Conquistador
Vive la Revolution!
I recently had an actual debate on this topic (which I'm glad to say my team one; we were on the negative side) and it got me thinking a lot about nuclear power.
The issue is perhaps not so topical over in the USA as you already indulge in nuclear energy, but over on countries such as Australia where coal is still by far the biggest source of energy the topic is quite controversial.
So, is nuclear power the way?
I'll start by defining the topic, then presenting some facts for everyone on nuclear power. I'll try to remain as unbiased as possible and simply present the information as journalistic as possible, but many may be able to detect the position which I stand.
So, nuclear power. This pertains to energy which is created by splitting of an atom (I'll do detail later). This specifically means nuclear plants, where the energy is produced and the atoms split.
"The way" simply means should we be using nuclear as our main (if not sole) energy source throughout the world?
So, let's talk about nuclear power. So how exactly does it work?
Well, basically atoms are split (generally Uranium atoms) giving off intense heat/energy. This heat boils water which then turns into super-heated steam that drives steam turbines that are connected to generators to be turned into electricity.
So. Let's start with some facts about nuclear power.
Some usage statistics;
I regret to say the following has been copied from Wikipedia, but I've found sources to cite everything mentioned.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610
Pros
Emissionless: The production of nuclear energy does not release greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Nowadays with global warming being a serious threat, this is very important. We really do need to cut down our emissions to prevent climate change. Coal burning at the moment constitutes around 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions, seriously crippling the atmosphere and certainly not helping climate change.
"Nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us
Reliability: Nuclear plants are very reliable, seldom failing and with most in the US using around 90% of their energy-producing capacity. Also, unlike solar and wind, they do not rely on such intermittent third party inputs.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0902.html
I gotta say, they're the only real pros for nuclear power, with emission-free being the strongest. That said, the fact of no emissions as a big pro. Basically the only real reason we're even considering nuclear power. We're obviously in a lot of shit with the whole greenhouse gas/global warming thing and nuclear - from the emissions - perspective appears to be the answer.
Cons
Nuclear Waste: This is probably one of the biggest (if not the biggest) and most common arguments against nuclear energy. As most know, the production of nuclear energy produces a byproduct of nuclear waste. This highly radioactive waste is toxic and very dangerous. It takes up to an estimated 10,000 years to be considered "safe" and poses a massive environmental threat not to mention a huge danger to the public.
Uneconomical:
Capital Costs: A nuclear power plant costs between $3 and $5 billion just to construct, and can take up to 12 years to build.
Worldwide, 8,000 nuclear plants would be needed to replace coal plants to meet energy needs. These plants would cost the world approximately $24 trillion just to construct. And that isn’t counting storage costs, plans and centers for waste disposal et cetera.
Running Costs:And once up and running the running costs are no better than coal, with the cost per kilowatt-hour roughly matching coal.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ <- I couldn't remember the exact link but trust me that it's on there somewhere ^_^
Too Slow to Make an Effect: Most experts agree that major action must take place in the next 5 - 10 years to be able to lessen the predicted Global Warming effects. Yet, to build this many plants -- even if we had the resources -- would take decades. Calculations have shown that even if the world built the 8,000 plants mentioned above, world CO2 levels would still increase 65% over the next 30 years. Nuclear is certainly not the way.
Fossil Fuels Only One Contributor: Only 7% of world C02 comes from U.S. coal, oil, and gas plants; and worldwide, CO2 represents only half of the problem. Nuclear power plants, therefore do little to reduce world C02 levels, and only at a tremendous cost; nuclear power does nothing to reduce the other greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons, halons, etc. Nuclear power only serves to drain needed money and resources away from the solutions for the other, non-CO2 half of the problem. Please not that I've seen multiple sites give different percentages of how much of the worlds CO2 levels come from the US, and so 7% shouldn't be considered a definite number. I'm considering deleting this point.
Terrorism and Disasters: Obviously nuclear plants post a large terror risk. They provide terrorists with an ideal target with which to cause mass destruction. On that note, disasters, where ill is not intended, cause just the same amount of damage.
And the damage is enourmous. Think Chernobyl anyone? Three Mile Island? Mayak? And what about Hiroshima, the famous nuclear attack on a city. Killed 210,000 people. But it wasn't the bomb that got most of them, but the aftermath of radiation sickness. The thing is that nuclear attacks don’t just demolish a district that can be rebuilt. The radiation can render the land barren for decades after the attack. Nobody can be there, let alone live there..
No source for this, though I doubt I'd need one; only statistics mentioned here are Hiroshima fatalities.
And now... I've saved the biggest one for last....
DOES HAVE EMISSIONS!: You think I'm crazy, right? Well no. Let me explain.
You see, We only have about 30 years worth of high-grade uranium left in our reservoirs. After this time, we will have to enrich lower grade uranium to make it usable for nuclear fuel. Here’s the snag; enrichment releases carbon emissions, defeating the purpose of nuclear power. What’s more is that these emissions exceed that of coal burning! If you look at nuclear power from an environmental approach, it really is only a short term solution and will end up harming the environment more than coal in the long term.
Well, I don't have a source here, as Panda told me, but I'm sure he could provide something ^_^.
All other arguments that aren't specifically given a source come from here;
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm (has anyone noticed that all these energy sites contain lots of es and is? 0_o).
Okay. I've tried to be as unbiased as possible but I think it's pretty obvious that my position is rather anti-nuclear... xD.
So, go forth, and, debate!
The issue is perhaps not so topical over in the USA as you already indulge in nuclear energy, but over on countries such as Australia where coal is still by far the biggest source of energy the topic is quite controversial.
