by Geoman

Created on: May 08, 2009   Last Updated: August 19, 2009

While not getting to overly technical, I hope to provide at least a few facts to support my position that nuclear power is potentially the best option for a significant reduction in global warming.

First to frame the argument. Do we need large amounts of electrical power? The answer is yes. There is a very profound link between the amount of power our civilization utilizes and our standard of living. Nations that utilize low levels of electricity are strongly correlated with poverty.

How much electricity do we need to displace hydrocarbons sources? Coal and natural gas currently generate approximately 70% of our electrical power. Nuclear power currently provides approximately 20%. Hydropower provides 7%. The remaining 3% comes from all other sources of power (wind, solar, biomass, etc.).

Can nuclear power displace the 70% of electricity from carbon based sources? Yes. This is currently being done in France. The 20% of our power from nuclear energy is currently generated from just 100 nuclear power plants. 200 to 300 more power plants would provide most of the electricity in the U.S. Construction would take approximately 10 years. Most could be co-located with existing plants, allowing for rapid power expansion.

Is there sufficient fuel for this many plants? The simple answer is yes. Uranium is an incredibly dense energy source. A single pellet of uranium weighs around 7 grams (0.24 ounces). This pellet is capable of generating as much energy as 3.5 barrels of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 1,780 pounds of coal. There are vast reserves of uranium in the world, and even larger reserves of thorium. Used wisely, we have sufficient supplies of radioactive materials to fuel reactors for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

The only remaining are questions are is it safe and what do we do with the waste? Safety is relative. Officially, thirty-one people died in the accident at Chernobyl. No one died in the accident at Three Mile Island. This is over 40 years mind you. Being generous, lets assume that the number of deaths ultimately due to Chernobyl may actually be higher, say a couple of thousand people die of cancer over the next 30 years.

Perhaps another example is in order. Two nuclear bombs were detonated by the U.S. in Japan. In a study of cancer rates in 100,000 survivors, only 400 additional people developed cancer above the statistical average. The statistical average cancer rate for 100,000 people in Japan is 20,000

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>