Skip to main content

No Energy Pecking Order Necessary

By

A theme developing among a lot of writers is the notion that if some country in the world decides to abandon nuclear energy, the alternative pickings leave a lot to be desired.

But the alarm in Japan and globally belies the fact that nuclear power plants, in the approximately half a century that they have existed, have caused fewer deaths than another common source of power production: coal.

Frankly, it’s too soon for defensiveness – always too soon, really.There have been plenty of politicians who have not been shaken from their conviction that nuclear energy  has to be part of any energy policy that seeks to reduce carbon emissions - I’ve quoted quite a few of them here over the last few days - and keep up with world demand for electricity generation. On Thursday, for example, UAE broke ground on its first nuclear plant.

Coal plants pose an even larger threat than mining, however: pollution. Coal plants emit soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants.

The concern now should be finishing the job at Fukushima Daiichi, getting Japan back on its feet and letting Tepco and the Japanese government get to the bottom of what happened at Fukushima. All that is not going to happen tomorrow or next week or next month. 

While natural gas plants burn their fuel more cleanly than coal plants, people who live near drilling sites have complained about air and water pollution stemming from exploration.

All the other nuclear energy plants all over the world, including those in Japan not shut down by the earthquake last week, are thrumming along quite well, making electricity safely and cleanly.

That is because renewable energy, too, has downsides: The wind does not blow all the time, and wind farms can occupy substantial amounts of land. Solar power is expensive, and it does not work all the time, either. Hydroelectric dams kill fish.

The attempt to establish a pecking order for energy sources that put nuclear energy on top (or at the bottom, depending on perspective) isn’t really necessary. Not yet, likely not ever.

Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
"letting Tepco and the Japanese government get to the bottom of what happened at Fukushima"... I can save them a bit of time - it was a tsunami.

OK, OK - there's more to find out. There's boatloads of details to uncover and consider. Contingencies that could have been made. Designs that could have been different. International lessons that might have made a difference. Implications of, and responses to, releases (and I expect, sooner or later, a Japanese equivalent of Yablokov claiming spuriously large numbers affected).

But at bottom - unlike Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island - it was a very extreme nature event that overcame mulitple defenses. Which should not be forgotten.
March 21, 2011 at 12:05 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more