Related Sections: Green Tech Shift
SHIFT: Nuclear power is better than no power
Imagine life without electricity. The lights go out. Your fridge turns into a petri dish. The Internet becomes an abstraction, a memory. And of course, no TV — ah, maybe there is a bright side! But apart from that, having no electricity would suck.
As viable options dwindle, we'll need to get more of our power from nuclear plants. The last year a new one went online was 1997. However, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing license applications for more. Don't flinch. That's a good thing. Follow the link to find out why.
Forget the whole genre of biofuels. They're a mirage, due to something called ERoEI: energy return on energy invested. It takes too much fuel to make these fuels. Ethanol is only the most notorious example of a bad bunch. Sure, it comes from corn, but corn production is impossible without massive inputs of chemical fertilizer made largely from natural gas — you know, one of those fossil fuels we're running out of. With other alternative fuels, such as oil shale and tar sands, the story varies but the ending is the same. These technological shell games are unlikely to run the power plants (or vehicles) of the future.
Despite the promise of renewables like solar, wind, and hydro power — which by the 22nd century will be all we've got left — their current forms can't sustain more than a fraction of our current energy usage. Yes, let's pursue them aggressively, but let's also keep the lights on in the meantime.
Burning coal releases huge quantities of radioactive substances, uranium and thorium, according to the folks at the Oak Ridge Natural Laboratory. People living near coal-fired power plants receive 100 times more radiation than federal regulations would permit from a nuclear plant — along with tons of mercury, particulates, carcinogens, and global-warming gases.
Nuclear power has a uniquely negative way of firing the imagination, grabbing hold of our darkest fears. This blinds us to the real and provable deadliness of coal, oil and gasoline. Air pollution from fossil fuels kills two to three million people per year according to the World Health Organization. Nukes would give our lungs a break for sure. If you still think coal is a good idea, save me another thousand words of typing and just Google the words "climate change."
What frightens us about nukes is, of course, radiation. But radiation is all around us, says the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: We get it from outer space, the surface of the Sun, and the Earth's crust. We ingest it via air, water, and foods. Some radiation occurs naturally in the human body.
The only nuclear accident to release truly deadly amounts of radiation was the Chernobyl explosion. Incredibly, the Soviets built this Ukrainian plant (and several others) without a containment shell. All reactors operating in Western nations operate within four feet of steel and concrete, which means that if something goes wrong, there's a Plan B to prevent high levels of radiation from escaping into the air and ground water. Leakage even under extraordinary conditions (like the recent earthquake in northern Japan) has not been massively life-threatening.
Can't nuclear power plants explode? Only if, like Chernobyl, they process weapons-grade fuel. The nuclear fuel used in a civilian power plant is not enriched enough to produce uncontrolled fission — that is, an explosion. Western plants are designed to withstand earthquakes (though building one atop a fault line is undoubtedly a bad idea). A direct hit from an aircraft would damage the containment shell but would not penetrate it.
Nuclear power can't run cars or trucks or planes, and that's troubling, since two-thirds of our energy usage is for transportation. But it can run electrified trains to carry both people and freight. When rising energy prices make our current modes of transport economically obsolete, we're going to need a passenger rail system for long domestic journeys and light rail to bridge shorter distances within communities. We'll also want to keep our home lives heated, air conditioned and well lit.
Would I take the same position if I lived near a nuclear plant? Actually, I do. My neighborhood is 42 miles south of Indian Point in New York. I own a radiation detector and potassium iodide tablets for emergencies (the chemical invades the thyroid and temporarily protects it from radiation-induced cancer). But like millions of other people, I'm willing to live with the risk. That's because I'm a grownup, and therefore capable of assessing different levels of risk and choosing the least of all possible evils.
By ademion at 1:54 AM ON 09/28/07
Maybe you would think differently if:
- you lived in a country next to tchernobyl
- you thought about the additionally produced radiated waste (not the spent fuel but pipes, cans, bins, clothes, and a long long list of other stuff)
- you read how lax the power companies are regarding security (wrong building materials, e.g.)
- you realized that the nuclear plants are the cash cows for the power companies now, but our children and their children and their children will have to pay
I don't think you can switch off all nuclear power plants in the near future, but I do think that many alternative energy sources, combined with locally produced power (block-type thermal power station) could do the trick.
But that, as your apparent faible for nuclear power, is my personal opinion ... Mr. Radioactive Man ;-)
Cheers,
N.G.
By Isotek at 2:05 AM ON 09/28/07
Great points. This is what I have believed all along. Wind power and Solar are great but they cannot yet surpass the boost that Nuclear power would give to this country. France has shown how strong and profitable Nuclear Power can be, they make so much they can export it to other countries close by. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be more Nuclear abundant here in America.
