i mean doesn’t it make more sense to use alternative energy?
Who am I ?
Hi, I’m Erik Astrand and the man behind this site.
My story? I am about to be 50 and all my life I have been interested in technical things. Not sure if the special interest for the wind, and how to use the wind, started when I as a 5 year old boy and got my first sail dinghy.
Anyway, wind power and to build my own wind generator was a dream for several years. I studied many websites and also bought many courses before I finally built my own windmill. This site is about that journey and you will also find some more general articles about wind power.
Enjoy! and check out the about me page to read more.
Nuclear Fission Pros and Cons
PROS
1. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.
2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else’s problem.
3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth’s crust (about the same as tin)
4. Economical – operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.
5. Reliable – Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors, Much higher than solar or wind
6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.
7. Creates high paying, long term, skilled jobs.
8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.
9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.
10. Fantastic safety record.
11, Does not require back-up and storage facilities like solar and wind.
12. More economical than solar per Mw produced.
13. Much smaller footprint, takes up less land than Solar or wind.
14. May be located almost anywhere on earth, most efficient near a cooling water source.
CONS
1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.
2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.
3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.
4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available. (we should build one)
4. High cost of personnel.(high paying jobs in my community)
5. Security concerns, proliferation and terrorism. (minimal risk, easier to refine ore)
Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100′s of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a new Nuclear power plant or high level waste storage facility in my community. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and I’m completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
I have confidence that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will be smart enough to treat the nuclear "waste" as a valuable resource or at least smart enough to handle it safely. If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now?
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed, 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.
solar and wind would be nice.
but they don’t tend to be very concentrated.
for example, nuclear aircraft carriers can run, at relatively high speed, for 15-20-25 years without being refueled.
that’s an amazing amount of power from a pretty small source.
you no doubt know of nuclear accidents.
but do you know that France gets 80% of it’s electricity from nuclear power.
and has for quite a while.
i’m not opposed to solar and wind.
but it’s good to not reject something primarily because of emotional reasons.
Welcome to Germany.
According to the decision by the govt. of Germany and in agreement with the companies running nuclear rectors the time nuclear reactors are allowed to run has been limited and we are shutting them down over the next 20 years. On the other side the production and use of alternative energies will be supported by investments and tax cuts.
Germany has crated with this the largest alternative energy segment of all countries in the world, created 500,000 jobs (mainly research and engeneering), off shore wind power parks and others and companies are just looking into a concept to establish solar power farms in north Afrika and a grid to supply Europe from there.
And we the same living standard as the US ……..
It is all a question of political will.
But this has something to do with the fact that after the nuclear power plant in Tschernobyl blew up our children were not allowed to play outside for several days because of the nuclear fall out which drifted to Europe and rained down on us.
Regarding some comments:
Nuclear power was not available until > 1945, the first 200 years of the industrial revolution we were succesfull without nuclear power.
There is a bunch of alternative energies available and in development:
- Solar Power
- Solar thermic power
- wind power
- tidal power (using tidal waves)
- geo thermal power (using the temperature of lower levels of the earth)
- water power (dams, rivers)
- algae biofuels (in development)
- waste (burning of household waste = electricity + heat)
- wast from agriculture (fermentation, methane)
- fusion- ……
- energy demand reduction: more efficient cars, heating system, better heat isolation of buildings, intelligent designs (a iPod needs far less energy then a Radio/CD/Tape player, LCD TV needs far less energy then an old TV) reduction of packaging (even Walmart got it and uses it in advertising), glass bottel instead of plastic
- the new building of the Times in NY is a close zero energy house, the US army build a solar farm to power air force station in Nevada, Great Britain will build a wind farm with 3000 turbines in the North Sea by 2020, in Lybia a solar power plant is build in combination with gas turbines, they test to store energy in a salt/water cavern which can be used during he night to generate power
- storage: the EU plans a electricity grid between the countries to pump water up into existing water dams during the day with surplus power and produce energy for the night (if necessary)
- GM and other producers work on electric powered cars, Brazil uses high amounts of ethanol produced by sugar cane for cars (and Chevrolet offers the cars !)
- In NY you can already choose if you want to buy energy from renewable resources or others (ConEdison), the price is appr. 20 % higher (the gasoline prices fluctuated between $ 2 and $ 4.30 during the last 2 years), NY will replace its cab fleet with hybrids and thinks already to replace them with electric cars by 2020
And just imagine the 20 bn $ which now be used to clean the oil spill would have been use to build alternative energy productions, invested in energy efficiency, in the development of concepts, the training of people to run them ,……….
There is not one golden solution, but a lot of different solutions and combination.
If you want to follow the development I suggest you look on this website now and then:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/energy_efficiency/index.html
No wind = no power
No sun = no power
Both take huge amounts of space to make a little bit of power.
everyone who has an idea of this area knows that solar and wind power is better for the environment. the problem is, it’s too unefficient. both provide so little power.
Solar and wind with the current technology are not efficient producers of electricity, they do not do as well as water for example, they are costly to install, have high maintenance costs, and are unpredictable.
Nuclear power is predictable, safe, and very efficient, technology is improving all of those items, and the raw materials are available in abundance in this country. The burning of "fossil fuel" (or abiotic fuel, depending upon which group you agree with) to produce electricity should be abandoned, we need about 400 high megawatt nuclear generating plants in this country within the next 5 years. That would limit our oil imports to practically Zero, and same the natural resources for generations to come.
If we converted all of our nuclear plants to wind and solar then the majority of the country would be without power. Solar and wind create incredibly low amounts of power when compared to a nuclear power plant.
i agree
we need to raise scientists and mathemeticians…….
Erik – like you, I am also 50 years old and a guy who has been sailing for much of his life. I love using the wind for power as a hobby, but have spent way too much time becalmed to have any illusions about its value as a reliable power source. Perhaps one difference between us is that a significant portion of my sailing experience has been on ocean voyages where we were trying to go someplace 24 hours per day.
I have also had the experience of spending a few months at a time (11 different times) sealed up underwater with a nuclear reactor providing all of the propulsion, atmosphere control, air conditioning, energy for fresh water, and power for lights, computers, entertainment, refrigeration and cooking. That reactor was loaded with a quantity of fuel roughly equal to the weight of an NFL linebacker.
It lasted for 15 years while keeping a 9,000 ton submarine operating for about 65-70% of the time – there were two full crews assigned because the boat had more endurance that the humans assigned to it did.
For Robert K – sure, there are plenty of choices for energy and power. As you noted, we did not even know that sustained chain reactions were possible until 1942 and did not build a commercial nuclear plant until 1956. However, we have learned a great deal about fission over the past 50 years. The world’s 435 reactors are currently producing the energy equivalent of all of the oil produced in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Nigeria combined. There are at least 50 new reactors under construction right now and the Chinese plan to build 70 by 2020.
Why bother using inferior choices when fission has proven that it can reliably provide emission-free power for a very affordable price?
That German agreement to shut down the 17 reactors before the end of their life that you alluded to is under serious reconsideration. The budgeteers have figured out that they can slap a 2.3 billion euro per year tax on the generators and the plant owners will still make a enough profit so that they come out ahead in the deal compared to shutting down the plants.
Here in the US, we expect that our reactors will last for 60 or more years. Figuring that most of the fully amortized reactors in Germany are less than 30 years old, there is an opportunity for a significant tax collection lasting for a lot of years. That is possible because the reactors simply run no matter what the weather is doing and whether or not the sun is shining.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights Blog
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast