|
|
|
|
| Mon, 24th Apr 2023 4:01:00 |
|
Opinion: Nuclear power is a vital part of fighting climate change |
Last week, Germany closed its last three nuclear power plants, becoming nuclear free for the first time in 62 years. While such decisions are rightfully the responsibility of the government and electorate in Germany, it seems to be a premature choice for a world facing a changing climate, driven by humanity’s ravenous consumption of carbon-based fossil fuels.
And Germany is not alone. Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, many countries began phasing out nuclear power plants, citing issues of nuclear safety and long-term storage of nuclear waste. While these are valid concerns, let’s take a high-level look at energy and the potential role of nuclear power generation.
In any conversation about power, we must admit a few things. First is that our technological society requires power to thrive and the need for power is constantly growing. A second consideration is that power generated by burning fossil fuels is indelibly harming our environment. Carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels are heating the planet, with substantial ecological and geopolitical consequences. Taken together, these two facts suggest that humanity needs to find increasing sources of energy which emit a minimum amount of carbon.
In 1980, the annual worldwide energy production amounted to about 88,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) and it grew to 176,000 TWh in 2021, doubling in four decades. During those 40 years, the sources of energy have changed only modestly. Fossil fuels supplied 80% of the world’s energy in 1980. In 2021, it was 77%. Nuclear power grew from 2% to 4%. The remainder was generated using traditional biomass and renewable energy, like solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower.
The story is not the same worldwide. For example, in Germany a substantial investment in renewables is showing significant returns. When one compares the 1990 annual German power generation to 2022, one sees a modest increase in energy usage: 550 TWh (1990) vs. 570 TWh (2022). However, the sources of energy have changed dramatically. If one compares the 1990 to 2022 percentages, one finds fossil (64% vs. 46%), nuclear (29% vs. 6%) and renewables (6% vs. 44%). The balance is from other sources.
Thus, we see that Germany is making significant strides towards a green future. The country is to be congratulated for taking the danger of climate change seriously.
However, we see that even as proactive a country as Germany still gets nearly half of their energy from fossil fuels, with nearly half of that carbon-based energy from burning lignite, a particularly inefficient form of fuel. While all fossil fuels release carbon dioxide when burned, when lignite is burned, it releases more carbon dioxide to get the same amount of energy than other fossil fuels do. And even if they hit their goal of 80% of their energy generated by renewables by 2030, that still leaves 20% using fossil fuels. Would not generating that power from carbon-free nuclear power plants be preferable?
Opponents of nuclear energy cite safety concerns and cost. By some measures, nuclear power is more expensive than other sources. However, cost comparisons can be tricky. Costs include more than the fuel and staff needed to generate energy. It includes costs to build the power plants and, in the case of carbon-based fuels, it should include the hidden cost of damages from increasingly violent storms caused by a heating planet.
In the US, the regulatory process involved in building a nuclear power plant is slow and obstructive. An American plant can take a decade or more to build, while a similar plant in Japan can take five years from starting construction to attaching the plant on the grid. The difference is mostly because of the much longer regulatory review in the US. This is made worse by the fact that American plants often differ from one another. Streamlining the process and adopting a common reactor design can shave construction costs. And, of course, nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide and even the carbon emissions necessary to mine the fuel are relatively modest.
Solar and wind power are excellent prospects for the future, and we should vigorously pursue them. However, the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. These green technologies require energy storage for a rainy day – literally. Nuclear power plants can run day and night, on breezy days and calm ones.
Nuclear power generation is not a panacea. It does come with risks. We need to solve the problem of storing nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada was a good option, but public outcry shut down the project. Experts agree that the best choice for storing nuclear waste is in an underground facility that is “geologically stable,” which means one not prone to earthquakes or change of any kind. The most radioactive waste decays quickly, although some decay more slowly. The threat is substantially reduced in 100 years, and even more so in 1,000. The Yucca Mountain repository was designed to last even longer.
America needs such a facility, and the government and nuclear industry should resume search for a suitable location to store the admittedly hazardous waste that is a byproduct of nuclear power generation. In addition, modern nuclear power plant designs generate less waste than earlier designs and further improvements should be pursued.
The one thing we know about humanity is that it will continue to grow, with an associated need for energy. Nuclear power generation should be an important component of humanity’s energy future.
Read original full article
|
| |
|
|
Back to Featured Articles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
