Nuclear Energy and why it is the most sustainable source of energy?

The argument for nuclear power can be stated pretty simply: We have no choice. The word nuclear is almost always though of and linked to the word radiation which is again almost always thought to be dangerous (a big thank you to Hollywood!). But on the contrary it isnt always dangerous. In fact, it produces about 14% of the worlds electricity. By now, almost everybody knows how important it is to get away from using fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions and global warming. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html Today, at least as of now, I will be showing you why nuclear energy is the way in the future. Lets start with the very basics. So how does nuclear power work? Pretty much the same way as a coal power plant does. The only difference is as to how they heat water. The differences pretty much end there. Let me explain in a little more detail. Like in conventional coal plants, something must happen to heat water. The something is nuclear radiation. Nuclear radiation is formed emitted when enriched uranium rods (Containing 3% - 5% U-235 and the rest is U-238) are hit with neutrons that would form a chain reaction if the neutrons were not absorbed by the control rods. The radiation sufficiently heats up the water and it forms vapour which is then used to run a turbine that generates electricity. http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm Another question that a potential buyer may ask is as to how efficient it is? In terms of energy output compared to energy input it is just 30% efficient given the present technology. Even at an atomic level, the fission of an atom of uranium gives 10 million times the energy than the combustion of a carbon atom. However since all of it not useful, it still has quite some potential. The energy released by a single atom is about 200 MeV. This means that a pound of uranium is approximately equal to a million gallons of gasoline. Where is the other 70% of the energy lost then? Most of the energy is wasted as heat. When heat is produced in the reactor core, it evaporates the water but the steam has a limit as to how much energy it can absorb so the unused heat simple escapes. Also, a lot of the energy is wasted in the condenser that changes steam back to water to be used in the core again. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html How long is nuclear power likely to last? With the current technology the reactors using just U-235 can possibly last us a couple of hundred years. However with new emerging technology, breeder reactors can be used which extends our timeline to a few thousand years. It must not be forgotten that building a nuclear power plant is very expensive but a breeder reactor is way more expensive. Because of this it is unlikely that it will be adopted at least for a while (Uranium is cheap right now!). http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html What to do with the radioactive waste? This is one of the most serious problem that we face. Although not resolved, we do definite short term plans and some long term plans. Two important factors must be satisfied when considering an option; cooling and shielding.

In the short term (Interim storage), the spent fuel rods are left in water pools on-site. After a few years, the rods are moved to an above ground storage in concrete canisters with air cooling. This satisfies both the cooling (water and air) and shielding (water and concrete). http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm For a long term solution, the most feasible option seems to be to store the nuclear fuel very deep underground. It is safe to isolate the spent fuel deep underground so that it does minimal or no damage to man and the environment around it. It would be stored in corrosion-resistant containers that would be designed to last thousands of years. Another option would be to store the fuel in centralized storage areas developed for specifically for that purpose. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm Is nuclear technology affordable? It certainly is. The cost of industrial grade pure uranium is about $60 for a pound. Even if the prices continue to inflate and reach unaffordable levels, another element thorium can be used as it can be cheaply extracted from the sea and is about 3 times more abundant. Since the cost of setting up a nuclear power plant is very great, other options for energy may seem more practical in the short run but the cost is nothing compared to its long term benefits. Another thing to consider is that it is a green renewable technology. Unlike fossil-fuel powered plants, nuclear energy does not give out carbon emissions. Also, the price of fossil fuels will definitely go up because we are running out of reserves very fast. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html Is it possible that nuclear technology will improve in the future? There definitely is there a great scope for improvement in this field. Like I mentioned briefly before, breeder reactors increase the life of the fuel rods by reprocessing the spent fuel rods for another element called plutonium (Which can be used as fuel, 25% is recovered). This is a possible improvement in the technology. However this may not be necessary for a few years because we have quite a few uranium reserves around the world. Another possible but far-fetched technology that will revolutionize and completely solve our energy needs is nuclear fusion technology (Not available but has been under research since 60 years!). http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html From the points given above, it is certain that nuclear power by fission technology seems to be our future. Occasionally there occur some nuclear mishaps which do cause quite a lot of mishap and confusion, however nuclear power plants are some of the safest premises on earth. As of March 2011 there are 443 operating nuclear power plants in planet earth. It is indeed a promising technology that would cater to our ever increasing energy requirements. http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

Solar Energy and its Disadvantages 1. High capital cost and not that high an efficiency even after extended periods of time. 2. Solar energy is available only during sunlight hours and is affected by weather. The energy also needs to be stored. 3. The cost of maintenance is also pretty high as compared to the overall efficiency. 4. Apart from that solar panels need to be cleaned everyday so that it does not hamper their ability to capture energy from sunlight. 5. Solar energy is a resource not a reserve. We could live completely dependent on it, but that would put countries using it at an economic disadvantage as compared to others. This is because of the expenditure involved. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/solar.html