Nuclear fission is nearly 8, times more efficient at producing energy than traditional fossil fuels. Because nuclear energy is more efficient, it requires less fuel to power the plant and therefore creates less waste as well. However, there are disadvantages of nuclear energy to keep in mind when considering if this power source is the best form of environmentally friendly energy for our future.
Here are some of the main cons of nuclear energy. Despite being relatively inexpensive to operate, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive to build—and the cost keeps rising. In addition to the expense of building a power plant, nuclear plants must also allocate funds to protect the waste they produce and keep it in cooled structures with security procedures in place.
All of these costs make nuclear power quite expensive. One of the first things most people think of when they hear nuclear power plant is the disaster at Chernobyl. The Fukushima power plant crisis in showed that no matter how safe nuclear power plants are designed to be, accidents can and do happen. While radiation might sound scary, we are constantly exposed to small amounts of radioactivity from cosmic rays or radon in the air we breathe.
Storage of radioactive waste is a major challenge facing nuclear power plants. As technology improves, we will hopefully find better ways of storing radioactive waste in the future. Nuclear power plants have a greater impact on the environment than just the waste they produce.
The mining and enrichment of uranium are not environmentally friendly processes. Open-pit mining for uranium is safe for miners but leaves behind radioactive particles, causes erosion, and even pollutes nearby sources of water.
Nuclear power presents a unique threat to our national security because it is powered by nuclear energy. Terrorists might target nuclear power plants with the intention of creating a disaster, and the uranium used to produce the power can be turned into nuclear weapons if they end up in the wrong hands. For these reasons, security surrounding nuclear materials and nuclear power plants is extremely important.
There might be some important pros and cons of nuclear energy, but one of the most important considerations to keep in mind is that nuclear energy is dependent on uranium and thorium to produce energy. The situation is similar in Japan. In pivoting away from nuclear energy after Fukushima, the country plans to build 22 new coal plants in the next five years. New York, like other parts of the US, is following the same path.
Public anxiety over Indian Point is understandable. Though not concentrated enough to be hazardous, water carrying radioactive particles flows from the plant into the Hudson River.
More harmful is the cooling system that sucks water in from the Hudson, killing fish and larvae in the process. And, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pointed out, the plant is unusually close to an exceptionally dense city, which would make a meltdown particularly catastrophic.
That millions of Americans rejoiced when the plant's closure was announced is no surprise. It has invested heavily in wind farms to this end. But with three natural gas plants set up to help provide the power hitherto generated by Indian Point, emissions are likely to go up following the plant's closure. Nuclear critics argue that this rise is temporary, and that expanding wind power will eventually replace Indian Point's output.
Nuclear New York's Detering rejects this logic. We want to displace fossil fuels. It's a scenario likely to occur repeatedly in the coming years as plants are deconstructed throughout the country. Already on track to miss its gas emissions target , California will lose two reactors in -- and a fifth of its carbon-free electricity with them. While the developed world grapples with decarbonizing, populous developing nations contend with another issue: Ramping up power by any means necessary.
China is the world's biggest investor in nuclear power -- 49 reactors are up and running, to be joined by 18 more in the coming years -- but the capacity of its planned coal plants exceeds that of the US' active fleet. It's just what you'd expect: The richer countries," said Clarke. What sells in these countries is not climate mitigation, that's a long-term issue.
It's not just public perception and safety concerns that's hampering nuclear energy adoption, but the more pedestrian worries of time and money.
This is true in the US too: With no carbon pricing, increasingly cheap natural gas is more economical than tightly regulated nuclear. Asuka reasons that it's unhelpful for developing countries or those aspiring to meet deadlines to start building plants now, since they cost so much and take so long to build.
He argues that investment should go into energy conservation and renewable technologies. A handful of companies building the next generation of nuclear reactors think they can change that. Nuclear power plants are massive investments.
That's without factoring in delays and budget overruns, which are common. The US model for nuclear power plant production is particularly inefficient. Each state has its own utility standards and safety regulations, requiring power plants to be tailored to their locale. South Korea managed to halve the cost of nuclear energy between and using similar methods. X-Energy, one of several companies building safer and less expensive "Gen IV" nuclear reactors, hopes to reverse that trend.
X-Energy's pebble-bed designs run on nuclear fuel encased in up to , billiard-sized graphite balls -- which the company says makes a meltdown physically impossible. Leaks and meltdowns happen when the metal structure in which nuclear fission occurs melts or ruptures.
So whilst nuclear plants are cheap to run and produce inexpensive fuel, the initial costs are off-putting. Join Our Newsletter Get important industry news and analysis sent to your inbox — sign up to our e-Newsletter here. Shortlists Fuel Cells Hydro Solar Wind.
Join Our Newsletter - Get important industry news and analysis sent to your inbox — sign up to our e-Newsletter here. Must Read. What is a nuclear power station? American politicians have yet to solve the nuclear waste problem, and many expect political hurdles may well outlast technological ones. A long-term, underground disposal site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for instance, has been in the works since , but was never completed, largely for political reasons including the reality that then-U.
Instead, spent fuel rods are stored at power plants as they await a longer-term fate. Even the much-heralded breeder reactors still produce radioactive waste, albeit less than their predecessors. Nuclear waste presents both an engineering problem and a social problem, because most people want nuclear waste to go somewhere far away from them. For the industry to find a credible path forward, unresolved waste, economic, national security, and sociopolitical concerns need to be resolved.
Given the long lead-time for developing new nuclear reactors and the sky-high costs relative to other energy options, the nuclear option remains a tough sell for many private investors. The massive investments, long lead-time, and lack of public enthusiasm make for a continued tough road ahead for nuclear energy in the U.
But that alone is insufficient. Considerable progress in energy storage is needed to bring renewable energy into the hard-to-fix areas of the energy system, like multi-day cloudy or cold spells, steelmaking, and burgeoning energy demand globally.
The necessary gains in renewable energy will be possible only if there is public will and substantial investment. Turning to nuclear energy, several of the same things are true. There is no existing technology that can get the job done. Serious improvements are needed, the price tag is unknown, and the timeline is worryingly long. Many nuclear plants are shutting down.
Will fossil fuels replace them? Unlike some current political debates, energy is not a simple up-or-down vote. Perhaps the worst kind of magical thinking is that the climate crisis is solvable without creative and large-scale action. While we can argue about the details ad infinitum, perhaps we can also agree to stay focused on the end goal, dream big, and move forward boldly.
0コメント