|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sat, 2nd May 2020 17:05:00 |
|
Does Nuclear Power Have A Future? |
The discussion today about nuclear energy is nothing short of tribal, two warring camps shouting slogans at each other. This so-called debate reminds us of a popular beer commercial from years ago where two men couldn't decide what their preferred characteristic of Millers Light was, whether it "tastes great!" or was instead "less filling". Applying this beer ad approach to the construction of new nuclear power stations would involve two opposing teams. The pro-nuke squad, attempting to take the environmental high ground (a bold move), would shout out "zero-carbon". In a previous iteration no longer appropriate, the rallying cry was - compelling from an economic perspective - "too cheap to meter".
The anti-nuclear forces have broken into two opposing squads. The European team, very effective in shutting down nuclear capacity, going with the ever-popular "No more Chernobyls," while cheeky, cost-conscious Americans (present company included) have been shouting "too expensive to matter".
Like cowards in a bar fight, our views on this are distinctly conciliatory. We believe both sides make solid points. If we wanted 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts of zero-carbon, baseload electricity located in suitably remote locales, then nuclear energy still is one answer. A large nuclear power station performs similarly to one powered by coal or natural gas but with zero CO2 or other smokestack emissions. (We are ignoring the anti-nuclear CO2 life cycle arguments here which emphasize the high CO2 profile of uranium mining). At present, our electricity is produced in large factories far removed from load centers and connected to end users by a transmission network. In this sense, conventional nuclear power stations would slot nicely into the present spoke and hub configuration of our power grids.
Read original full article
|
| |
|
|
Back to Featured Articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy News
|
|
| |
| |
