Hi guys,
Apparently Nuclear or not is a title of a book. That was going to be the title of this post, but I googled it and its a book. Nothing is original anymore.
Anyway, I would like to talk about whether or nuclear power actually has a place in the market today. I believe yes. There are many reasons for this which I will delve into in just a minute.
There are many ways of making energy. We have coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind and wind power plants. Im sure I am leaving out some other smaller ones, but for the purpose of this blog, those are pretty irrelevant.
Everyone in todays culture, natural gas and coal are shunned and said to be terrible for the environment. While they may not be great for the environment, every single one of the possibilities for making power has negative affects.
Coal produces carbon dioxide, ammonia, sulfure dioxide, and many other gases. The coal industry does remove a lot of the harmful chemicals that are produced through: dry sorbent injection, low-NOx burners, dry/wet scrubbers, and many other techniques. These processes help the coal plants meet the EPA standards. You can read up on these if you wish at this website: http://www.americaspower.org/clean-coal-technologies-1663/
Natural gas plants burn more efficiently and cleaner than their counterpart coal plants. The main argument I have seen from this is that drilling for natural gas is bad for the environment. On this standard, everything humans have ever made is bad for the environment. The flue gas from these plants are also treated in a similiar manner to the coal plants. These plants can be ramped up or down depending upon the load placed on the grid. These plants are very compact
Nuclear plants run on uranium that is also mined. It produces a bit of waste that can be contained on site for many years. No accidents in the US has irradiated the public to the point of harm. The nuclear plants have a difficult time ramping up or down and are generally used as base loads for the grid, reserving the natural gas plants to ramp up a peak times during the year.
Solar plants are massive. They take up a ton of real estate to produce even a fraction of the power compared to any of the three plants listed above. There are also many hazardous materials used in the making of silicone solar panels. Silicon tetrachloride, sulfur hexaflouride, and sulfur dioxide are just some of the nasty chemicals produced. Scrubbers just like in the coal plants have to be used to clean some of the processes used to make the panels. They are also only reliable during the day, when it is not cloudy. You can read more about it here. http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html
Wind turbines are similar to solar panels. They take up a lot of real estate in order to compete with the other three types of power plants. They also pose an environmental concern in the form of killing a lot of birds. They are also not completely reliable due to the wind not being on all the time. Other than that, they would be great!
With all this in mind, coal will eventually be phased out because of environmental extremists. Natural gas will most likely succumb to the same fate, but many years later. This leaves wind, solar, and nuclear. Out of these three, two are not reliable during all times of the day. So for the near future, I would say that nuclear is the best bet for energy. In the distant future when solar panels are much more efficient and there are ways to store the energy, it would be a great addition to the fleet. At that point, there will still be a need for base load power.
Take it for what you will. Please do some research of your own and come back with responses!!
I look forward to hearing from all of you
The Nuke Cow
I tend to agree with the fact that nuclear is the future, only if the economics work in its favor. At the moment, it takes billions of dollars to get a nuclear power plant up and running, and over 10 years to even start producing energy. The state in which the nuclear industry isn't very glamorous to investors which may be interested in nuclear energy. Our government needs to get their heads out their ass and realize that they're not helping the nuclear industry. The government puts nuclear in a category of its own, therefore it cannot reap the benefits of lower emissions (like coal or natural gas) or be referred to as a renewable such as wind, solar, and hydropower. The state we are in is frustrating and the government needs to recognize this. If they do, then nuclear will take first place in the future years, if not it may become a decaying energy source.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. If nuclear cant reach the point of sustainability, it will not be able to be the future of the power industry. And your also correct in saying that the problem stems from politics. We shall see how this election will affect the power industry.
ReplyDeleteNukestudentlife: "Haha decaying energy source". Good one. There also is a massive investment in cost for these renewable anyway: the sheer amount of land to hold these renewable platforms, the time and steel/concrete to build each turbine or panel, transporting these massive machines to the land they will be installed on. These renewables are not very materials efficient and require a lot of materials, land, time, and money to even get started. Which state will be willing to set aside massive amounts of land to hold the renewables? The land also must be in a suitable area strong base winds or focused sunlight to even be worth installing so its not just any land.
ReplyDeleteWhats even more interesting in the amount of land the National government owns. If the renewable energy politicians want to push it so much, why dont they let the land they have confiscated through imminent domain be used for these alternative energies?
DeleteThe other important thing to note is how thoroughly subsidized the renewable energy market is. 2013 federal tax subsidies gave Renewable energy: $7.3 billion in subsidies, Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion, Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion, and Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion. Fossil fuels were more subsidized than clean nuclear energy even though national think tanks have agreed nuclear is the only way to break dependance on coal!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-12-EnergyTechnologies.pdf
This is a personal view, but this tells me that renewable energy is not about "saving the planet". Its a money game. The politicians can use these to put people that they dont like out of business while at the same time lining their pockets.
Delete