Why Fossil Fuel Is Preferably to Nuclear Fuel

Business Nuclear power, under current conditions, is characterized by much lower regular emissions compared to energy from fossil fuel burning. But, it poses its own unique hazards, of which the most notable is risk of industrial accidents (e.g. Chernobyl) that have acute, long-term repercussions over huge areas. There are also security risks presented by vast inventories of materials that have the potential of being utilized as nuclear weapons; fossil fuels pose no risk of this sort.

Evidently, both fossil fuels and nuclear energy aren't, at present, favorable for sound security and environmental policy. Furthermore, neither renewables nor breeder reactors (the two alternatives for unlimited supply of energy) are cost-efficient at existing fuel rates for immediately becoming the base of worldwide supply of energy.

What, then, are the alternatives available for an ecological, safe, and sustainable future energy supply? If one can reduce fossil fuel consumption and burn biomass renewably for lowering emissions to less than three gigatons carbon a year, fossil fuels can become a sounder energy form than nuclear power (Makhijani, 1997). Discontinuation of nuclear power is recommended, because it emits considerable lethal residue, and generation of electricity via fossil fuels adopted instead, since their emissions can be neutralized through scrubbers; moreover, waste reuse is possible, lowering annual operating costs.

Introduction Electrical energy and its production are key elements of humanity's growth, QOL (quality of life) improvement, and enrichment of the standard of living. Electricity is necessary for the use of numerous items and common technological gadgets (like, TVs, computers, lights, air conditioners, etc.). With increase in living standards, one's electricity consumption also rises. Global consumption of electricity in the year 2007 amounted to 495 quadrillion British Thermal Units. By the year 2035, this is projected to rise to about 739 quadrillion British Thermal Units -- a near-50% rise in not even three decades.

With a growing necessity for electricity, energy-generating technologies, such as solar, hydro, wind, nuclear power, coal-fueled power, and geothermal plants, are greatly in demand. The need for novel power plants is quite imminent, but a very vital decision is identifying which technology is suitable to employ in this regard, as each technology comes with a host of advantages and shortcomings (Odell, 2011).

The sector for nuclear power endeavors to take advantage of the climatic crisis through aggressive promotion of nuclear technology; it positions nuclear power as a mode of electricity generation whose asset is "low-carbon emission." Advocates assert that nuclear power is economical, safe, and capable of meeting global energy demands. However, this is a false and highly misleading claim. Nuclear power, in reality, challenges the real climate change solutions by deflecting urgently-required funding away from energy efficiency, and renewable and clean energy sources.

Indeed, nuclear power costs a lot, is harmful, and threatens worldwide security. Further, in fighting climate change, nuclear power fails to provide the requisite reductions in emission of greenhouse gases in time; nuclear power's contribution to decrease in emissions can be very late, insignificant, and costly (Greenpeace International, 2009). Fossil Fuel Electricity production using fossil fuels, particularly coal and natural gas, is a significant and increasing contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2) release; CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases majorly responsible for global warming.

Scientists are all in agreement that a reduction in these emissions is a must; the U.S.A. is expected to eventually join other countries in an attempt to lower emissions (MIT, 2015). The Earth, apparently, has the ability to absorb three gigatons a year of CO2 emissions; however, there's no certainty of the precise absorption and tolerance levels. Currently, the world emits around nine gigatons, of which, approximately two-thirds arises from fossil fuel burning. Biomass burning constitutes the remaining emission.

Apart from CO2 emissions, emission control technologies (for emissions excluding CO2 to the water and air) and mining of fossil fuels plays a role in environmental degradation (whose regional and domestic effects are normally quite serious). Moreover, current fossil fuel consumption techniques pose climate alteration risks, which scientists haven't been able to understand, as yet; however, they are likely to be permanent and calamitous. Natural gas, among all fossil fuels, generates the highest energy level for every carbon-emission unit.

