Skip to main content

The Electric Grid on Earth Day: Then and Now

Happy Earth Day 2014 to all of our readers. While there are a variety of events going on all around the world, we'd like visitors to NEI Nuclear Notes to focus on what the electric grid looked like back in 1970 when the late Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson celebrated the very first Earth Day. Take a moment to consider the graphic below:
It's pretty easy to see how nuclear has grown to account for almost 20% of the electricity generated in the U.S. since that first Earth Day. At the same time, it's impossible not to notice that the use of oil to generate electricity has virtually disappeared, clearly displaced by the incredible growth in the use of nuclear energy over the same period of time. Nuclear didn't do it alone, helped tremendously by the steady growth in the use of natural gas.

The combined impact of nuclear and natural gas has been a real winner for the environment, something that The Breakthrough Institute pointed out in a study it released last September. According to Breakthrough, these two energy sources prevented 54 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions since 1950. By comparison, in 2012, the entire world emitted 35 billion tons.

That's a lot of carbon and one heck of an impact. The next time anyone asks you how nuclear energy supports a healthy environment, be sure to pass those numbers along.

Comments

Victor said…
You forgot to mention the harmlessness of nuclear waste, which vanishes in mere moments without a trace.
Engineer-Poet said…
Barely 2 hours after the post, the scripted talking points begin.  I swear, the activist propaganda teams must have this blog on Google alerts.

Victor, so-called "high-level nuclear waste" is carefully sealed behind multiple barriers, and in even the worst-case accidents the hazard to the public is between minuscule and non-existent.  All you have to do to stay outside the zone of hazard is to move away at a walking pace.

95% of "spent" nuclear fuel is itself fuel for fast-spectrum reactors, and the remainder decays to less toxicity than the original ore in just 500 years.  The volume of material is so small, the world's entire production to date would fit in a single sports stadium.
Spent fuel is a valuable and renewable commodity that can create even more clean energy.

The amount of toxic waste produced by the nuclear industry per kilowatt produced is dwarfed by the amount of toxic waste produced by the solar industry.

Marcel
Mitch said…
>>>> Victor said...
You forgot to mention the harmlessness of nuclear waste, which vanishes in mere moments without a trace. <<<

Gee, then I guess Victor and his green leader's are all happy as a pig that oil and gas and coal power plants always use the atmosphere for a landfill and who cares about all the millions of sickness it's caused for over a hundred years. Why to go, Einstein!
Anonymous said…
The amount of waste from nuclear and solar is NOTHING compared to the toxic waste that has, and is being spewed into the air by fossil fuels coal, oil and gas operations.
And that's just the air. The WATER is a whole other nightmare. The amount of produced water polluted with BTEX and other chemicals from oil, gas and coal is around a trillion barrels a year. And, what are the fossil fuels companies doing with it? Unfortunately it is being dumped in the environment - even in the U.S. -because there are no federal regulations about dumping BTEX contaminated produced water.

When your doctor tells you that you and/or your family have cancer, it's from produced water - NOT nuclear!
Dan Williamson said…
The FUD lurkers think they've scored a goal if they get in first. They've highjacked the NRC blog site....the moderator is for whatever reason obliged to be cordial, so it's just about useless.
Anonymous said…
I don't understand why nuclear opponents expressing their opinions in comment sections or blogs constitutes "hijacking" a discussion. Especially when nuclear advocates are urging industry, in their comments on every post on this blog, to do the exact same thing in support of nuclear power.

I know you don't agree with nuclear opponents. So why not just refute them, rather than calling for them to be censored, sued, etc.?
Mitch said…
It's supposed to be the job of the NRC moderator to call out B.S. when it's laid and not sit like a rock letting falsehoods mislead people, like the ranter there called Lily Munster who said that radiation from Indian plant is so high that airplane pilots use it for a beacon! A game show emcee wouldn't let B.S. like that by! You don't help the public by keeping silent and letting trash steer them wrong! Don't censure sure, but at least say SOMETHING to the bull!
Dan Williamson said…
"So why not just refute them..."

Because they're too idealogically blinded to know (much less acknowledge) when they've been refuted. To them, demonstrable facts are lies told by liars. It's like arguing with a billy goat. Perhaps others readers are swayed by the exchange, but I don't get anything out of it myself. I'm a nuclear engineer by education, a reactor operator and fuel handler by training, and in a past life, I spent months on end pushing several thousand kilotons of W68 warheads around the north Atlantic. So I have a fairly good idea of how this technology works and how miniscule the real hazards are.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…