We all know how much more powerful nuclear energy is. I don’t get it, is it a fad? Solar and Wind energy is a waste of land and ineffective. Yea the technology is probably going to improve, but so is nuclear technology. I don’t know much about this stuff, this is simply my assumption.
‘Powerful’ is a term that we need to examine. Nuclear energy can produce a huge amount of power out of one facility. Comparatively, wind and solar do need to be distributed over a larger area. It is important to note that the land that a wind farm is on can be used for other things such as agriculture. These are facts, but they are not the whole picture.
Safety. Nuclear power is the most heavily regulated industry in the world, but safety concerns do persist, for good reason! Nuclear technology can be incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. It is in the interests of people everywhere to make sure that it is used conscientiously. By comparison, wind and solar present no substantial dangers.
Scale. Nuclear plants currently have to be very big. A single power unit is at least hundreds of megawatts. We don’t want all power projects to be that big. Also, sometimes we can’t afford something that big, so we opt for smaller, more modular things like wind and solar. If we need more power we can in theory increase the number of wind and solar units we have.
Intermittent sources. There is of course the issue of how wind and solar are intermittent sources. This is being innovated around through use of dispatchable sources like hydro, and energy storage systems. For instance, solar thermal power has the opportunity to utilize thermal storage, where it stores the heat created by sunshine so that it can produce power 24 hours per day.
Nuclear fission energy is only arguably renewable. It can last a long time, perhaps thousands of years, but it is using up a resource of limited supply. By comparison, nuclear fusion has much more available fuel. Our sun, which also drives the wind on earth, will last several billion more years. Fusion and sun-based energy are generally what are termed ‘renewable’.
Cost. Nuclear can be very costly, especially since there is a minimum size at which it becomes viable. By comparison, wind and solar solutions can be tailored to the needs of the current project. Solar has usually been much more expensive than either wind or nuclear. However, recent developments such as thin-film photovoltaics (PV) have made solar power much more competitive. It is expected that solar PV will continue to become less costly in the coming years and decades. Wind is already one of the most cost-effective energy resources we have access to. Built in windy areas with modern equipment, wind energy can be less costly than today’s nuclear energy.
The train may be the best way to transport cargo, yet it doesn’t go every where.
Buses come closer but still don’t drop me off at my door. I like to ride my bike.
Same is true for power. Nuclear may be a debatable good source of centralized power but it is not something that each of us can have in our garage. Solar and wind give us at least an illusion of a sense of independence.
I’m a big advocate of solar, but would it surprise you to hear that I think nuclear has its place in our energy mix? I think it’s better than coal, for example – much less emissions.
However I love the idea of distributed generation, too. For most individual residences, solar is the only option that has a chance of being competitive with centrally-generated electricity. I’m very pleased with our panels.
Nuclear technology is not safe – it produces waste that is radioactive for years and years which is currently either reprocessed or dumped in the sea – building up problems for the future.
Brian Cox recently ran a programme on the BBC which showed even nuclear power cannot generate mankind’s energy needs for the future.
Replenishable energy supplies like Wind and Sun do not produce waste and have LOW environmental impact.
According to Cox the only viable energy source for the future is the power of the sun – FUSION.
See HIPER on the link below.
It is highly ignorant to suppose we can continue to use FISSION power.
I am in a green group and even my own chairman suggested we use nuclear power – I asked him how I am going to build a reactor in my garden?
Point being – the FAD energy you speak of is OFF GRID – that is people are seeking to free themselves from having to PAY corporations – and use energy that is FREE from the sun and wind – my dad has already done it.
The more of us do that – the less there is reliance on oil and the damage oil does to the environment.
Oil causes knock on consequences for the environment in terms of Global Warming.
If you are pro- nuclear then look at FISSION not FUSION.
Nuclear energy is not as safe as solar energy. Proper disposition of nuclear waste is still a problem. So even if nuclear energy is more efficient and cheaper it is not environ friendly. of coarse solar energy is also not 100% green but still OK.
The arguments for and against nuclear energy are complex. I agree with you that we should be investing more money and technology in nuclear energy, at least until solar and wind energy become much more accessible, but I also understand why we don’t. The real reason people are against nuclear energy is because it brings a unique set of dangers.
Nuclear energy requires the use of refined uranium and produces radioactive waste products. These waste products will continue to be dangerously radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. Where do you store them safely while they decay to safe levels? The Yucca Mountain nuclear repository has been hotly contested in political circles and probably won’t be opened for another 10 years, if it’s opened at all, and there isn’t any other national repository in the works. Nuclear waste is currently stored in "short-term" facilities all around the country, or in steel casks on the grounds of the nuclear power plants themselves, and nobody seems to know what to do with them. This is not a sustainable situation; a safe, long-term storage location MUST be found before nuclear power plant construction can begin in earnest.
Also, how do you safely transport the nuclear material to and from nuclear power plants? Sure, we have casks that can withstand everything short of a nuclear bomb going off (and may even be able to withstand that!) but that might not deter a band of determined terrorists who wish to steal or blow up our radioactive materials. Transporting nuclear material will always be a safety concern, and many people are opposed to the building of nuclear power plants for that reason.
Also, the plants themselves could be targets. A bomb strike or a deliberate plane crash on a nuclear power plant could release a huge cloud of radioactive material that would spread out and settle in the surrouding region. There are safety features in place to prevent either of these from happening, but still people worry, and as long as people are voting, their concerns will continue to guide nuclear policy.
No energy production method is completely safe, of course, but nuclear energy has the dark cloud of Chernobyl and other accidental radiation releases hanging over it. I suspect it will be some time before people come around and embrace nuclear energy, despite its potential dangers, as a realistic alternative to fossil fuels. By then, who knows…maybe solar panels will have become much more efficient and affordable and the whole discussion will become moot.
I hope that helps. Good luck!
The Solar and wind energy are clean and without health hazard.Nuclear reactor of fission type poses a health hazard because of radioactive radiation and also a nuclear reactor if not controlled properly a result in a major accident such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.Also when the reactor life is over the waste disposal is also radioactive and a very costly affair.Resources of Nuclear Fuel is also limited so it cannot be replenished.There are no such problems with Solar And Wind power generation.
IVAN
Wind and solar are closer to the source and SAFER!!!
Solar corresponds well to high demand during the daytime