By atomicrod at 4:09 AM ON 09/28/07
Great article. Here are some additional thoughts to consider:
1. Though France produces a larger percentage of its electricity using nuclear power, the US is the world's largest producer of nuclear generated electrical power by a margin of almost 2:1. We have 104 plants that produced about 790 Terawatt-hours of electricity last year, the French have 58 plants that produced about 430 Terawatt-hours last year. We also have another 100 or so nuclear power plants in the Navy's Nuclear Reactor program including ships, submarines and land based training facilities.
2. Nuclear power can be used to power floating transportation - it has been used at sea for more than 50 years. In many places, sea going traffic is a major consumer of fossil fuels and a major source of many noxious pollutants like Sulfur Dioxide (precursor to acid rain.)
3. Nuclear power plants are clean enough to run inside sealed submarines and safe enough to be surrounded by patriotic young Americans onboard aircraft carriers and submarines.
4. There is a better solution to used fuel than storing it under a mountain in a remote area - keep it right where it is until we have built the facilities that will allow it to be recycled. The material that we remove from our current generation of plants still contains 95-97% of the initial potential energy.
5. There are ways to make nuclear power plants that are small enough for individual businesses or even neighborhoods. (search term - Adams Engines)
6. The fossil fuel industry does not want you to think about any of the above. Every time a nuclear power plant comes on line, it removes a market for fossil fuel. That both reduces fossil fuel sales volume and the pricing power that the fossil fuel pushers currently wield over the rest of us.
Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
By mediumsteve at 6:26 AM ON 09/28/07
Thank You, Al Boline. It's good to see that idiocy and greed are still alive and well. Why do you hate all your descendants so much as to risk their lives for your air conditioner? I hate all yours for being related to you, and they probably should be taken out of the gene pool, anyway.
SciFi.com, shame on you.
By jessequentin at 11:19 AM ON 09/28/07
I admit I'm not very knowledgable about these things, but I've been wondering about something...
Solar panels take radiant light energy and convert it to electricity, right? Is there something similar or can something similar be developed that would take whatever radiates off of radioactive materials and convert that to electricity?
Then nuclear waste could actually become a resource...
By murcielago05 at 8:32 PM ON 09/28/07
good thread. (oh, and memium steve, your a treehugging lunatic).
I have no problem with nuclear power plants...but I cant reallay talk ln the matter, since my state doesn't have any nuclear plants in it (SD).
atomic rod seems pretty well informed....since it sounds like he's "in the biz".
the author kinda made it sounds like were almost out of natural resources.....were not, ans if people would stop complaining about oil, we could drill for some more in Alaska....but the people who prevent that...ans the same people who want us to stop buying foreign oil. *rolls eyes*
---we have no energy crises going on anywhere---
we have at least 30 more years of oil left, and over 200 years of coil. Nuclear isn't going awaya, wind and solar have being increasing in their efficiency, and they are getting much more wide spread.
who knows, its likely that in 50 years we will have some nuclear fussion plants online....that would be great.
By atomicrod at 8:44 PM ON 09/28/07
murcielago05:
Yes, I have some first hand knowledge of both nuclear power technologies and the nuclear industry.
I agree that there is still oil, coal and gas left, but that does not change my view of fission as a far superior energy source. The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of rocks, but because we learned to use materials that had superior qualities.
Uranium has 2 million times as much energy per unit mass as oil. The impact of that is huge - a guy with a 40 pound pack of uranium controls as much energy as a guy with a supertanker full of oil.
Even at today's elevated uranium prices (more than 9 times higher than they were just five years ago) $90 worth of uranium has the same potential energy as crude oil that sells for about $500,000 on the open market.
Of course, both materials need to be refined before they can be used, and right now it costs a bit more to process the uranium, but even fully processed commercial fuel costs about 1/10th as much as bulk oil for a power plant and about 1/30th as much as refined diesel fuel.
In power plants it replaces coal, gas, or bulk fuel oil to create steam to turn turbines, on board ships it replaces a far more refined fuel used to spin gas turbines or diesel engines.
From my point of view, the very best thing about atomic power is the tiny volume of waste that can be completely isolated from the environment. It is impossible to even keep track of the deadly waste created by burning fossil fuels - thousands to millions die every year from its effects.
There is no need to dream of fusion; fission exists, it works and it is even quite economical.
Rod Adams
By Isotek at 6:50 PM ON 09/29/07
To Rod Adams,
Thank you for adding your insights into this matter. I understand why some are hesitant to support nuclear power, but I firmly believe the key to conquering the problems of a technology is to study them through practical use not just theoretical use. Once we start utilizing and enhancing the tech we will be better with it. These materials (radioactives)is going to exist in our enviroment whether we use it or not, so puting it to good use to help our fuel needs is only logical in my opinon and I have faith that we can also do it safely.
