Nuclear power.

"For 50 years, nuclear power stations have produced three products which only a lunatic could want: bomb-explosive plutonium, lethal radioactive waste and electricity so dear it has to be heavily subsidized. They leave to future generations the task, and most of the cost, of making safe sites that have been polluted half-way to eternity." - James BuchanWell that sure sounds just awful. It sounds like a terrible spot for pro nuclear power to work his way out from - especially when I, pro, don't disagree with one bit of the quote!That's my task, and there is no reason to start off telling anyone fairytales. As a CEO I worked for told his people as many times as anyone could listen "under promise - over deliver". From the days of claims like "energy too cheap to meter's, nuclear power proponents have dug their holes with OVER promise and UNDER deliver. If we could wash our brains of yesterday's misconceptions, undelivered promises, dramatic accidents and every Godzilla move it sure would make my job easier, however, an easy job I don't have.I will order my argument in a way I hope will satisfy the reader, make NO effort to hide the concerns over Godzilla, and show a world where nuclear makes sense. Debate Outline Round 1 I Brief intro introduction to Nuclear Energy II The energy situation as it is now, and where it's going III Where does Nuclear fit in Round 2 IV GODZILLA!!! V Proliferation Round 3 VI Cool new technologies VII Humans in space I. Brief intro introduction to Nuclear Energy Just what are we talking about? Nuclear is very vague, everything about atoms is nuclear. Well, generally when we talk nuclear energy we are speaking of fission (splitting the atom) fusion (fusion of two nuclei) and decay (energy ionizing radiation). Each of these has reasonable visuals to differentiate in our minds. Weather fission, fusion, or decay, what we are looking at is energy released from the nucleus of an atom. Thanks in large part to a kindly man with shocking white hair we have been able to realize the awesome power that sits all around us, and he expressed it with only a hand full of characters - E=mc^2.Reasonably speaking, our entire universe is running on nuclear energy. Solar, wind, coal, these and every other imaginable power source is in effect drafting on nuclear energy. If you believe that (and you should, because it's true) how do we make power like the cool kids do?Electricity through nuclear energy is produced in the same way as it we do it by burning coal, oil or natural gas. When burnt, the heat formed produces steam. The steam then turns turbines. The turbines turns generators which produce electricity. The difference between the plants that use coal and the plants that use uranium as fuel is that nuclear plants don't burn anything, and don't produce CO2 - the major cause of global warming, and with a energy densities 3 million times that of coal!(MJ/kg Uranium - 80,620,000 coal - 24)![1.1]References:* Image created by TBR from original work licensed under Public Domain; II. The energy situation as it is now, and where it's going The story of energy consumption is a story of good news mixed with bad news. Our human endears are producing marvels of technical glory, the bad news is, this comes at a cost - the enviroment. We need to address the bad news in order to continue to enjoy the good news.The typical American household is consuming ~11,700 kWh/year[2.1]. That is a dramatic number when compared with some other first world countries like China who typically use ~1,350 kWh/year[2.1]. The good news is, even with more electricity consuming devices being added to the typical household, generally speaking use is going DOWN in the first world due in large part to more efficient and smarter technologies. The bad news is the US household (population) has never gone down. We are adding households[2.2] that each use ~11,500 kWh/year! We can't efficiency our way out of this problem.The first world is not alone in its lust for electricity. When we look at this list of countries, and the percentage of the population with access to electricity, we get an average of 75% of the population with access to electric[2.3]. These percentages have been going UP for some time. That is, more and more people are getting access to the electricity they need and want. However, that still leaves, according to world energy outlook[2.4], about 1.317 billion people on the planet without electricity, and virtually every sign points to the fact that they want and need electricity! We are not the only ones that need electricity.In the US, and throughout the world, electric vehicles are becoming more mainstream. Displacing the fossil fuel directly consumed is a great start. Unfortunately, we need to generate the power to fuel the electric cars we have now, and the ones that will eventually replace almost, if not all, autos on the road today. A guesstimate of the electricity needed to replace fossil fuel for the cars on the road today is 1,111 TWh! The total electric consumption for the US in 2011 was 3,882 TWh, making for an approximate 29% increase necessary to power all cars by electricity[2.5]. Moving the problem around does not solve the problem.The US and the world is using a whole lot of electricity, and is on track to need much-much more. References[2.1] http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...[2.2] http://quickfacts.census.gov... [2.3] http://data.worldbank.org... [2.4] http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org... [2.5] http://www.slate.com... Image created by TBR from original work created by;http://science.howstuffworks.com...http://www.worldbank.org... III. Where does Nuclear fit in The goals are simple enough. Provide ample electricity to cover the current needs, our growing needs, and the needs of those without access to reliable electricity now, and do it all without digging our pollution hole even deeper. Simple enough, that's only ~143,851 TWh per year now, with a 10% increase of use per person worldwide, and population growth 27%[3.1]. Wait, what did I just say? With the current distribution of technologies looking a little like this[3.2] Coal 42% Natural Gas 20% Hydro 16% Nuclear 14% Oil-based 5% Renewables(all).. 3% Is it feasible to hope to eliminate even just coal any time soon, let alone expect renewables to cover the bulk of the current load, forgetting the understood growth? If we could, is it the smartest approach? May answer to each of these questions is, no.When you look at the incredible growth rates in solar and wind over the last five to ten years, it might give you hope that these industries could do the incredible. Replace coal, nuclear, maybe even natural gas. The problem with growth rates is the next year that triple growth you had last year is the new base for this year! An attempt to maintain even a modest growth rate year-over-year is incredibly difficult regardless of desire and acceptance. Another simple problem is, like any industry, the wind and solar utilities have targeted the best locations first - leaving the more difficult for tomorrow. Locations with little to no infrastructure, access to the grid, less desirable for technical reasons like less wind, or less sun. The necessary growth needed is simply too tall a request for wind and solar to accomplish alone, and certainly unnecessary handcuffing efforts whan another mature technology with lower CO2 emission is right at hand. What, what? Thats not a typo[3.3], for total life-cycle, nuclear beats both wind and solar for CO2 emission.Nuclear is the only feasible baseload alternative to coal. Solar and wind can be layered along with other technologies to accomplish reliable baseload for some areas, but this compounds problems for even sophisticated countries let alone the developing world where the choice is more likely either or. In countries where a good deal of growth of power plants will be, the choice of complex layering over the relatively simple and cost effective nuclear plant will be more attractive, and much better than coal.References[3.1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3.2] http://www.insitepartners.com... [3.3] http://en.wikipedia.org... Image created by TBR from original work created by;