nuclear energy vs renewal energy

8/12/2019 Nuclear Energy vs Renewal Energy

1/3

In recent years this has been a hugely contentious debate. There is much public fear about nuclear energy, fuelled by

accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It is, however, an issue which is becoming more salient as we

approach a time when fossil fuel resources may run out, making it necessary to find other power sources. An

interesting recent development in Europe was the erman government!s announcement in "une #$$$ that they will

be closing down their %& nuclear power stations by #$#$. This debate therefore encompasses more than 'ust nuclearenergy but the alternatives of fossil fuels and renewable sources. A brief summary of the different energy production

methods currently available is listed below.(uclear (uclear fission is the splitting of large atoms into smaller atomswith the release of energy stored in the original nucleus. It produces no greenhouse gases or other such pollutants

but does produce radioactive waste that must be stored safely for thousands of years. There is also the risk of a

nuclear e)plosion *due to meltdown+ if the reaction gets out of control. *This is different from nuclear fusion a

process by which small atoms are 'oined to create larger atoms, releasing energy in the process. This technology is

currently some years off.+ossil uelsossil fuels are the remnants of prehistoric organisms now in the form of coal,

oil and gas. -urning them releases energy as well as greenhouse gases and acid rain producing gases. Alternativeources/ydroelectric power, a renewable energy source, which converts water falling through dams into electric

power.eothermal energy is another renewable energy source, converting heat in rocks into power.0ind farms

consist of windmill like structures generating power from the wind1 another renewable source.olar panels convert

solar energy into electricity renewably.Electricity can also be generated renewably from the energy stored in

waves.The definition for such a debate might be that gove

pros cons

The ma'ority of the world!s electricity is currently

produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite resource

and will run out shortly. Although estimates are very

variable as to e)actly how long fossil fuels will last it

is possible that oil will be e)hausted within 2$ years

and coal within #2 years. It is therefore a necessity tofind a new source of energy1 we must therefore start to

convert to nuclear energy now *so there is not a ma'orcrisis when fossil fuels do run out+ and invest in

nuclear energy for the future.

It is a curious fact that the number of further years thatfossil fuel resources will last has remained unchanged

for the last few decades3 It is virtually impossible to

predict how long these resources will last because

there are undiscovered resources and because the rate

of use cannot be predicted accurately. There are still

vast une)ploited resources in Canada and iberia *to

name but two+. In addition some estimates predict that

the lifetime of natural gas is about 42$ years3 There isno need at the moment to search for a new power

source. That money would be better spent on creatingtechnology to clean the output from power stations.

0e can e)plore other sources of energy when it

becomes necessary in the future. 0hen we do so it will

be from a much more advanced basis making

development easier.

In many senses nuclear energy is clean. It does not

produce gaseous emissions such as greenhouse gases,

which are harmful either to the population or to the

environment. It is true that it does produce radioactive

waste. ince this is in solid form it can be dealt withmuch more easily and stored away from centres of

population. The damage caused to the environment and

populations due to the burning of fossil fuels is far in

e)cess of the damage done to the environment due to

the nuclear industry including even the Chernobyl

catastrophe. It this sense nuclear energy is very much

preferable to the burning of fossil fuels at the moment.

urthermore, as new technology becomes available toallow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less

Even apart from the safety issues, there are a number

of problems with nuclear power. irstly, it is e)pensive

and relatively inefficient. The cost of building reactors

is enormous and the price of subse5uently

decommissioning them also huge. Then there is alsothe problem of waste. (uclear waste can remain

radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for

all this time away from water into which it can

dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is

virtually impossible and there are serious concerns

over the state of waste discarded even a few decades

ago. overnments have fre5uently resorted to dumping

waste into the sea1 an action which it has been shownhas lead to an increase in radioactivity along many


2/3

nuclear waste will be produced. *A recent e)ample is

the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses

fuel much more efficiently.+ /owever, this trend will

only continue with investment. "udging from the pace

of development of nuclear technology since itsinception it is fair to say that with more investment

nuclear energy will become an even more desirablesource of energy with many of its current drawbacks

curtailed.

coastlines.

