We must begin to answer climate change. The answer is in nuclear.
James Lovelock, originator of the Gaian (earth systems) hypothesis, reiterated his support for nuclear power (NP) as part of the solution to the overwhelming threat that humanity is facing from global warming. Since then the nuclear industry has been lobbying hard to restart its failing program by presenting it as the answer to global warming. James Lovelock knows better than any of us that the solution to global warming will involve a shift in our perception of the world. Literally hundreds of new technologies will be rolled out, primarily in energy conservation, energy efficiency, and many modes of renewable energy technology. James recognizes that nuclear power is a risky business, but says that we must use it, because if we continue to use coal oil and gas, it is certain that global warming will cause immense damage to planet and people. (Lawson 2004)
Nuclear is the most promising among other alternative energy sources.
We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.” Lovelock explained that his decision to endorse nuclear power was motivated by his fear of the consequences of global warming and by reports of increasing fossil-fuel emissions that drive the warming. All of this has led several other prominent environmentalists to publicly favor new nuclear plants. Just to maintain nuclear’s 20 percent share of the energy supply, the United States would need to add three or four new nuclear power plants a year starting in 2015. (There are 104 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States.) But no new nuclear power plants have been built here in 30 years. America’s electricity demand is expected to increase by almost 50 percent by 2030, according to the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, renewable energy sources, such as the wind and sun, are highly unlikely to meet that need. Wind and solar installations today supply less than 1 percent of electricity in the United States, do so intermittently, and are decades away from providing more than a small boost to the electric grid. To meet the 2005 U.S. electricity demand of about 4 million megawatt-hours with around-the-clock wind would have required wind farms covering an area greater than the size of Texas. Solar power fares badly too. The amount of energy generated in [one quart] of the core of a nuclear reactor requires [2.5 acres] of solar cells. Geothermal power also is decades away from making a significant contribution to America’s electricity budget. (Discover)
Nuclear power produces less CO2 emissions than either solar or wind.
Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that nuclear power contains ‘hidden emissions’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from uranium mining and reactor construction. But so do wind turbines, built from huge amounts of concrete, steel and plastic. The OECD analyzed the total lifetime releases of GHG from energy technologies and concluded that, taking into account mining of building materials, construction and energy production, nuclear is still a ‘lower carbon’ option than wind, solar or hydroelectric generation. For example, during its whole life cycle, nuclear power releases three to six grams of carbon per kiloWatthour (GC kWh) of electricity produced, compared with three to 10 GC/kWh for wind turbines, 105 GC/kWh for natural gas and 228 GC/kWh for lignite. (Johnson)
|