But it cannot be the sole source of fulfilling worldwide energy demands using existing technology, particularly if one takes into consideration the current unmet energy requirements of most of the global population. Also, molecule-for-molecule pipeline leakage of methane or natural gas is a much larger factor in global warming (though it isn't adequately understood) than CO2 (Makhijani, 1997). Coal-fueled power plants produce electricity via coal combustion. These plants denote a distinct sub-category of the generic fossil-fuel power-generation plant category, which also comprises petroleum and natural gas plants.

Coal-powered plants utilize steam for powering a turbine attached to the generator, which produces electric current via periodically-varying magnetic field by means of wire coils. The output of this step is subsequently conditioned and directed to an electric-power grid. Coal introduced into the system is burned, with emission of gaseous products from a chimney. A closed piping loop that contains water is boiled; steam at high pressure continually rotates the turbine. Steam from there is condensed, followed by being redirected across the boiler and reheated by the burning fossil fuel.

The river constitutes the ultimate heat sink. In some cases, an alternative (cooling tower) condenses the steam that rotates the turbine. Coal mined for the process is regarded as "impure," with the impurities being sulfur, iron, aluminum, thorium, uranium, etc. In spite of being in an impure form, this coal is critical to energy generation's growth. Approximately 7000 separate coal-powered units are estimated to exist in 2300 locations across the globe (Odell, 2011). Nuclear Fuel Nuclear power in the year 2002 constituted 20% American and 17% global electricity consumption.

Scientists have projected that global utilization of electricity will rise appreciably in the decades to come, particularly in developing economies, as an accompaniment to social and economic advancement. Official predictions, however, demand only a 5% rise in global capacity of nuclear power generation by the year 2020 (which is also questionable), whereas electricity consumption could increase by even 75%. These forecasts hardly involve any new nuclear power plant constructions; also, they reflect growing attitudes against nuclear power as well as economic considerations in key nations (MIT, 2015).

Nuclear power stations produce electricity by utilizing energy generated from uranium atoms whose nuclei undergo fission -- a process wherein a large nucleus splits or decays into several small nuclei. This fission reaction of uranium-235 (U235) into daughter products represents the key nuclear-reactor reaction. The raw material for the nuclear reactor - U235 --is naturally-found in small amounts. Pure ore of uranium typically comprises just 99.3% of U238 and just 0.7% of U235.

For a sustained fission reaction in the requisite amount, the ore needs to initially undergo a process of enrichment for bringing U235 concentration to about 3 to 4%. UO2 or oxide of uranium is a nuclear station's actual fuel. Neutrons, in the core of the reactor, strike U235 atoms, forming U236, which is unstable, and thus has a transitory existence. It quickly breaks into several nuclei, releasing energy.

The sum total of the rest of nuclei's masses isn't equal to U236's original mass; this mass difference converts into energy, as per Einstein's famous equation: E=MC2 Here, E denotes energy produced (joules), c denotes velocity of light (3x108 meter/second), and m denotes mass (kilograms). Owing to light velocity's extremely great value, it is obvious that even minute mass values can produce substantial quantities of energy. Furthermore, fission reactions take place very rapidly, and thus, several such reactions taking place simultaneously can generate immense quantities of energy.

The following example can help one understand the scale of reactions taking place in the core of a nuclear reactor: roughly a thousand nuclear fission reactions will generate 1 watt of electricity. A standard nuclear power station generates nearly 1000 megawatts of electricity, with around 1 x 1012 fission reactions a second in the core of the reactor. The fuel undergoing fission is consumed and has to be replenished.

Once in 12 to 15 months or so, a nuclear power station experiences an outage for the purpose of refueling nearly a third of the reactor core's fuel; the outages generally last a few weeks to nearly one month. Some plants may even remain closed down for two or more months. Besides its fuel source, the technique of electricity generation in nuclear power stations is identical to that of coal-powered stations (Odell, 2011).

Fossil fuels are preferred over nuclear power in this paper because of the following shortcomings of the latter; Costs Nuclear power has commonly been defined as the costliest means to boiling water. In spite of its advocates' current assertions that the source is cheap, cost projections for proposed ventures have constantly proved incorrect. A glance at prior and present experiences of actual and estimated expenses of nuclear ventures uncovers a sector supported by subsidies, wherein overspending is rife.

