Shortly after deciding on the subject of nuclear energy I heard an interesting story on NPR on my drive to work which was conveniently enough about nuclear power. Going to the NPR website I found the story I heard on the radio, which was Film Rankles Environmentalists By Advocating Nuclear Power by Richard Harris. The story discusses the documentary "Pandora's Paradox" by Robert Stone which is about nuclear power and the environmentalist movement. It continues the conversation of the growing energy needs around the world and the use of nuclear power as a low-carbon source of energy. The story also includes the individuals who are still critical of nuclear power as a solution for the world's energy needs.
The point I'd like to draw from this story is that there is a burgeoning discussion taking place amongst environmentalists about nuclear power being a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. Nuclear power being a low-carbon alternative actually makes perfect sense with a little understanding of science (comparing combustion reactions to nuclear fission.) Now this made me wonder, how low are the effective carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels or other low-carbon energy sources?
This answer would be more difficult to find because of the prevalence of nuclear advocacy groups but I found a study done in June of 2011 for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology titled Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation. (This is a pdf.) This study gives estimates of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of energy produced for the total life cycle of an energy source. The life cycle includes all aspects of the energy production including manufacturing, transportation, and possible extraction of fuels. The study showed that nuclear power had a lower average "carbon footprint" than many other low-carbon energy sources and significantly lower than fossil fuels.
 |
| Source: Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation |
This means that nuclear power gets more energy for their carbon emissions which is not surprising considering the amount of energy that is put out by a single nuclear reactor in a year, which is around 7.5 billion kilowatt hours. The sheer amount of energy produced from a nuclear reactor makes up for the rather intensive enrichment process and that the fissionable isotope U-235 is only 0.7% of all naturally occurring Uranium. I'm not going to get into the carbon emissions of transporting and storing nuclear waste at this time but it is included in the life cycle from the study. Needless to say the large amount of energy that comes out of nuclear fission easily makes up for the carbon emitted in production and storage.
After all this information about nuclear power I wonder why do many environmentalist still not think nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels? Is it nuclear waste that stops them from embracing another viable source of low-carbon energy?.
Very well written, continues on with itself effortlessly with structure and direction.
ReplyDeleteI like the topic as well, with todays energy crisis no stone must be left unturned in the search for an alternative energy source.
This post was very informative, laying out the direction for the rest of the blog. Before I even read your question at the end, I was asking myself the very same thing. While I do expect that they have a very reasonable answer to why they are against it, both sides must be weighed, and the need for energy is only growing. I look forward to reading your researched findings on the arguments from both sides.