Nuclear energy has been receiving a lot of attention as a possible solution to the use of fossil fuels for generating mainstream electricity. But how does it really fare as a long term contender for base load energy production?
There's no doubt that fossil fuels have lots of problems associated with their long term large scale use. One problem is that of Peak Oil production, where we may have already passed maximum capacity production, yet demand is still rising. More serious than this is the very real possibility of significant and virtually irreversible climate change brought about at least in part by our continuous addition of Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels.
How does Nuclear energy compare to fossil fuels for long term production of mainstream energy? There are concerns about Nuclear power, some real and some imagined. If we think "nuclear disaster" most people will be able to recall the names of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl where reactor malfunctions caused lots of suffering. The reality though is that problems such as these, while potent, are extremely rare particularly when compared to the amount of electricity produced by those same reactors. The number of casualties in the coal and oil production sectors is far greater per year for the same amount of electricity production.
Storage of Nuclear waste is also largely an issue of the past with technology now available to store Nuclear waste in solid form, reducing virtually to zero the possibility of leakage, ground water contamination and so forth.
Use of fuel enrichment to produce weapons grade nuclear materials such as Plutonium-239 is an unfortunate but essential part of the economical use of nuclear fuel. It is worth remembering that no aggressive nuclear strike has been carried out since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War Two, and that many millions of casualties have occurred in conventional warfare since that same time.
But perhaps the most significant issue is that Nuclear energy is itself based on a non-renewable resource of Uranium. This fact alone should be enough reason for us not to place too much stock in it as a long term energy source. Given that worldwide energy use is increasing continuously and will do so far into the future, it is easy to see that Nuclear energy will one day face its own peak of production.
It does not make sense to replace fossil fuels with an energy source that is doomed to face exactly the same problem. Those who champion Nuclear power say it is the solution to our current energy and pollution crisis, but those people are not looking far enough into the future.
We need to be considering future generations when we make decisions regarding energy security. Do we want to hand our children a world swimming in fossil fuel pollution and nuclear waste, or a world that has a clean, secure power supply that has very limited environmental impacts? For solar and wind energy are proven technologies that can be implemented today to make that a reality.
Governments need to cease making excuses about why renewable energy can't be used and start implementing massive scale clean energy power stations to replace all other sources for base load electricity production.
There's no doubt that fossil fuels have lots of problems associated with their long term large scale use. One problem is that of Peak Oil production, where we may have already passed maximum capacity production, yet demand is still rising. More serious than this is the very real possibility of significant and virtually irreversible climate change brought about at least in part by our continuous addition of Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels.
How does Nuclear energy compare to fossil fuels for long term production of mainstream energy? There are concerns about Nuclear power, some real and some imagined. If we think "nuclear disaster" most people will be able to recall the names of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl where reactor malfunctions caused lots of suffering. The reality though is that problems such as these, while potent, are extremely rare particularly when compared to the amount of electricity produced by those same reactors. The number of casualties in the coal and oil production sectors is far greater per year for the same amount of electricity production.
Storage of Nuclear waste is also largely an issue of the past with technology now available to store Nuclear waste in solid form, reducing virtually to zero the possibility of leakage, ground water contamination and so forth.
Use of fuel enrichment to produce weapons grade nuclear materials such as Plutonium-239 is an unfortunate but essential part of the economical use of nuclear fuel. It is worth remembering that no aggressive nuclear strike has been carried out since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War Two, and that many millions of casualties have occurred in conventional warfare since that same time.
But perhaps the most significant issue is that Nuclear energy is itself based on a non-renewable resource of Uranium. This fact alone should be enough reason for us not to place too much stock in it as a long term energy source. Given that worldwide energy use is increasing continuously and will do so far into the future, it is easy to see that Nuclear energy will one day face its own peak of production.
It does not make sense to replace fossil fuels with an energy source that is doomed to face exactly the same problem. Those who champion Nuclear power say it is the solution to our current energy and pollution crisis, but those people are not looking far enough into the future.
We need to be considering future generations when we make decisions regarding energy security. Do we want to hand our children a world swimming in fossil fuel pollution and nuclear waste, or a world that has a clean, secure power supply that has very limited environmental impacts? For solar and wind energy are proven technologies that can be implemented today to make that a reality.
Governments need to cease making excuses about why renewable energy can't be used and start implementing massive scale clean energy power stations to replace all other sources for base load electricity production.
About the Author:
Get more information about Nuclear energy, coal and oil by visiting the Fossil Fuels section of Roger Vanderlely's website. You will also find information on possible energy developments such as the Bakken Oil Field.
No comments:
Post a Comment