US nuclear energy programs?
Given the availability of endless sustainable energy sources such as geo-thermal energy, solar energy and wind energy, should the USA expand existing nuclear energy programs despite their risk and high cost?
One of three final paper topics for my writing class. I chose a different topic, but I just wanted to see what people thought about this one.
When you base your question on a false premise "the availability of endless sustainable energy sources such as geo-thermal energy, solar energy and wind energy" it is difficult to answer.
Nuclear Pros and Cons
PROS
!. 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, 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.
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.
4. High cost of personnel.
5. Security concerns, proliferation and terrorism.
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 Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. 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 am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
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.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:49 am
yes, everyone should use it. I’m gunna get myself a reactor! the transition to geo-thermal, solar and wind will take some time, especially cause wind and solar arent very efficient for now. the only reason people are against it is because radiation is too scary. who wants another chernobyl? but they dont mind 2 million people dying from air pollution each year. and eating tuna with mercury thanks to coal plants spewing mercury.
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 10:07 am
When you base your question on a false premise "the availability of endless sustainable energy sources such as geo-thermal energy, solar energy and wind energy" it is difficult to answer.
Nuclear Pros and Cons
PROS
!. 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, 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.
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.
4. High cost of personnel.
5. Security concerns, proliferation and terrorism.
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 Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. 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 am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".
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.
References :
http://www.world-nuclear.org/why/cleanenergy.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter1.html
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/