So, is nuclear power the way?
I'll start by defining the topic, then presenting some facts for everyone on nuclear power. I'll try to remain as unbiased as possible and simply present the information as journalistic as possible, but many may be able to detect the position which I stand.
So, nuclear power. This pertains to energy which is created by splitting of an atom (I'll do detail later). This specifically means nuclear plants, where the energy is produced and the atoms split.
"The way" simply means should we be using nuclear as our main (if not sole) energy source throughout the world?
So, let's talk about nuclear power. So how exactly does it work?
Well, basically atoms are split (generally Uranium atoms) giving off intense heat/energy. This heat boils water which then turns into super-heated steam that drives steam turbines that are connected to generators to be turned into electricity.
So. Let's start with some facts about nuclear power.
Some usage statistics;
I regret to say the following has been copied from Wikipedia, but I've found sources to cite everything mentioned.
As of 2004, nuclear power provided 6.5% of the world's energy and 15.7% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 57% of nuclear generated electricity. As of 2007, the IAEA reported there are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries.
The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 19% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors—78% as of 2006. In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity. Nuclear energy policy differs between European Union countries, and some, such as Austria and Ireland, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, France has a large number of these plants, with 16 multi-unit stations in current use.
Many military and some civilian (such as some icebreaker) ships use nuclear marine propulsion, a form of nuclear propulsion.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610
Pros
Emissionless: The production of nuclear energy does not release greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Nowadays with global warming being a serious threat, this is very important. We really do need to cut down our emissions to prevent climate change. Coal burning at the moment constitutes around 20% of the worlds CO2 emissions, seriously crippling the atmosphere and certainly not helping climate change.
"Nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us
Reliability: Nuclear plants are very reliable, seldom failing and with most in the US using around 90% of their energy-producing capacity. Also, unlike solar and wind, they do not rely on such intermittent third party inputs.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0902.html
I gotta say, they're the only real pros for nuclear power, with emission-free being the strongest. That said, the fact of no emissions as a big pro. Basically the only real reason we're even considering nuclear power. We're obviously in a lot of shit with the whole greenhouse gas/global warming thing and nuclear - from the emissions - perspective appears to be the answer.
Cons
Nuclear Waste: This is probably one of the biggest (if not the biggest) and most common arguments against nuclear energy. As most know, the production of nuclear energy produces a byproduct of nuclear waste. This highly radioactive waste is toxic and very dangerous. It takes up to an estimated 10,000 years to be considered "safe" and poses a massive environmental threat not to mention a huge danger to the public.
Uneconomical:
Capital Costs: A nuclear power plant costs between $3 and $5 billion just to construct, and can take up to 12 years to build.
Worldwide, 8,000 nuclear plants would be needed to replace coal plants to meet energy needs. These plants would cost the world approximately $24 trillion just to construct. And that isn’t counting storage costs, plans and centers for waste disposal et cetera.
Running Costs:And once up and running the running costs are no better than coal, with the cost per kilowatt-hour roughly matching coal.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ <- I couldn't remember the exact link but trust me that it's on there somewhere ^_^
Too Slow to Make an Effect: Most experts agree that major action must take place in the next 5 - 10 years to be able to lessen the predicted Global Warming effects. Yet, to build this many plants -- even if we had the resources -- would take decades. Calculations have shown that even if the world built the 8,000 plants mentioned above, world CO2 levels would still increase 65% over the next 30 years. Nuclear is certainly not the way.
Fossil Fuels Only One Contributor: Only 7% of world C02 comes from U.S. coal, oil, and gas plants; and worldwide, CO2 represents only half of the problem. Nuclear power plants, therefore do little to reduce world C02 levels, and only at a tremendous cost; nuclear power does nothing to reduce the other greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons, halons, etc. Nuclear power only serves to drain needed money and resources away from the solutions for the other, non-CO2 half of the problem. Please not that I've seen multiple sites give different percentages of how much of the worlds CO2 levels come from the US, and so 7% shouldn't be considered a definite number. I'm considering deleting this point.
Terrorism and Disasters: Obviously nuclear plants post a large terror risk. They provide terrorists with an ideal target with which to cause mass destruction. On that note, disasters, where ill is not intended, cause just the same amount of damage.
And the damage is enourmous. Think Chernobyl anyone? Three Mile Island? Mayak? And what about Hiroshima, the famous nuclear attack on a city. Killed 210,000 people. But it wasn't the bomb that got most of them, but the aftermath of radiation sickness. The thing is that nuclear attacks don’t just demolish a district that can be rebuilt. The radiation can render the land barren for decades after the attack. Nobody can be there, let alone live there..
No source for this, though I doubt I'd need one; only statistics mentioned here are Hiroshima fatalities.
And now... I've saved the biggest one for last....
DOES HAVE EMISSIONS!: You think I'm crazy, right? Well no. Let me explain.
You see, We only have about 30 years worth of high-grade uranium left in our reservoirs. After this time, we will have to enrich lower grade uranium to make it usable for nuclear fuel. Here’s the snag; enrichment releases carbon emissions, defeating the purpose of nuclear power. What’s more is that these emissions exceed that of coal burning! If you look at nuclear power from an environmental approach, it really is only a short term solution and will end up harming the environment more than coal in the long term.
Well, I don't have a source here, as Panda told me, but I'm sure he could provide something ^_^.
All other arguments that aren't specifically given a source come from here;
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm (has anyone noticed that all these energy sites contain lots of es and is? 0_o).
Okay. I've tried to be as unbiased as possible but I think it's pretty obvious that my position is rather anti-nuclear... xD.
So, go forth, and, debate!
Last edited: