We briefly describe the complex topic of nuclear fission energy. Nuclear fission (division) of certain large unstable atomic nuclei results in usable energy. Nuclear fission also occurs in a nuclear bomb, but for nuclear energy the fission process is controlled and takes place in a nuclear fission reactor (Cattenom is pictured). There are various types of nuclear fission reactors. See references for details.
Nuclear fission energy in its current form has many negative features and some positive features. Future nuclear fission reactors potentially will be much more attractive than current nuclear fission reactors.
Negative features of current nuclear fission energy: Negative features include: 1. Dangerous nuclear weapons proliferation increasing the chance of nuclear war if reactors are used to produce weapons; 2. Problematic nuclear waste disposal for very long-lived radioactive elements (e.g. Yucca Mountain); 3. Serious nuclear-reactor accidents; 4. Potential nuclear terrorism; 5. Large capital costs for new reactors (6 - 10 billion $US in 2009) with long construction times; 6. Federal guarantees needed to supplement the Price Anderson Act in case of catastrophic accident; and 7. Harmful health effects of uranium mining on local populations (Navajo).
Positive features of current nuclear fission energy: 1. Little carbon emission, and so does not enhance global warming; 2. Reduces oil dependency and oil politics; 3. Energy at industrial scale.
It is important to note that nuclear fission energy is NOTnuclear FUSION energy. Nuclear fusion energy has none of the major problems of nuclear fission energy. Fusion energy is in the research stage. If it becomes commercial, fusion energy could largely satisfy the worldwide electricity demand for the indefinite future, safely.
Future fission reactors: "4th-Generation" reactors, currently in the research stage (e.g. the Integral Fast Integral Breeder Reactor), potentially have few of the major problems of the current reactors. In particular, advanced reactor design involves "eating" nuclear waste from current fission reactors, thus strongly reducing nuclear waste and proliferation problems.
Politically in the US, the right-wing tends to favor nuclear power, and there are pro-nuclear lobbying groups (e.g. the Nuclear Energy Institute). Anti-nuclear groups favor renewable non-nuclear energies.
It is noteworthy that the well-known scientist James Hansen strongly favors the promotion of nuclear energy of the advanced 4th generation type (in addition to renewable energies and energy conservation). Since nuclear fission does not enhance global warming, it is "back on the table".
HERE is a letter from four very influential climate scientists on 11/03/13, reading as follows:
To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power
We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.
Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.
While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century.
We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.
Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research
Here is a picture of the nuclear fuel cycle process:
The nuclear fuel cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant (4).
Bill Gates is a relative newcomer to the fight against global warming, but he's already shifting the debate over climate change. In recent years, America's wealthiest man has...
Carbon Capture and Storage (Sequestration)Last Updated on 2014-04-26 18:04:44
Carbon capture and storage (sequestration) or CCS
Background on CCS
Will We Really Need Carbon Sequestration? Yes. Why?
BUT there is a Big Caveat - we can't use CCS as an excuse not to mitigate directly
What does Jim Hansen say?
More Information for point carbon capture and storage
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR; Non-point capture)
Agriculture and Forestry Sequestration
What about Hemp for sequestration?
What about Biochar for sequestration?
Genetically engineered Bacteria and CCS
And What About China's Use of Coal without sequestration?
Other Examples of Carbon Sequestration
Videos on CCS and coal plants
References for Carbon Sequestration
Background on CCS
Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration (CCS) is a set of technologies... More »
Bill Gates is investing millions in carbon-free energy R&DLast Updated on 2010-11-11 00:00:00Bill Gates is a relative newcomer to the fight against global warming, but he's already shifting the debate over climate change. In recent years, America's wealthiest man has begun to tackle energy issues in a major way, investing millions in everything from high-capacity batteries to machines that can scrub carbon dioxide out of the air. "We don't really grasp the scale of the problem we're facing," says Gates."The right goal is not to cut our carbon emissions in half. The right goal is zero."
Gates supports next-generation nuclear plants, traveling-wave reactors which use waste uranium for fuel . Unlike energy-farming approaches such as wind and solar, traveling-wave reactors don't have a problem with location and storage.
"Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority," says... More »
Drag and drop the content to change the order of featured content. The top nine will be displayed.