World Environment and Energy (2011)
 

Nuclear energy

Skip Navigation Links
-- Latest pages --
-08 June 2011 -
___________________
Shale HCs
------------------
Fukushima
Volcanoes/CO2
----------
350 ppm?
----------
Waste-to-energy
----------
Climate: Mitigation
Climate: the future
What's it all about?
Carbon labels
Wind farms
Tridel (update)

Generating electricity from nuclear energy suffers from disadvantages:

However, there also great advantages:

The choice

Taking the long term view, I believe that the most economical, environmentally sensitive and reliable choice is with nuclear power stations. The recycling of the fuel could be done within the European Union (France or the UK) with easy means of transport. The actual cost of nuclear-generated electricity was typically towards the top of the same range as fossil-fuel-fired systems, so should not entail any great adjustment of prices, even before the fossil fuel prices increased. Today, it is more than competitive.  In fact, as the cost of oil and gas increases even further, so nuclear energy will become comparatively cheaper. The holistic carbon dioxide emissions, including mining, purification and transport of the fuel is typically about 2 - 3 per cent of that from even the best fossil fuels:

Of course, this should be complemented by  fixed and variable renewable sources, to a maximum possible. This maximum of variable methods is generally about 18 - 20 percent of the grid capacity, to ensure stability. At all times, the electricity from these sources should be used to a maximum and the shortfall be filled in, initially, by nuclear, then other sources as a last resort.

If the hydrogen-fuelled or electric car becomes the norm, then further generating capacity will be required (see the essays on Cars and Hydrogen). It would be a nonsense to have to increase fossil-fuel power generation to satisfy the increased demand because it would inevitably increase greenhouse gas emissions, compared with similar-sized cars burning petrol.