Producing large quantities of hydrogen from water requires large amounts of electricity. In order for hydrogen to be a viable medium for clean energy storage and transportation there must be a source of inexpensive, abundant, clean and safe electricity. The facts clearly show that nuclear-generated electricity outpaces any other option in each of these categories.
Inexpensive
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear reactors are the second largest source of electricity produced in America. The World Nuclear Association found in an April, 2010 report that as of 2008, average production costs for methane-produced electricity were over three times higher than average production costs for nuclear power worldwide. "Production costs" are the sum of operations and maintenance costs plus costs for fuel. They do not take into account indirect costs such as environmental, social and health costs, nor do "production costs" account for capital investment (designing and building the plant, for example). If ALL costs are taken into account "the economics of nuclear power are outstanding" according to the report. While capital costs are much higher for nuclear power plants, these costs are offset by substantially lower operating costs over the life of the plant. Nuclear is the only electricity generation method that includes all costs (including environmental) in the price of electricity. This cost averages out to about 1 cent per KWh to the customer. When looked at from a long-term, holistic perspective, nuclear power is the most economically viable method of producing electricity that humans are currently capable of.
Abundant
One pound of uranium contains as much energy as 2 million pounds of oil. This scientific fact was calculated by Rod Adams, publisher of the online journal Atomic Insights. Because the energy in uranium is so densely packed, the supply of fuel for nuclear reactors is essentially unlimited. Using the current price of Uranium as a cap for determining what Uranium is economically extractable, there is close to 1000 years supply of known reserves on Earth.
Clean
Releasing the energy from one pound of uranium (equivalent to 2 million pounds of oil) results in less than one pound of waste material as calculated by Rod Adams. This waste can be stored in a simple container for decades with no effect on the environment. By contrast, burning 2 million pounds of oil will require releasing several thousand tons of carbon dioxide, and varying amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
The contrast between the environmental impact of our current energy infrastructure and the prospects of a nuclear-hydrogen system is astounding. Producing electricity from a nuclear reactor releases nothing whatsoever into the environment. The nuclear industry is the only energy industry that takes responsibility for all of its waste. Contrast this with the pollution and environmental harm we have done by using coal as our major source of electricity and it is easy to see why nuclear power is a much more environmentally friendly choice.
Major hype surrounds any talk of storage of nuclear reactor waste. This hype largely misses several eye-opening truths about nuclear waste. The weight of nuclear waste produced by all nuclear power plants in the U.S. each year is equivalent to the weight of solid waste produced by a single coal-powered electricity plant in just one day. Unlike the coal plant's waste, much of which is injected directly into the environment causing incalculable harm, the nation's nuclear power plant waste has never touched the environment and never harmed anyone. Additionally, only a small fraction of the energy available in the nuclear waste has been extracted. This means that as the technology of nuclear reactors improves, this "waste" can be reused as fuel. There are many options for safely and permanently storing the final waste product that will result from our nuclear activity. No such options currently exist for the waste produced by fossil fuel power plants.
Safe
The World Nuclear Association did an analysis of deaths caused by generating power from the four major sources of electricity – coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear. The analysts took data on deaths that were directly caused by power generation between 1970-1992 and divided by the amount of power generated per year (terra watt years or TWy) from each source. Amazingly, nuclear power generation resulted in only 31 fatalities over the entire period averaging to 8 deaths per TWy generated. By comparison, producing electricity from coal produced 6400 fatalities over the examined period and 342 deaths per TWy. Based on this historical data, producing electricity from coal is over 200 times more dangerous than electricity from nuclear reactors.
Much of the concern about nuclear power centers on radiation exposure. This is another area where hype has overshadowed reality. The simple and eye opening reality is that people who live near coal power plants are exposed to 100 times more radiation than those living next to nuclear plants (click here for the data). That this is not widely discussed in public debate is almost as shocking as the fact itself.
Our Most Viable Option
Using nuclear reactors to produce the electricity for a clean hydrogen-based economy is the only method that can fulfill the promise of a 100% clean energy infrastructure. Nuclear technology can accomplish this goal economically and much more safely than any other option. Anyone who is serious about completely eliminating the release of pollutants into our environment while moving our economy towards safer and more viable energy alternatives must consider these facts with an open mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment