Nuclear Energy: the hope of future energy

Published on December 19 2009 by Will Lee

Brief content: Although these environmentalists have praised the concept of low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources, but they oppose the U.S. nuclear energy is unwavering. Such as the Sierra Club, Amory Lovins, of course, and "Los Angeles Times" those who oppose the use of nuclear energy will continue to promote wind and solar power can provide energy and electricity, and can be used to replace fossil fuels, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Recently, the "Los Angeles Times" published an article "Do not the new nuclear power plants" and is a not signed article. The article points out, due to long construction period, high cost of nuclear power plants and therefore can not effectively solve the energy shortage problem, and predicted the United States will invest more funds for solar, wind and geothermal renewable energy sources, it concluded that "nuclear energy is a failed experiment in the past and will not be a reasonable approach in the future.”

This newspaper in May 1975 had published the other unsigned article "natural gas, how to do that." The article said "The United States did not have enough cheap natural gas supply", it should be imposition of windfall tax for those producers who failed to dive into most of their profits into the efforts to find new energy sources of natural gas. At that time, because the federal government among the states to implement the control of natural gas sales prices, the United States faced a crisis over gas supplies.

Of course, at that time, "Los Angeles Times" is impossible to foresee a shale-gas revolution will change the pattern of the U.S. natural gas. But now the position of nuclear power, "Los Angeles Times" has with the United States most influential environmentalists, still short-sighted.

Although these environmentalists have praised the concept of low-carbon or carbon-free energy sources, but they oppose the U.S. nuclear energy is unwavering. In 2005, about 300 environmental groups in a joint statement signed and declared: "We are firmly opposed to increasing investment in nuclear power, it is not an acceptable or necessary solution to ... ... nuclear energy should not be a part of the effort against global warming. "These organizations which including the famous Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

After that, the U.S. Rocky Mountain Institute Chairman and chief scientist of Amory Lovins became the darling of the media in Colorado. For decades he has been opposed to nuclear power plant construction. In 1986, when asked about the future of nuclear power, Amory Lovins says with conviction: "There are no ... ... the future will not build (nuclear power plant). The only problem is that the nuclear power plant already under construction and will be continuing to build, or shut down. "

Amory Lovins said in 2007: "The nuclear power industry and its political allies by the director of the advocacy of a huge movement, weaving the illusion of a revival, it may be able to sub-soft ears deceive journalists, but not fool smart investment people.”

We must ask, as early as in 1986, Amory Lovins is how to make those predictions? According to data provided by the IAEA over the past 20 years, about 130 new nuclear reactors have been put into use, power generation capacity up to 12.3 ten thousand megawatts, which is almost the global total of 1 / 3. Data show that in late 2009, a total of 435 nuclear reactors worldwide, with a total generating capacity of 37 ten thousand megawatts.

For Amory Lovins in 2007 declared that "restoration is only a mirage", the above data has once again proved his mistake. According to the World Nuclear Association data, there are currently 53 new nuclear reactors under construction, with a total generating capacity of more than 4.9 ten thousand megawatts. At the same time, more and more nuclear reactors in the plan.

The world's third largest nuclear power producer Japan (after the United States and France) who planned to build 11 new nuclear reactors over the next ten years. Japan also plans in 2050, the domestic 60% of its electricity comes from nuclear power, which is double its current share. Even so, compared with a number of Chinese companies, Japan's "ambition" is insignificant, China's nuclear power companies plan to build 150 new nuclear reactors.

International Energy Agency who consider nuclear power as an important component for stabilization the level of global carbon dioxide emissions. In its recently released 2009 annual "World Energy Outlook", the agency is expected over the next 20 years, total global investment in nuclear power will reach 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars. More importantly, the report clearly shows that compared with traditional power plants, nuclear power plant operating costs are very competitive.

The International Energy Agency said: "The new nuclear power plant could control the cost of electricity per megawatt-hour between 55-80 U.S. dollars, which makes nuclear power plant in a strong competitive edge when compared to coal or gas-fired thermal power plant, especially fossil fuel power plants also with a burden of costs related to carbon emissions in the future.”

The International Energy Agency estimated in 2010 to 2015, nuclear power plant will be one of the cheapest options among the power plants put into operation, even with the wind power and the adoption of high efficiency ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plant burning method is no exception. The International Energy Agency estimates that every megawatt nuclear power plants producing electricity costs about 72 U.S. dollars, while the land-based wind farm costs per megawatt-hour of electricity is about 94 U.S. dollars.

Such as the Sierra Club, Amory Lovins, of course, and "Los Angeles Times" those who oppose the use of nuclear energy will continue to promote wind and solar power can provide energy and electricity, and can be used to replace fossil fuels, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

But the fact is that this is "more difficult task." Remove the natural gas, nuclear energy is the only viable low-carbon energy sources, it helps to significantly reduce the use of coal. Perhaps we do not like nuclear energy, but we have to select it. The short term, in the next few years, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the obvious way is to increase the use of natural gas. But in the long run, unless the energy storage technologies have miraculous major breakthrough or else more viable option is only nuclear energy.