By jessequentin at 12:18 PM ON 10/02/07
Well, I did a couple of web searches to see if they did have anything developed for generating electricity from nuclear waste...
I don't know the site policy for posting links so I won't... But I did find something about bacteria that produces electricity from radioactive waste... Though the waste I guess is lower level radioactive stuff from mining?
And I also found something about radioactive batteries that covert radioactive decay to electricity. Apparently, they've been around since 1913, but they're only 0.1%-5% efficient. And one type of radioactive battery is the betavoltaic battery... It's like a photovoltaic, except it takes the beta particles emitted by a radioactive source and converts that to electricity.
I think it'd be great if we could start using radioactive wastes as energy sources. Maybe there'd be less people saying "not in my backyard" for nuclear waste storage if it means you get a cheap energy generating source as part of it...
By eddiemyboy at 10:21 AM ON 10/07/07
Let's get serious here folks! Nuclear power and all that is associated with it is dangerous,dangerous.We don't have a safe way to disguard it and it is a potential source for terrorist to use as a weapon.It doesn't have to explode to do irrepairable harm.We are not just talking polluted water here.And yes I could be called a tree hungger as one post liked to use the word,but I at least think and see the ramifications of not showing any concern for the future.Some of you seem to trust science to take care of ALL of our mistakes and that we will be kept safe and we don't have to do anything but take,take,take.WRONG!!! That would be like trusting a politician to do the right thing for his constituents.Hahahahhhahahahahaha that was a good one,lol.
The site in arizona has been found to have a fault line running under it and they are trying to REPAIR!! it.It is supposedly a minor fault line,but are you prepared to take that chance? Not me!Who do you trust that it is a minor fault that can be repaired?Some political appointee who lives and dies by his/her bosses whim!I don't think so.They,politicians and big business, have put way too much money into this project to just scrap it and find a better place.So they will push it through and we will suffer and they will say,sorry,my bad.
If we get lazy and stupid and just want our electricity at whatever costs.Then we deserve what we get and so do our children.I for one am not prepared to make that mistake.If we just say ok to nuclear energy,then we take money and focus away from expanding research for renewables which have a much brighter future for us than nuclear energy.
It would seem that some of you have forgotten Three Mile Island and what a disaster was narrowly averted there.When you lay waste to some area of our country that weakens us in the areas of food production and living space,amoung many other areas.Oil and nuclear energy are NOT the future of this or any other country.As for france hmfff.What do they know or care.Who listens to france about anything and why should they?
Let us use some intelligence here folks and use our brains and not just be greedy non-thinking consumerist.
One thing that we should also be thinking about is to reach zero population growth for the world.Then we would not have such a serous problem with food,energy,and living space.Along with species extinction of other animals and ourselves included,and pollution.Bet that strikes a nerve.Oh well.
By lovecow2 at 4:32 PM ON 10/08/07
Check the title. "Nuclear power is better than no power" at all. Right now - today - nuclear is the cheapest, cleanest, and safest alternative to other mega-electricity-producers like coal. IMO, it should be developed (along with other alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar, etc.) until something newer, cheaper, cleaner, and safer can be developed.
I would suggest balancing the idealistic with the pragmatic. With all due respect, all strongly opinionated environmentalists are going to have to start playing nicer with their "enemies"...especially if they want to keep their computers running so they can post diatribes to blog sites like this one. ;-)
By VoiceofReason at 12:22 AM ON 03/01/08
Hard facts: The worlds energy requirements are growing and global natural resources are being used at ever increasing rates.
Tree Huggers: It is unrealistic and naive to believe that everyone is going to turn to non-polluting, supersafe energy sources for their energy needs. Most of these sources are only good for about 10% of our current energy needs. And since the energy production of these sources are raher anemic, there is little incentive for big business to invest alot of money in their development.
Science nuts: Unlike France our government does not specify or endorse any particular Nuclear Power Plant design or manufacturer. Designs change radically from one plant to the next and subsequently quality control over the construction and maintenance of them is difficult.
Nuclear power plants need to standardized across the U.S. and operation of them needs to carefully monitored with safety, not profit, as the highest prioity.
Tree huggers: 1 volcano spews more radio-active debris (and Carbon Monoxide) in one 6 hour eruption into the atmosphere than the U.S. has ever produced in it's full collective history.
Simple choices:
1)Nuclear power = abundant cheap clean, and relatively safe electricity.
2)Hydrocarbon fuels = cheap, dirty, and finite electricity.
3)Windmills & solar cells = expensive and scarce electricity. (No more A/C or internet)
Even now or country has waited too long to start building additional power plants or even Nuclear Power plants... rolling blackouts are inevetable. It is unlikely that we will be able to play catch-up and avoid the blackouts.
My advice, go out and buy yourself a 2500W generator and a window unit for your bedroom.
Good luck to us all.
By Ghost at 9:22 PM ON 09/12/08
Maybe you would think differently if:
- you lived in a house next to a poorly run coal plant
- you thought about the additionally produced petroleum waste (not the spent fuel but pipes, cans, bins, clothes, and a long long list of other stuff)
- you read how lax the power companies are regarding security (wrong building materials, e.g.)
- you realized that the petroleum plants are the cash cows for the power companies now, but our children and their children and their children will have to pay
- if you knew that the famous fogs of London were originally the by product of the smog of the industrial revolution.
Honestly, its strange to me. There are 100s of nuclear power plants in the world today, and 1 or 2 go totally wrong in the absolutely worse maintained ones and people want to ban all of them. Yes, its a tragedy. But so are jet crashes. 100s die horribly in jet planes. I guess we should get rid of planes. Did you know thousands die each year in automobile accidents? Lets ban cars. More people die in their own homes than anywhere else. Lets ban homes.
The problem with nuclear is the waste. Controlled waste disposal is the key and low level radiation control such as produced by bins, clothing, etc. actually reduce in radioactivity fades in a few hundred years. Heavy irradiated items like the control rods are the problem. They are a current problem and can be a future problem. But unlike petrol and coal based generators, the pollution is contained. If you had all the pollution from those power plants contained so as to not spread into the air, water, or earth, what would you do with it? At least with this toxic waste we know where its at.
By About time at 8:41 PM ON 11/13/08
send the waste to Australia.
not the poulated 2%, but that massive area 1000km from the nearest person, dig a whole 5km down, and pay them for it
The plans exist, the money well, the money used to exist.
and live near nuclear waste? hell do you know how many things give offf radiation. any way how many people are dying every year from coal mining and the air pollution.
And enough of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), no one wants anything near them, but we need to think about the best interest of every one.
By Dustdevil-2169 at 11:33 AM ON 11/14/08
With all things things aside, it is time for the nation to become LESS reliant on fossil fuels. I'd have to agree with nuclear power, I ALSO realize that there are issue to deal with. To say simply that 'due to the radiation hazard we won’t do it' is the same as saying ' I'm not stepping outside my front door unless I am wearing Kevlar helmet, Bomb suit, UV-ray blocking sunglasses, wearing highly reflective clothing, current on all imunizations, attended some type of national safety sidewalk convention’ , and the ridiculous list goes on , and on... The US Navy has been using (here the nasty word) NUCLEAR REACTOR'S for more than 20years. Yes there have been set back, but more gains than setbacks. The practical use and research and application of this technology in MY opinion is the best course of action. As to the terrorist thereat, be more frightened of the department/supermarket’s and those being the target of terrorist targeting. How hard would it be to contaminate open produce with a salmonella water spray gun, harming hundreds vs attacking a nuclear reactor. The issue of waste, well I’m not the one with all the answers BUT I can guarantee you this. The waste is really no problem. Storing it, or disposing of it. Let’s not make a mountain out of mole hills. We can all live frightend out of our wit’s or boldy step forward and take control of the future and deal with issues as they came along. Having children is much the same way… Did you wait till some on etold you EVERYTHING about having and raising children, before having children? What of the legacy that we leave for our children if we screw it up? Well at least they will know that we were trying to DO something about the energy problem.. It’s possible to reason that once we embrace NP (Nuclear Power) that a few years down the line we will discover a better fuel type/source/method of generating power… But that wont happen if we all sit around anb bikker about ‘issues’..
Vr Dustdevil-2169
By Freedem at 8:22 PM ON 11/21/08
I will not bother with the safety arguments which are huge enough, or the alternatives that will supply all needs, cheaper and sooner. But instead address the elephant in the room, it is about POWER.
Not the electricity but the political and economic control that a scary infinitely long huge project, that will need a politician that can bleed the populace while they control it for the rest of the time humanity exists, because there is no alternative once they come online.
By contrast every home could generate their own electricity off their roof with an electric company paying each of them for the excess. But this is the opposite of centralized power, and the central authority would be hard put to demand tribute beyond reason.
If safety and costs are not enough of an incentive I would hope that uncontrolled political/economic power, and the toxic mess that the Economy has become would be reason enough even if the many others did not exist.
By marilee at 2:28 PM ON 04/25/09
You are an idiot. After more than three decades of nuclear waste piling up around our country, there is STILL no viable, safe way to dispose of this toxic waste. Our current storage methods are a joke, and an invitation to disaster. UNTIL technology finds a realistic way to dispose of radioactive waste, it is simply foolhardy to ADD to the growing problem! I know the physics, and I am not fooled by rhetoric to the contrary.
There are safer and less costly ways to supply energy. And no sir, nuclear power is NOT better than no power! Your article is short sighted and frankly, stupid.
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
marilee:
You are an idiot. After more than three decades of nuclear waste piling up around our country, there is STILL no v...More »