Why nuclear power still matters

From smartplaneta somewhat controversial point of view on nuclear power – how do you feel about it and have you asked yourself why you feel like that – read these views and then see if you can find facts to support your views as well as this article  By Andrew Nusca |
sets out

Despite the political fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan, we shouldn’t give up on nuclear energy, William Tucker says.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Tucker — environment and energy reporter and author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey — urges Americans to scale back the knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power as dangerous, expensive and unfit for use as an alternative energy source to fossil fuels.

The reason? Because “there are no better alternatives available” — fossil fuels are, by comparison, exceedingly unsustainable.

He writes:

Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely transformed into energy. But the energy produced by that transformation will be enough to power a city the size of San Francisco for five years.

A coal plant must be fed by a 100-car freight train arriving every 30 hours. A nuclear reactor is refueled by a fleet of six trucks arriving once every two years. There are 283 coal mines in West Virginia and 449 in Kentucky. There are only 45 uranium mines in the entire world. Russia is offering to supply uranium to most of the developing world with the output from one mine. That is why the environmental impact of nuclear is infinitely smaller.

It’s not just fossil fuels, either. Tucker outlines the case against other alternatives that have made headlines recently:

  • Natural gas. “Fracking has been able to proceed so rapidly only because it has been exempted from federal regulations governing air and water pollution.”
  • Hydro power. “A hydroelectric dam must back up a 250-square-mile reservoir in order to generate the same electricity produced by a reactor on one square mile.”
  • Wind energy. “Replacing just one of the two 1,000-megawatt reactors at Indian Point in Westchester County, N.Y., would require lining the Hudson River from New York to Albany with 45-story windmills one-quarter mile apart.”
  • Solar energy. “It would take 20 square miles of highly polished mirrors or photovoltaic cells to equal the output of one nuclear reactor.”

Tucker says that America needs to bite the bullet and innovate in nuclear technology, instead of raising its collective nose up at it. At stake: national energy security, and the possibility that Russia or China will surpass the U.S. in the export of useful energy technology.

What do you think?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s