And how it could be a good thing
What would happen in a nuclear world? No, I don’t mean the aftermath of a nuclear war. With all of the buzz about North Korea and nuclear weapons, it’s easy to see why people now seem to only associate nuclear power with the amount of nuclear warheads that a country has. I’m actually talking about a world where nuclear energy replaces the use of fossil fuels.
There are many reasons behind why nuclear energy is the best choice for replacing fossils fuels, especially when compared to other possible candidates such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. In crowning nuclear energy the winner for the title of “Best Replacement for Fossil Fuels”, I considered four main factors.
- Pollution and the Environment
- Cost Effectiveness
- Safety
- Feasibility
Pollution and the Environment: Let’s be nice to the planet, we only have one
Carbon dioxide emissions caused by the use of fossil fuels to create energy is arguably the largest contributor to the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, does not release any greenhouse gases. Since the creation of functioning nuclear reactors in 1971, it is estimated that nuclear energy has helped to prevent the emission of 56 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide that would have been released into the atmosphere if fossil fuels were used instead (World Nuclear Association).
Although there are many other sources of energy that do not produce any carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy is the most viable. Other forms of energy, such as wind and solar energy, do not provide large enough outputs to be used as the new energy standards. However, hydroelectricity can produce large enough outputs to help power the world.
Hydroelectricity is an energy source that is often referred to as a one of the best sources of renewable energy, since relatively large amounts of energy can produced by it. However, the creation of these plants can ruin entire ecosystems (Markoff). Compared to hydroelectricity plants, the impact of nuclear reactors on the surrounding environment are nominal. Additionally, there is the issue of scaling up to meet the demands of growing energy consumption. Due to the massive size of hydroelectricity power plants, scaling up to meet increased demands would devastate many ecosystems.
Cost effectiveness: The best things in life are free (or at least cheap)
Now that we are trying to find a replacement for fossil fuels, we need to look at the cost of producing energy. When compared to wind energy, one nuclear power plant costs approximately the same as about 1000 wind turbines. However, one nuclear power plant produces the same amount of energy as about 1800 wind turbines, making nuclear energy nearly 45% cheaper than wind energy (Alexander).
In fact, one of the main reasons for the continued use of fossil fuels such as coal is because it is a cheap form of energy. The costs associated with creating energy from nuclear power is similar to that of fossil fuels, which begs the question of why we still use fossil fuels. France has apparently asked this question already, and couldn’t seem to come up with an answer. The country went ahead and reduced its reliance on fossil fuel by using nuclear energy. Now, around 75% of the country’s energy comes from nuclear power (World Nuclear Association). Go France!
Safety: But isn’t EVERYTHING related to the word “nuclear” bad?
The short answer is no. The long answer is it depends. As with all forms of energy, nuclear power doesn’t come without risks and consequences. Compared to fossil fuels, however, it is debatable as to which form of energy has more risk. Over the period of 1969-2000, the number of fatalities directly tied back to fossil fuels such as natural gases and coal added up to a little over 22,300 (National Geographic Society). This number represents only the known deaths too, as the decrease in air quality in some parts of the world have led to respiratory diseases such as lung cancer which are hard to account for.
Another possible safety issue that is raised would be the disposal of nuclear “waste”. Even from an environmental standpoint, however, the creation of nuclear waste is better than the CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels. The nuclear waste can be separated from the environment and contained, while CO2 emissions are not contained and go directly into the air that we breathe. To illustrate the large difference between CO2 emissions and nuclear waste;
- A 100 MW coal plant releases around 400 tonnes of carbon dioxide“ash” into the atmosphere per year (McInnes)
- A 100 MW nuclear power plant creates around 27 tonnes of waste, which can fit into a box with the volume of 3 cubic meters (McInnes)
Now, I know you’re thinking that this sounds too good to be true. To be honest, I didn’t really buy it when I first read about this either, but advances in technology have made this possible. The reason behind why such little waste is produced lies within the radioactivity of the objects. High level radioactive waste can now actually be used to produce more energy, leaving only very small amounts of waste that has relatively short lifespans (McInnes).
Feasibility: Less is more, but not when it comes to energy
When it comes to sources of energy, the world tends to look at quantity over quality. This outlook makes sense, since our main source of energy needs to be able to provide enough power for everyone. We see this in the use of coal. Although there is an abundance of coal relative to other sources of energy, the environmental impacts related to the use of coal make it “low” in quality. Following fossil fuels, uranium used as fuel for nuclear reactors is the next most abundant source of energy.
What do uranium and tin have in common? Both of these metals are comparable in abundance within the Earth’s crust. Uranium isn’t the only metal that can be used to create nuclear energy, though. When used with plutonium, thorium can also be an energy source. Plutonium can be artificially produced to meet the needs of nuclear energy production, and thorium is about three times more abundant than uranium (Nuclear Energy).
Summary:
Hopefully by now, you know that nuclear energy can be used for things other than as weapons of mass destruction and deterrents of war! In terms of being the best replacement for fossil fuel, nuclear energy clearly comes out on top. All of the other potential contenders such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal have shortcomings that make them unfit for the title. We’ve talked about the misconception surrounding the dangers that are often connected with nuclear energy, and how it contains many of the benefits that are associated with the other forms of energy. One of these benefits being less carbon emissions than fossil fuels. However, the areas in which nuclear energy really out shines the other forms of energy are in cost and consistency. Nuclear energy is cheaper than other sources of energy, and due to its abundance, can be a more consistent source of energy to power the world.
Works Cited
Alexander, Lamar. "Top 10 Reasons Nuclear Power Will Be the Key to Americaßs Energy
Future." Online Posting. The Hill . N.p. , 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 Jan. 2017
Kent, Heather. "Uranium Can Be Mined Sustainably." Uranium Mining, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010715211/OVIC?u=san00962&xid=c68af8ac. Accessed 18 Sept. 2017. Originally published as "Sustainable Uranium Mining: Grappling with the New Realities," Uranium Investing News, 24 May 2008.
Markoff, Steve. "Nuclear Power Issues." Nuclear Power ProCon.org | How practical Nuclear Power now and for the future. 12 July 2004. 18 Jan. 2017
McInnes, Colin. "Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming." Nuclear Power, edited by Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010843220/OVIC?u=san00962&xid=90a110ab. Accessed 17 Sept. 2017. Originally published as "Nuclear Energy—The Key to a Low-Carbon Future," http://biztech.caledonianmercury.com, 2 Feb. 2011.
"Nuclear Energy." Alternative Energy, edited by K. Lee Lerner, et al., 2nd ed., UXL, 2012. Global Issues in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/VUABGA456058853/GIC?u=san00962&xid=9e680cd1. Accessed 18 Sept. 2017.
Rabe, Barry G. "Not Here, Not There, Not Anywhere: Politics, Social Movements, and the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. London." The Review of Policy Research, vol. 30, no. 1, 2013, p. 136+. Global Issues in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A320266631/GIC?u=san00962&xid=aa94f523. Accessed 17 Sept. 2017.
“World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power” World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power | Energy Needs | Nuclear Energy Meeting Energy Needs. World Nuclear Association, 14 Nov. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment