Is nuclear energy better than solar energy and wind energy?
Friday, March 19th, 2010 at
6:45 pm
Categories
- Home Solar Power
- Home Wind Power Kits
- Home Wind Turbines
- Photovoltaic Solar Panels
- Wind energy
- Wind Power
Recent Posts
- FHA Loans and Green Homes?
- Do we save energy if we unplug our cable, phone, and computer bundle each night?
- Do you save more energy keeping your laptop plugged in all day or only charging when you have low battery?
- Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- What is the point of wind farms/turbines?
- Is it worth it to save energy by shutting off water heaters when not taking showers?
- How do you change the air filter for a 2006 Scion tc?
- What are some expensive ways to save energy?
- Green Chillies: are they just unripe chillies?
- How can I acquire cheap land for living off grid/sustainably?
- When and where was the world's first SUCCESSFUL wind farm?
- What are two positive aspects and two negative aspects of wind power?
- Why is my central air not cooling my house?
- What companies want to lunch energy efficient business in China?
- Cervelli and Gardner back-to-back home runs?
Recent Comments
- H ikram Sadiq on FHA Loans and Green Homes?
- Phantom of on Do we save energy if we unplug our cable, phone, and computer bundle each night?
- Jackie Sun on Do we save energy if we unplug our cable, phone, and computer bundle each night?
- Casey Stinnett on Do we save energy if we unplug our cable, phone, and computer bundle each night?
- Mike T on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- Chris D on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- belairjr on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- dalrker2003 on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- Anthony C on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- dewcoons on Do you save more energy keeping your laptop plugged in all day or only charging when you have low battery?
- fwendt72 on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- goodfella8243 on Which would be the best air filter for my truck?
- Jon M on Do you save more energy keeping your laptop plugged in all day or only charging when you have low battery?
- DR. DIRT on Is it worth it to save energy by shutting off water heaters when not taking showers?
- my3terrors on Is it worth it to save energy by shutting off water heaters when not taking showers?
Resources
- Best News Politics
- Energy efficiency and renewable energy
- Homepower magazine
- Making Renewable Doable
- Products for Home Power
- Solar Power/Wind Power
- Technology Smooths the Way for Home Wind-Power Turbines
- Wind Turbines for Home Power
Tags
alternative energy alternative energy sources amp apartment appliances batteries cars clean energy coal earth electric guitar electricity furnace google green energy heating oil hot water insulation jobs js money natural gas quot renewable energy script type solar energy solar panel solar panels solar power solar wind sun text javascript thanks in advance thermostat turbine watts Wind energy wind farm Wind Farms wind generator windmill windmills Wind Power wind turbine wind turbines
Howard has given a very good answer but two important issues remain to be answered.
The first issue is one of resource depletion. Oil, gas, coal and uranium were all created in the earth at an early stage in the development of the earth. They are not being created now so if we want to leave our children and grandchildren with a range of options for dealing with the growing energy crisis we should cut back on our use of these resources. Already the mining companies are having to explore in more difficult circumstances (deep sea and under ice caps) so the problem is real and growing more serious. And all these materials have other vital uses too (uranium isotopes for medical uses, oil for plastics etc).
The second issue is that of waste disposal. No answer has yet been found to the problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste (including worn out power stations) safely. The waste created so far is simply being stored at the power stations in the hope that a solution will be found. Various options have been discussed but nothing has yet been decided and nobody has any idea how much they will cost. This means that the cost is being deferred for future generations and may outweigh the extra we currently have to pay for solar and wind energy.
My conclusion is that we should minimise or totally avoid the use of nuclear energy until we know that we can dispose of the waste safely and economically and protect facilities and waste against accidents or attack – again at reasonable cost. Otherwise we may regret our reluctance to pay for sustainable energy such as solar, wind, tide, hydro, geothermal etc.
Yes and by far! The energy produced by nuclear power far exceeds any other technology we currently have.
Not necessarily better, but it yields more power for the dollar and it’s more constant. Both solar and wind put together can’t produce the kind of power that nuclear energy can. Obviously solar and wind energy are cleaner.
Picture it this way. Your bike and your skateboard are both cleaner to operate than your car, but when you need to get from A to B, which delivers the most service, in the rain, over long distances, with time constraints, etc.?
Currently, nuclear energy provides more bang for the buck, that is provides more mega watts for the dollar so from a cost aspect it is better. Nuclear "fits" in better with the grid system. It takes up less space and is not as unsightly as wind farms. Yes, the waste is something to contend with and the uranium is not renewable.
Solar and wind energy is better for the environment but is currently too costly to handle the mega watt needs especially the needs of industry. These forms of energy are well suited for smaller loads like offices and homes.
In summary, "better" depends on what aspect of the energy you are wanting to compare. Define that first.
There are significant issues with nuclear energy which have been debated for at least 40 years. Despite that, France has one of the most significant and well-planned "cradle to grave" nuclear programs in the world, with a very large percentage of it’s electrical needs met by nuclear.
"Better" is a difficult argument to make, because you have not designated how you are looking at it. Solar energy itself does not pollute, but the manufacture of silicon-based solar cells certainly does. They are not very efficient as they only produce during daylight hours. Wind energy is more efficient, but many people (for reasons I don’t understand) object to the placement of towers in their neighborhoods, claiming visual and noise pollution. Of course these same people would object to a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood!
From a practical point of view, the world has got to chose between increasing electrical production or reducing power requirements by either coming up with more efficient products or by lowering expectations abouth how to use it
The technical demands of safely running a nuclear reactor means that placing one in the hands of a third world government may not be the wisest thing to do. Nuclear power plants are also a potential terrorist target, therefore locating one in an unstable country would be a mistake as well.
Just some thoughts on your question.
nuclear energy is definitely more effective in generating electicity that can serve any country. however, there are two sides to a coin. in comparison with solar energy and wind energy, which are slowly, but surely generate electricity, Nuclear energy poses lots of environmental threats.howdo we dispose of the toxic wastes generatec in the process. solar and wind energy are definitele CLEANER ENERGY SOURCES
Nuclear power is the only 200% green renewable source of electrical power other than hydro electric. With technology available since the mid 1970s nuclear is 200% renewable and in fact is better than renewable as in the recycling process you end up with more new material than you put old in. Without recycling we only have material for a few hundred to maybe a thousand year. With recycling we have material for millions of years.
The problem with nuclear is strictly political because back in the 50s the owners of most of the coal mines in the USA realized that nuclear power would eliminate 90% or more of the market for their only product and so began funding some of the most radical environmental groups world wide. In most of the rest of the world they were ignored as the nutcases they really are. In the US on the other hand because these same big energy corporations were the major source of funding for the liberal wing of the Democratic party all of the liberals signed on to the anti nuke pogrom and brought the trial lawyers association along with them.
Thus through these groups using political and legal abusive tactics to slow or prevent the building of and operation of the plants they made them a very costly operation when in reality they should be less than half the cost per Kw of coal fired plants. These same industry funded groups are also behind the legal hassling of wind farms and large industrial solar power plants. That any practical source of power other than coal, gas and oil is under fierce legal harassment by the same groups should make it clear that nuclear is not being treated fairly.
And the same group of people from the same industry are also the funding source for the entire co2 causes global warming farce. It is simply amazing how a few powerful industrialists with one political party and a bunch of lawyers can cripple a nation and break it while reaping gigantic profits from energy speculation.
Unfortunately everyone here is saying that Nuclear is more cost effective, but that is just not true. When all is said and done, a nuclear plant will produce electricity for about $0.14 per kWh while a wind farm will produce electricity at $0.07 per kWh.
While the wind farm will only produce electricity when the wind is blowing and a solar plant will only produce power while the sun is out, Nuclear does have its place, but it is very expensive to build and maintain. The 14 cents per kWh does not even include the massive expenses including waste disposal, massive insurance premiums and decommissioning.
When comparing the two in terms of costs, solar and wind are much more cost effective.
When comparing nuclear to solar/wind in terms of CO2 output and pollution in the entire lifecycle, they are both pretty equal. Solar and wind produce a little less co2, but surprisingly, nuclear is right on the level.
So, to conclude…. Nuclear is super expensive to build (7 Billion for 1,500 megawatt plant), permit and maintain when compared to every other type of electrical generation. This is why not many plants are being built. Nuclear is relatively clean, aside from the toxic waste which must be stored properly for 10 of thousands of years. I personally love solar and wind, but nuclear definitely has its place.
All of these have their place, I don’t think we can call one of them better.
Nuclear is better than coal, as it does not put more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is presently cheaper than solar, and provides a steady, reliable output.
In the case of an individual home, nuclear is not practical, and usually, neither is wind nor hydro. Solar competes with electricity at the retail rate, so can actually be cost effective over a period of time.
They are correct, wind power is cheaper for now. Wind farms are not practical because they have been placed in the windiest locations, any additional wind farms placed up will not have the same bang for buck and there is little you do to imprve the technology. Solar power is horrendous when you really look at it. First, the impact to the environment through the creating of the solar cells is huge. Solar cell break rather easily. I looked at placing solar cell up on my house and found that if I did all of the work it would cost about half as much as a contractor. Even at this, it would take 13 years to recover the initial investment. Since I have hail storms every 2 years, solar power would not work.
Nuclear is the best, because it can deliver the power required with less cost. Also after the recycling of the nuclear waste, the amount of waste produced is small especially in comparison with solar that has every chipped solar cell being throw away. The only reason it cost so much is all of the red tape that has been placed to limit nuclear power. Given its new necessity, however, if the liberals and the conservatives would work together on this issue, we could have cheaper and cleaner power and have a win-win situation for everyone but the greedy corporations.
Solve the puzzle By creating a Cheap way to shoot radiative waste into the Sun To thoroughly dispose of it safely. If we can not invent a cheap efficient form of energy production we will need to do this and start planning to move the human race to space. We cannot continue to rape the earth like we have been. We are running out of land and water resources.Everyone is in denial of this fact!
Better in terms of what?
The only reason anybody considers nuclear power is because it’s way more energy dense than coal. But you have even more environmental problems with nuclear energy than you do with coal – even if the actual plant itself doesn’t generate carbon dioxide. Given the choice between carbon dioxide and easily proliferated depleted uranium, I’ll take the CO2 thanks.
Besides the whole issue of radioactive waste, there’s the fact that you’re just using it to heat water anyway, nobody knows how much energy or money it takes to decommission a nuclear reactor after it’s finished its short useful life. Oh and because there’s only a finite amount or uranium and a fair chunk of that isn’t viable because of its low quality (like brown coal is to regular coal) it wouldn’t take all that long before we started to run out of that aswell.
There are issues with solar and wind energy too. Apparently it takes about 10 years for a solar panel to generate more energy (or is it cost? I’m not sure) than it took to create and install it. With wind power, if you install too many in one area you could change the wind patterns; there’s also an efficiency/cost issue with wind turbines too.
But solar energy is predicted to last for another 5 billion years, and we can’t exactly consume it at a higher/lower rate like we can, and do, with fossil fuels.
Without getting into the entire long-winded argument, I think the best option is to put the effort and research into as many different energy technologies as possible to make them viable and maximise efficiency (one of the laws of thermodynamics states you can never have 100% efficiency), and use them in combination.
For example, heliostats in arid regions, dynamos(?) under footpaths in dense pedestrian areas, solar panels, wind power, geothermal power, some sort of wind turbine modified to turn and store power from rainfall, nano-textile technologies, utilising biogas etc. Not just focus on one technology at a time and have a repeat of the whole car industry thing.
But that is just my opinion from the plethora of information I have absorbed about the issue, and I’m not an expert. The short answer is no, nuclear is not the answer, never has been. Silly 1950s people trying to make nuclear-powered cars…