cost of disposing of the waste (including worn out reactors) is still a huge unknown.  Nobody has yet solved the technical problems of disposal which is why the UK Government has spent billions storing nuclear waste in above ground containers that have to be under constant guard and which present a target for terrorists and the risk of accidental leaks.

The UK Government has just announced that it intends to encourage energy companies to invest in new nuclear reactors and it is seeking parliamentary approval for a Bill that will enable it to over-ride local objections.  It says that the costs of nuclear power will be met be the energy companies but admits that, if necessary, the Government will have to intervene if public safety is at risk.  I do not think it is cynical of me to believe that it is likely that the taxpayer (via the Government) will eventually be lumbered with the cost of disposing of future waste just as we have with the cost of waste already created.  And these costs have meant that the nuclear power which we had thought would be cheap has proved more expensive than any other.

Now to turn to the alternatives.  It is my belief we have two problems to overcome.  One is global warming and the other is the depletion of non renewable resources.

Clearly the burning of fossil fuels is a cause of global warming and nuclear power is cleaner in this respect.  However, it is not entirely clean because a great deal of fossil fuel is burnt in mining the uranium, transporting it, building the reactors (which have a short life) and dealing with the waste.  Energy from wind, wave, tide, solar, and hydro sources are the best alternatives from this point of view.  I have not included energy crops (bio-energy) because of the fact that they employ land needed for food production or cause land presently under trees to be cleared with disastrous global warming and biodiversity implications.  I would, however, accept that bio-energy from wastes may have a role to play.

The resource depletion issue is, I believe, just as important as global warming and in fact unless we act on both problems the social and economic impact of global warming is likely to hit us at around the same time as fossil fuels become hugely more expensive because of scarcity.  Here it important to recognise that nuclear energy is based upon a non-renewable fossil fuel (uranium) just as much as the carbon fossil fuels.  Again wind, wind, wave, tide, solar, and hydro sources of energy provide alternatives.

Of course there is one alternative to fossil fuels that I have not mentioned yet and that is to use less energy.  We should not be looking for ways to carry on with business as usual because our lifestyles are simply unsustainable in every sense.  As well as developing less damaging sources of energy we need to develop less damaging lifestyles that involve more walking and cycling, more insulation, less flying and less stuff generally.  The good news is that those who adopt such lifestyles enjoy better health, less stress and more fun than those who are beating themselves up to keep up with the neighbours.

Now to deal with economic viability.  I have already dealt with the high cost of nuclear power (which has always been born by taxpayers, particularly in dealing with waste).  We are about to be bombarded with assurances from the UK Government that the waste problem is solved but they told us that before and were proved wrong.  The only way I would believe them now is if they were to show me a parcel of waste that had been kept safe, cheaply until the radioactivity had decayed to a minimal level (which would take hundreds of years).  Until then estimates of the cost of achieving safe disposal are just guesswork and are likely to be influenced by the desire to prove the policy that they have already chosen right.

Until recently the economics of sustainable energy generation have looked unfavourable compared with the carbon fuels.  But that is rapidly changing as the cheap sources of carbon fuels run out.  Already the oil prospectors have had to turn from land based oil wells to deep sea and from there to arctic and now they are looking at oils sands that are extremely expensive and environmentally damaging to exploit.  Similarly coal and gas is becoming more expensive.  As these fuels overtake the cost of sustainable sources then we will turn to the new sources with urgency.  The social and economic upheaval of the switch to more expensive but sustainable sources of energy will be very severe unless we do more than presently to anticipate the need and develop those resources and simplified lifestyles now.

I hope you will find this answer helpful.  I have outlined what is needed (simpler lifestyles and sustainable sources of energy) and I have shown why nuclear does not fit the requirements.  The good news is that a growing number of people are recognising the need for change and governments will recognise it too when they realise that there are votes to be had in sustainable policies rather than sticking plaster solutions to permit business as usual for a few more years.

Best wishes

Answer 5

It's all about location, location, location...