It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has

had bad reputation for safety. (ot all of this reputation

has been deserved. The overwhelming ma'ority of

nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively

for their entire lifetimes. The two ma'or nuclear

accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were

both in old style reactors, e)acerbated in the latter caseby la) oviet safety standards. In this debate, the

reactors the proposition are advocating are newreactors built to the highest safety standards. uch

reactors have an impeccable safety record. 6erhaps the

best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear

industry is the increasing transparency with which the

industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in

its early days were caused by e)cessive control due tothe origin of nuclear energy from military applications.

As the gap between the two separates so the nuclearindustry becomes more accountable.

The nuclear industry has a shameful safety record. 0e

can discern a number of separate problems. There is

always the risk of a meltdown or e)plosion. At Three

Mile Island we were minutes away from the former

and at Chernobyl the unthinkable actually happened.

The fall out from Chernobyl can still be detected in ouratmospheres. The effects on the local people and the

environment were devastating. It is perfectly true that

modern nuclear reactors are safer but they are not

perfectly safe. There is always that chance of a disaster

and if we build more reactors then sooner or later there

will be another Chernobyl. It is 5uite simply not worth

the risk. The dumping of nuclear waste, as e)plained

above, also presents a host of problems. There havealso been a number of !minor! accidents in nuclear

power stations recently. 7eprocessed fuel from the8nited 9ingdom was recently re'ected from "apan

after it emerged that test results had been fabricated.

The (uclear Inspectorate in the 89 has also been very

critical of safety standards within the industry. 0e

have been told by the industry that these are problems

are being ironed out and that they will not happenagain. Time and time again, however, these same

problems reoccur and we have to conclude that theindustry is not to be trusted. It is too dominated by the

profit motive to really care about safety and too

shrouded in secrecy to be accountable. In addition, the

nuclear industry has had a terrible cost on the lives on

those living around power plants. It cannot be a

coincidence that the rate of occurrence of certain types

of cancer, such as leukaemia, is much higher in the

population around nuclear plants.

It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when

assessing in what form of energy to invest. or thereasons e)plained above *diminishing supply,

environmental damage+ we can rule fossil fuels out

immediately. 0e also see enormous problems with

every form of alternative energy. The most efficient

source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric

power. /owever, this usually creates more problems

The proposition lists a number of problems with

alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternativeenergy is not efficient enough to serve the energy

needs of the world!s population today. /owever, with

investment all these methods could be made efficient

enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation

of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam,

have caused problems. -ut the opposition are not


3/3

than it solves. -uilding a large dam necessarily floods

an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can

displace tens of thousands of people. There are also

enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical

e)ample is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the (ile.(ot only did many thousands loose their homes but the

yearly inundation of the (ile, which fertilised thesurrounding land for thousands of year, was also

stopped. The subse5uent silting up of the river

destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological

destruction and human homelessness surrounded the

more recent Three orges dam pro'ect in China.olar

energy has never lived up to e)pectations since it ishugely inefficient. A solar panel the si:e of Europe

would be needed to power a city the si:e of ;ondon3

0ind energy is only marginally better with an

unsightly wind farm the si:e of Te)as needed to

provide the energy for Te)as alone. The worst

performers of all have been geothermal and tidal

energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because

no rocks have been found that are hot enough and nowaves have been found that are strong enough3 The

great irony is that not only are most renewable sourcesinefficient but many are also ecologically unsound3

The opposition to the building wind farms in certain

areas has been 'ust as strong as the opposition to

nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery,

being so unsightly and large.

advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many

dam pro'ects, for e)ample, could have been replacedby solar power had the technology been available,

without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is

almost always one renewable resource that a given

country can e)ploit1 tides for islands, the sun for

e5uatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc.

and so any given country can in principle become self

nuclear energy vs renewal energy

Documents