Many of you already know from previous posts that I am a proponent of expanding nuclear energy in America. Nuclear energy is a very efficient source of energy (98% efficient), it is also able to supply a constant supply of power that is needed for effective power distribution; this is unlike previous energies that I have posted about, such as wind and solar. In wind and solar energies, there aren't always wind currents or the sun isn't always shining to provide efficient energy. Nuclear power plants are able to provide this high capacity factor that is similar to coal power plants.
So now that I've explained the main benefits of nuclear power, what's so bad about it? It seems as if the main issues with increasing nuclear in the USA is the stigma behind the Chernobyl accident as well as the storage of nuclear "waste." Well according to this article, there is no such thing as nuclear waste. According to the article:
"Compared to other fuels used in the production of electricity, the energy density of uranium is remarkable, Klein said, noting that 95 percent of the energy value in a bundle of spent nuclear fuel rods remains available to be re-used."
It has been this false stigma with nuclear energy that has slowed nuclear development in the US to a standstill. By learning how to utilize spent nuclear fuel, we could be on the road to a more sustainable energy source.
Although there is some worry because plutonium is produced from the nuclear waste, it is a baseless claim because according to the article: "no country in the world has ever made a nuclear weapon out of low-grade plutonium from recycled high burn-up nuclear fuel," he said. "It just doesn't work for a strategic or a tactical nuclear weapon."
I advise that we get past this negative perception of nuclear energy so that we can utilize it and turn it into a renewable energy.
I would have to say the same...nuclear energy is perhaps one of the only sources that could potentially provide enough power besides coal. If the public was more aware of the re-use of fuel rods, there might actually be a chance in our lifetime that we switch to mainly nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteI think another problem is that there is not enough nuclear infustructure in place right now. We need to start building!!!!
Hey guys, I just have to pipe in here since this is what my blog is about. What you guys seem to be talking about is the reprocessing of nuclear fuels. This is the chemical refinement of spent nuclear fuels to remove the fission products and other harmful materials to the fission process that are created during the operation of the plant. You are right in saying that 95% of the power still remains in the fuel after it is spent, but currently reprocessing of nuclear materials is just not allowed in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThis though is not really a harmful thing to the growth of nuclear power right now. As you said, nuclear power plants do not create much waste...so little in fact that all the waste the plants create are stored on site! Let's see coal powered plats pull that off. The fuel can stay there until we need to reprocess the fuel, but right now Uranium is so cheap and we have so much of it that we aren't that worried about reprocessing it. I have posted several things about this and I suggest that if you are interested you check it out at http://nuclearoption.blogspot.com
I'm not sure waste is the only stumbling block for nuclear (you also mention safety). But I agree that the waste problem may be somewhat overblown, when put in comparison with coal waste, for example, which is an equally nasty problem, if not more so (coal ash, slurry ponds, CO2 from burning, mountaintop removal). And coal burning is way less regulated.
ReplyDeleteBut I think it's important not to simplify. As Aaron's comment suggests, this is very much a political, and not just a scientific, issues.