Nuclear energy and fossil fuel?

Question

i am having a debate about changing our main power source to nuclear energy by the year 2025.

can anyone tell me the how much waste are produced by the different types of fossil fuel?

can anyone tell me how to support the fact that nuclear energy produces less waste than fossil fuel?

if anyone could help me write 5 points with details and evidence and source that support nuclear energy? you could only do 1...

Answer 1

Why are you allowing the debate to revolve around others providing power for you/us?  Shouldn't it be up to individuals to determine their own power connectivity or lack there of?  In other words bring SOLAR into the mix because the vast majority of folks in the sun bealt states and others where it's at least light the majority of the time could be off the GRID (Coal & Nuclear) if they would only be willing to actually invest in THEMSELVES for independence.  It's unfortunate we're all so brainwashed that we believe the power companies are the only ones that can provide for our needs...Let me be among the first to say it's not the case.  PEACE!

Answer 2

You'll need to do the leg work to find the numbers yourself, because you'll want to cite reliable sources - not just "I read it on Yahoo!Answers."   But here are a few common points in favor of Nuclear energy.

a) Nuclear energy requires much much less mining that coal, so it saves the environment from being strip mined.

b) Nuclear energy does not emit CO2, unlike any source that requires the combustion of anything at all.  Even biomass.

c) Nuclear energy also does not emit mercury or sulfur, two other pollutants that are present in coal.

d) If you work in a well-run nuclear power plant, you'll get less radiation exposure then you will working in Grand Central Station (because granite emits low levels of radiation).

You'll need to dig up the last point by yourself.  And remember to confirm this information through reliable sources.  I hope this helps.

Answer 3

Nuclear doesn't produce greenhouse gases, true.   Nuclear has lots of other problems though and is heavily subsidized

http://www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/lib...

" Civilian nuclear power producers benefit greatly from shifting a substantial portion of their liability for radioactive releases from accidents or attacks away from owners and investors and onto the taxpayer and the surrounding population. "

"These costs, both through higher insurance premiums and higher cost of capital,

would properly be reflected in the price of nuclear electricity. This subsidy has never been quantified comprehensively, but affects not only reactors, but nuclear fuel cycle facilities and nuclear materials transport as well. In the United States, current surcharges on nuclear power too low to cover expected disposal costs. In addition, the US government foolishly absorbed all risk for an on-time opening of a repository for commercial nuclear waste -- despite longstanding technical and political challenges associated with making this happen. "

Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized), and could well be the determining factor driving the construction of new nuclear power plants.  $9 billion per year in the U.S."

"Tens of billions of dollars have been earmarked for the nuclear sector on the grounds that it is the only large scale, currently available, low carbon power source. Yet defining the objective as "energy services with a small carbon footprint" would likely generate scores of faster, cheaper, and lower risk carbon reduction options that in the aggregate greatly reduce or eliminate the need for nuclear. (Lovins, 2005)"

"We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for "energy independence," reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years."

"A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure."

Not good if you're worried about terrorists.

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

"Some people object to government subsidies for renewable energy projects. What they might not know is that new nuclear plants are being underwritten by tax dollars in amounts infinitely larger than any support being offered to clean, safe energy sources."

" The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund."    

That's just one state.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."      

"California has made a commitment to reducing its energy use by investing much more in energy efficiency than Wisconsin does, and its per capita energy use is about half of Wisconsin's as a result. It has made real commitments to stopping global warming without building more nuclear plants, and is keeping the lights on and industry humming along just fine. Wisconsin would be wise to follow its example."

http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/campaigns/...

"a reactor can easily cost $90 billion to build and the liability from accidents is limited by law?!"

from article in Seeking Alpha by

Jake Berzon

Scientific America Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

  Doing something along these lines would be much cheaper than developing more nuclear energy and much safer.  And we wouldn't have to import uranium.  Solar power plants are being built in California and  Arizona.  All three power companies in California are considering or have approved these.   Read about them at Green Wombat   http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

  "Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

" All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."



"The solar thermal industry is in its infancy but utilities like PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) have signed several contracts for solar power plants and negotiations for gigawatts more of solar electricity are ongoing."  

Green Wombat

Answer 4

That's right that nuclar enery is the pure power of the futur.

Unless we need to spend much money to build nucluar electrical generators but if we say that only one nucluar electricty generator can replace 10 or more big traditional one. And also, the matter needed is a very small quantity of Uranium (some grams) can replace thousands of kilograms, and ll generate the same electrical power.

That can be clear that Nucluar is the futur of power as we growth and we need more energy every day, and only nucluar provide us that.

Answer 5

To produce 1000MWe



2,600,000 metric tons (1000 kg)  of coal

2,000,000 metric tons of oil

30 metric tons of Uranium

Those are figures I always seen in my classes I am sure they are provided by an agency.

If you want some reliable sources, the check out The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Analysis and Management by Robert Cochran and Nicholas Tsoulfanidis.   There isn't much math in it except for chapter five which is about core neutronics.

I can't pull too many figures out of my head but in the US we have what is called a once through cycle.  We mine it, use it, and store it.  Nuclear fuel reprocessing isn't something new it has been studied for decades.  France has a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.  Some in the US tried to build fuel reprocessing plants but public opinion stopped their

construction.  Because one people are scared of anything nuclear... what do you think an X-Rays, MRIs, CT Scans, and PET scans are??? and two they think fuel reprocessing can make bombs.

Find information on the th ORIENT Advance Fuel Cycle and Generation IV reactors.  The technologies are possible it just a matter of further research and development to make sure they are as safe as we design them to be and that they can be licensed.   You just can't build a nuclear plant.  You can't ever use laboratory radiation sources without a NRC license.