For many scientists, the use of nuclear energy as the primary source of electric
ID: 1790552 • Letter: F
Question
For many scientists, the use of nuclear energy as the primary source of electrical power holds a strong appeal. The cost of producing electricity from a nuclear reactor is much more stable than when you use oil or natural gas. As anyone with experience driving can tell you, gas prices at the pump can change dramatically over short periods of time. This is because oil and gas are economically essential but limited resources, and therefore are very sensitive to small changes in supply and demand. Also, oil and gas deposits are often located in parts of the globe that are politically unstable or unsafe. Together these elements produce a very skittish, unreliable price. As a partial alternative, the United States does have huge domestic supplies of coal, but coal, like oil and gas, is also a fundamentally limited resource. One day, we will have mined the last piece of goal, fracked the last liter of gas, and drilled the last barrel of oil. Plus, all these energy sources are environmentally dangerous. They contribute substantially to CO2 emissions and climate change.
So, Is nuclear power inevitable? What other candidates as energy sources exist that might offer a better long term option than nuclear power, and why.
As you construct your point of view, you should think about the costs versus the benefits of nuclear power, both in terms of money and safety. Also try and think of other possible sources of energy that are inexhaustible in the way that nuclear energy is
Explanation / Answer
Nuclear Power is Inevitable
Recently, I woke up one morning with a profound confidence regarding nuclear power. I have no idea what triggered this, but I will accept the gift with appreciation and gratitude. Here are some things we have going for us:
We have the truth about nuclear power. We don’t have to tell lies about fossil fuels.
What I am not saying about the new nuclear age:
The incumbents are going to resist, I expect them to. But nuclear power is a million times denser, a million times cleaner, more abundant, etc.
Can you imagine the whale oil folks resisting the coming of petroleum 150 years ago? I’m sure they did resist, but petroleum was so much better than whale oil. Think of fossil fuel as the whale oil of tomorrow.
Other Candidates
Harnessing renewable energy such as wind and solar is an appropriate first consideration in sustainable development, because apart from constructing the plant, there is no depletion of mineral resources and no direct air or water pollution. In contrast to the situation even a few decades ago, we now have the technology to access wind on a significant scale for electricity, and with some subsidy on a minority of supply being from those sources, they are affordable. But harnessing these 'free' sources cannot be the only option. Renewable sources other than hydro – notably wind and solar – are diffuse, intermittent, and unreliable by nature of their occurrence. These aspects offer a technological challenge of some magnitude, given that electricity cannot be stored on any large scale. For instance, solar-sourced electricity requires collecting energy at a peak density of about 1 kilowatt (kW) per square meter when the sun is shining to satisfy a quite different kind of electricity demand – one which mostly requires a relatively continuous supply.
Wind is the fastest-growing source of electricity in many countries, and there is a lot of scope for further expansion. While the rapid expansion of wind turbines in many countries has been welcome, capacity is seldom more than 30% utilized over the course of a week or year, which testifies to the unreliability of the source and the fact that it does not and cannot match the pattern of demand. Wind is intermittent, and when it does not blow, back-up capacity such as hydro or gas is needed. When it does blow, and displaces power from other sources, it reduces the economic viability of those sources and hence increases prices.
The rapid expansion of wind farms and solar power capacity is helped considerably by generous government-mandated grants, subsidies and other arrangements ultimately paid for by consumers. Where the financial inducements to build wind and solar capacity result in a strong response however, the subsidies become unaffordable and are now being cut back in many countries. Also there is often a strong groundswell of opposition on aesthetic grounds from the countryside where wind turbines are located.
Renewable sources such as wind and solar are intrinsically unsuited to meeting the demand for continuous, reliable supply on a large scale – which comprises most demand in developed countries.
Apart from renewables, it is a question of what is most abundant and least polluting. Today, to a degree almost unimaginable even 30 years ago, there is known to be an abundance of many energy resources in the ground. Coal and uranium (not to mention thorium) are available and unlikely to be depleted this century.
The criteria for any acceptable energy supply will continue to be cost, safety, and security of supply, as well as environmental considerations. Addressing environmental effects usually has cost implications, as the current climate change debate makes clear. Supplying low-cost electricity with acceptable safety and low environmental impact will depend substantially on developing and deploying reasonably sophisticated technology. This includes both large-scale and small-scale nuclear energy plants, which can be harnessed directly to industrial processes such as hydrogen production or desalination, as well as their traditional role in generating electricity.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.