I had learned about nuclear power in physics classes but nuclear power as a means of generating electricity has always been an abstract concept -- for a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sort of reason, because there is no nuclear plant in Singapore. In my mind, nuclear power has always been one of those 'great in theory but not so in reality' thing, because of potential risks and nuclear waste removal.
Well, I can't say it's not in my back yard anymore -- Canada has nuclear power and we in fact live 31.32 km from the Pickering nuclear power plant. Moreover, with the rising oil prices and increasing environmental awareness, nuclear power is becoming a more attractive option.
Is nuclear really that good? If we take greenhouse emissions as one measure,
Somehow I feel the equations are lacking something -- surely tallying the emissions alone is not enough? On the other hand, worldwide, countries may have to turn to nuclear for their power needs simply because the other alternatives are too expensive (oil, gas and even coal are becoming more pricey) or are not enough (current 'green' alternatives such as solar, hydro, wind cannot supply enough). The amount of energy that can be generated from nuclear power could be more than sufficient to meet current needs.
But what about the radioactive waste?
The problem of nuclear waste is probably the biggest disadvantage to nuclear power. Also, nuclear power is not sustainable; the amount of uranium is, like oil, finite. Uranium supplier countries such as Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan (in decreasing order) are scrambling to increase production at their mines.
I'm not disparaging nuclear yet because we may yet find a way to circumvent the problem of nuclear waste. It is a very viable alternative because the technology is well-developed and affordable for many countries, but unfortunately, what may decide the ultimate choice for most countries could be that of pragmatic economics, i.e. the bottom line.
Well, I can't say it's not in my back yard anymore -- Canada has nuclear power and we in fact live 31.32 km from the Pickering nuclear power plant. Moreover, with the rising oil prices and increasing environmental awareness, nuclear power is becoming a more attractive option.
Is nuclear really that good? If we take greenhouse emissions as one measure,
A typical coal-fired power plant (burning lignite) emits up to 1,150 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. The most modern gas-driven facilities emit 400 grams for the same amount of electricity. And for nuclear power plants? That number is around 30 grams per kilowatt hour when the entire life-cycle of the plant is taken into account.
It is this math that is leading to the biggest nuclear power boom the world has seen in decades.
Somehow I feel the equations are lacking something -- surely tallying the emissions alone is not enough? On the other hand, worldwide, countries may have to turn to nuclear for their power needs simply because the other alternatives are too expensive (oil, gas and even coal are becoming more pricey) or are not enough (current 'green' alternatives such as solar, hydro, wind cannot supply enough). The amount of energy that can be generated from nuclear power could be more than sufficient to meet current needs.
But what about the radioactive waste?
In the last 50 years of nuclear power generation, some 300,000 tons of the stuff has been produced, with an additional 10,000 tons coming each year. A part of that waste is plutonium, and it is incredibly volatile. Just a single gram contains as much energy as a ton of oil -- and it can give hundreds of people cancer should it be inhaled as radioactive dust. Should one stand next to a gram of plutonium for just a single minute, death is the result.
Not only that, but radioactive waste stays deadly for hundreds of thousands of years, meaning any terminal storage site has to be incredibly large, incredibly stable and incredibly isolated.Spiegel Online
The problem of nuclear waste is probably the biggest disadvantage to nuclear power. Also, nuclear power is not sustainable; the amount of uranium is, like oil, finite. Uranium supplier countries such as Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan (in decreasing order) are scrambling to increase production at their mines.
In 2006 producers met only 62% of demand. (The rest was recycled from a diminishing supply of decommissioned warheads or taken from dwindling Cold War stockpiles.) The World Nuclear Association says uranium mining could need to increase by almost 300% in the next two decades.
Talk of such a crunch has brought the market to fever pitch. Spot prices for uranium jumped from about $7 a pound in late 2000 to a record high of $136 in June. Prices today hover at $74.
I'm not disparaging nuclear yet because we may yet find a way to circumvent the problem of nuclear waste. It is a very viable alternative because the technology is well-developed and affordable for many countries, but unfortunately, what may decide the ultimate choice for most countries could be that of pragmatic economics, i.e. the bottom line.
With energy prices rapidly approaching the unaffordable, however, concerns about waste storage may once again take a back seat. There are handsome profits to be made from nuclear energy, especially when oil and gas, but also coal, are becoming more expensive. And in Germany, with its older reactors that have long since paid for themselves, the black numbers are truly impressive. The reactors at Biblis, for example, make a pre-tax profit of €1 million -- every single day.Spiegel Online
No comments:
Post a Comment