Moody's ratings agency has clearly proven that, despite colossal governmental subsidy, investments into the nuclear power sector aren't a sound option. The costs associated with construction of a nuclear power plant are consistently twice or thrice as high as estimates quoted by the nuclear industry. In India, which has the latest nuclear plant construction experience, average completion expenses for the past ten reactors exceeded the budget by 300%. The construction of a new nuclear reactor in Finland has already exceeded the project budget by 1.5 billion Euros (Greenpeace International, 2009).

These plants have much higher total lifetime expenditures than natural gas plants with coal and combined cycle gas turbine technology, at least when no "cap and trade" system or carbon tax is present for carbon emission reduction. Safety There has, fortunately, been no partial or total nuclear meltdown in the U.S. since 1979, when a partial meltdown occurred at one of the reactors in Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island station. Though chances of industrial accidents are considered lower than about twenty years back by most experts, alarming precursors still arise.

While the sector vows that nuclear power stations don't pose a threat to public safety, the industry is still sheltered by the American government via a ceiling on liability, if a disaster occurs. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, reauthorized by the Congress in the year 2002, safeguards owners of nuclear facilities from the complete cost of catastrophes, while limiting government-offered protection to the masses, if a major accident happens.

Such a unique federal intervention alters competition among wholesale electricity sellers, in support of nuclear energy, emphasizing the innate uncertainty regarding the safety as well as likely scale of nuclear accidents. There are other safety concerns that have cropped up ever since the 9/11 attacks.

For instance, a new study by the National Academy of Sciences brought to light the fact that if a successful terrorist attack was launched on a nuclear reactor's reservoir of spent fuel, the water from the pool could possibly be drained, successively leading to a fire (due to overheating of the zirconium covering of spent fuel) and the likely release of substantial quantities of radio activity.

Not all reactors are equally vulnerable; the risk depends on several factors, such as reactor location and type, design and location of spent fuel reservoir, and reactor's physical security level. Removal of old, spent fuel (defined as fuel that has gone through a 3-5-year decay in the reservoir) to a safer, on-site dry cask space (or any other storage space), and eventual transfer to an off-site geologic depository can lower risks (Cochran, Paine, Fettus, Norris, & McKinzie, 2005 ).

Nuclear energy has apparent negative, health, safety, and environmental impacts, aggravated by the previously-mentioned Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, in addition to incidents at American, Russian, and Japanese fuel cycle centers. Further, there are increasing concerns regarding nuclear plant security against terrorist attacks, and secure and safe nuclear substance transportation. Proliferation There are security issues associated with nuclear power; commercial or related nuclear plants and centers can possibly be misused for getting hold of materials or technology as a forerunner to acquiring nuclear weaponry capability.

Fuel cycles involving spent fuel's chemical reprocessing for separating plutonium (which can be used in manufacturing weapons), and technologies for uranium enrichment are of particular concern, in light of extensive spread of nuclear power across the globe. Waste There are unsolved challenges in nuclear power with regard to long-run radioactive waste management. America and other nations haven't yet executed final-stage spent fuel disposal activities, or that of high-level streams of nuclear radioactive wastes generated during different fuel cycle stages.

As these wastes pose threats to humans as well as future generations, future nuclear plant investors, the general public, and policy makers properly anticipate significant ongoing progress towards means to solve nuclear waste disposal issues. Success of the proposed Yucca Mountain disposal center can facilitate, but not totally solve, the issue of waste for America and other nations, if there is considerable expansion of nuclear power (MIT, 2015). Why Fossil fuel is recommended over nuclear fuel Fossil fuel's biggest weakness is carbon emission and global warming.

