Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

To start this debate, I will begin by fabricating a nuclear power plant, and a solar array for comparison purposes. El-Cheapo Nuclear Plant (1,2,3,4) Gross Power Capacity 1500 Megawatts (1443 Sustained 24/7) Capacity Factor 91.2% Cost to build ($5500/kWh*1500000) = $8.5 Billion+$300 Million Decommissioning Fund Life Span 45-60 Years Giga-watts produced per year (1.5 per hour*91.2% capacity factor*24 hours*365 days)=11900gWh Giga-watts produced over plant life span=535,000-714,000 Cost per Mega-watt over lifespan (8,800,000,000/535,000,000)=$16.44 El-Cheapo Solar Plant (2,5,6) Gross Power Capacity 1500 Megawatts Capacity Factor 17% (Average of Massachusetts-(15%) and Arizona-(19%) Capacity Factor) Cost To Build ($.74/watt *1.5 billion watts +50% for installation) 1.665 billion Life Span 20-30 years Giga-watts produced per year(1.5 per hour*17% capacity factor*24 hours*365 days)=2250gWh Giga-watts produced over plant life span=45,000-67,500 Cost Per Megawatt over lifespan (1,665,000,000/45,000,000)=$37 Arguments Cost: A Nuclear Power Plant will cost less than half of a comparable solar power plant per megawatt. Even factoring in fuel, security and maintenance, nuclear power costs about 4 cents per kWh, and solar power costs 22 cents per kWh produced (7). This means that if nuclear power were more widely used, it would cut energy costs for businesses to 18% of what their bills would be if solar power were more widely used. Capacity: It would take more than five el-cheapo solar plants to produce the same average energy as one el-cheapo nuclear plant. Energy is not needed only when the sun is shining, but also at night, meaning that for solar power to be a feasible alternative, dozens of Giga-watt battery arrays would have to be built, further driving up the price of solar energy. Not only that, but what do you do about several cloudy or rainy days in a row? However, a nuclear plant can simply run at full load all night or during cloudy/rainy days. Life Span: A nuclear power plant can be used for twice as long as a solar plant. Why build 2 solar plants over 60 years if you could just build one cheaper, more reliable nuclear plant? Safety record: Events such as Chernobyl and the Fukushima disaster gives nuclear power in the United States a bad name. Nuclear power ranks among the safest industries in America (8), for 2008, the industry hit a new low of 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours, as compared to 1.3 per 200,000 worker hours in all private industries. I do not wish to get overly technical with reactor safety, but the Fukushima, and Chernobyl reactors were not in the same league of safety as American reactors. The Fukushima reactors had a containment dome capable of withstanding 60psi of internal pressure, whereas United States Reactors can withstand up to 200psi, and the force of a commercial-airliner crashing into them. Also remember the Chernobyl power plants used a ludicrously stupid graphite rod assembly (I would need 20,000 characters to explain why) which caused a reactor meltdown. Also, remember, the Japanese placed their emergency backup generators and pumps below sea level! The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would never approve this system (9,10,11,12) Nuclear Waste: Nuclear Waste could easily be disposed at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which was deemed safe for 1,000,000 years, however it was closed and defunded by the Obama administration for “political, not technical or safety reasons” (13). So the nuclear waste problem can be solved, but Washington refuses to act upon it. Land Use: It would take almost 20 square miles to build a 1500-megawatt solar plant, however a 1500-megawatt nuclear plant only takes 3 square miles. The nuclear plant therefore further reduced environmental ramifications for animals, by disturbing fewer habitats (1,14). I have shown that nuclear power is safe, cheaper than solar power, more durable than solar power, and more feasible than large-scale solar power, good luck to my opponent. Sources 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.synapse-energy.com... 4. http://www.businessweek.com... 5. http://www.economist.com... 6. http://info.cat.org.uk... 7. http://nuclearfissionary.com... 8. http://www.reuters.com... 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://en.wikipedia.org... 12. http://en.wikipedia.org... 13. http://en.wikipedia.org... 14. http://en.wikipedia.org...