Every area has a different energy source that would work best for the needs of the people there.  The nice thing about nuclear is that you are not dependant on a geographical or atmospherical properties.  But there is still a need for water cooling which would require a decent sized water supply.  On average nuclear energy will cost about the same no matter where you put a plant.  So it will be the best financial option in some areas and it might not be is others.  Solar is good the closer to the equator you get,  wind is good along coastlines and other constantly windy places,  hydro power is good along rivers.  But the problem with electrical energy is that it cannot be shipped very far.  There are places in this country that produce far more energy than the population around them can use but they are too far away from others to transmit it for use.

One option that is good no matter where you go is GEO-THERMAL.  We can use the heat from the earth to save us TONS of energy.  The earth maintains a nearly constant temperature once you go far enough down and we can use that to heat and cool our homes, businesses, and our water.  And those 3 things are some of the LARGEST uses of energy we have.  This is does not generate electricity but it uses a heat pump to transfer energy in the form of heat either to or from the earth, and since saving energy is actually better than generating more energy it is a better option.

To produce electricity from a geo-thermal plant you need to have volcanic activity close enough to the surface to produce enough heat to turn water to steam to power turbines. This is what many people think of when you mention geo-thermal energy which is probably why it is not mentioned as an option very often.

Answer 6

The most finacially viable option is to avoid the need for so much energy in the first place - and it costs nothing.

Putting monitors on appliances and equipment that tell people/businesses what they are using (and what it is costing) at any time has been shown to easily reduce consumption by >10% see http://www.green-shopping.co.uk/reviews/...

Better products, eg a sky digi-box wastes 20W when on stand-by, could save much more & as people become aware then they will demand these.

Also, supprisingly, converting to electric cars will help the power utilisation and the increase in renewable generators by providing storage around the grid to smooth supply http://www.acpropulsion.com/technology/v...

(ie a car that has a range of 200miles, but only does 20 miles a day has a lot of spare capacity)

Answer 7

The weather changes give doubts on wind power, although quite a lot of blow comes from 10 Downing Street.

Tidal power seems reasonable if only someone would try it.

Coal will pollute the atmosphere and will run out  at some stage. It's cheaper to buy coal from Australia than to mine it in the UK for our own use.

The French aren't stupid, they are 90% nuclear and going strong, although they have the determination to deal with "the world is flat" idiots, and the coal miners friends.

Answer 8

How about we allocate all the funds that will go to building a nuclear power station to building a solar panel factory, mass produce the panels, refine the technology like we have with the mobile phone for instance and then order approx 20 million of them - one for each house in the UK - all for less than it would cost to build a nuclear power station. Nice.

Or the beloved Government could even buy a bulk load of Solar panels, e.g. 20 million of them and sell them to us at cost price - the more you buy the cheaper the price.

They work when it is cloudy by the way, and if we conduct concerted technological research efforts, we can make them more and more efficient so easily. Plants can convert solar energy into chemical energy through photosynthesis, can we not replicate that reaction by synthesising chlorophyll and using it in some sort of bio-solar panel?

Or, why not use hemp as a fuel source - it has many many uses and grows so easily, even in the UK - it grow as easily as stinger nettles. - watch hemp revolution...google video...

Answer 9

Yea, there are tons of alternatives such as solar. You'll hear a lot of hoopla that says it can't be done, or it will take a long time. That's just a lie to keep you tied to the pump, meter, or whatever they have to determine what your going to be charged. I can't wait to see what a drink of water will cost when your car runs on the stuff, but anyhow it's all lies so big OIL and it's BIG energy friends like coal and gas can live out their last days. GOD forbid we use alternative energy now and put an end to their tyranny especially "free" energy. I would laugh till I crapped my pants to watch them figure out what to do with all their precious unwanted oil.

Answer 10

"Green" sources of energy such as wind and solar are still a very expensive joke at present.

Nuclear and coal seem the most sensible for the forseeable future.

Answer 11

Improved efficiency management seems to be an option we conveniently omit. The way we use power these days is so wasteful, so mindless, so inefficient, and the places we use it in are the wrong ones.

I run my house at 12% of the average, national household electricity bill, simply by doing things a bit differently.

Imagine if an entire country did that. Not only could they forget about nuclear, they could close down most of the existing powerplants.

I guarantee you, just doing things differently and closing down old plants is the most financially viable option there is.