A substantial decrease in these shortcomings can make it a safer, better option than nuclear fuel. For at least the coming few decades, not many viable options exist for CO2 emission reduction during electricity production processes; these include: Enhance power production and consumption efficiency; Increase usage of renewable sources of energy (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass); Capture CO2 emissions at coal- and other fossil- fired power generation plants and isolate the carbon permanently.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) CCS technology is capable of capturing about 90% of fossil-fuel-generated CO2 emissions in industrial and power generation processes, thus preventing CO2 entry into the atmosphere. Moreover, using CCS with the renewable source -- biomass --represents one among the few technologies for carbon abatement, which may be employed in a 'carbon-negative' approach-- actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There are three parts in CCS: CO2 capture, transportation, and secure storage in underground saline formations or depleted gas and oil fields.

Firstly, CCS technologies enable CO2 separation from the gases generated during industrial and power production processes by means of any one of the following techniques: oxy-fuel combustion, pre-combustion CO2 capture, and post-combustion CO2 capture. CO2 is subsequently transported via ship or pipeline to a safe storage location. Several million tons of CO2 are already moved every year for commercial use via ships, pipelines, and road tankers. America has 40 years' experience of pipeline transportation of CO2 for tertiary oil recovery ventures.

Next, the CO2 is carefully stored in specific geologic rock formations normally situated many kilometers under the surface of the earth. At all points in the chain of the CCS process, right from production through storage, there are numerous process technologies at the industry's disposal, which are thoroughly understood, with exceptional safety and health records. CCS's commercial deployment will entail extensive CCS technique implementation, together with strong government rules and monitoring methods (CCSA, 2015).

Coal is the most feasible of both sources Nuclear power lacks the ability to deliver substantially, and on time. The International Energy Agency's Energy Scenario demonstrates that even if the world's current nuclear power capability could be increased fourfold by the year 2050, it would still constitute less than 10% of global share of energy consumption. CO2 emissions wouldn't decrease even by 4%. Adopting the scenario would necessitate installation of a new reactor once every ten days beginning now -- until the year 2050.

Cost of setting up 1,400 reactors would cross 10 trillion dollars at present rates (Greenpeace International, 2009). At present, 104 reactors generate about 20% of America's electricity. If the electricity requirement in 2050 doesn't deviate much from the current demand (as demand growth is offset by energy conservation), hundred more reactors will be needed for producing an added 20% of American electricity in the year 2050. As electric power generation accounts for approximately 33% of the country's current greenhouse gas emissions, the extra 100 reactors will bring about a 6 to 7% decrease in emissions relative to present figures.

It must be borne in mind that for preventing hazardous climate change, industrialized countries like the U.S. should decrease 80% of emissions by 2050, as compared to 2000 levels (comparable to present levels). Therefore, an extra 100 reactors will roughly contribute 8% of overall essential U.S. reduction (i.e., 6 to 7% of requisite 80%), assuming that conservation and efficiency measures will be able to counter balance any rise in demand for electricity.

(If there are no additional measures for electricity efficiency and conservation, America's power usage will likely increase twofold by the year 2050.) (Gronlund, Lochbaum, & Lyman, 2007). Nuclear Energy does not Address Global Warming Global warming -- a result of heat-trapping, manmade pollution --represents the most critical of environmental issues brought about by human activities. Carbon dioxide is the key heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, generated principally through fossil fuel burning. Coal-fueled power stations emit the largest quantities of CO2 in the U.S.

Though nuclear power stations and fuel cycle centers don't emit as much CO2 as coal-powered stations, they aren't necessary or sufficient for averting hazardous global warming. America's power requirements can be fulfilled, accompanied by a minimum 70% emission decrease, by combining enhanced end-use efficiency, solar power, wind power, IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) coal-fueled power plants and CCS, with highly-efficient natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) turbines.

The above technologies are more economical compared to new nuclear power plants, and have quicker building/installation ability, without the acute public health, environmental, and security threats associated with nuclear power. Also, unless there is extensive commercialization of electric trains or all-electric, fuel-cell-driven, or plug-in hybrid vehicles, nuclear power cannot do anything in transportation emission decrease; at present, the transport sector relies heavily on.