It is an undisputed reality that the energy production and their sustained growth constitute indispensable elements to ensure the economic and social progress of any country. For this reason, the use of all types of energy available in the country, including nuclear energy, should be included in its energy mix in order to ensure its future economic and social development. However, there are certain factors that need to be considered by the competent authorities of a country during the selection of the most economic energy sources for the generation of electricity. For instance the use of fossil fuels is a major and growing contributor to the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, their reserves in some cases are decreasing and could be exhausted in 2050, while nuclear energy and renewable are almost carbon dioxide free.

Considering the different available energy sources that the world can use now to satisfy the foresee increase in energy demand in the coming years, there should be no doubt that, at least for the next decades, there are only a few realistic options available to reduce further the CO2 emissions as a result of the electricity generation. These options are, among others, the following: Increase efficiency in electricity generation and use; expand use of all available renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal, among others as much as possible; massive introduction of new advanced technology like the capture carbon dioxide emissions technology at fossil-fueled (especially coal) electric generating plants, with the purpose to permanently sequester the carbon produced by these plants; increase use of new types of nuclear power reactors that are inherent safe and proliferation risk-free and with the production of small quantity of waste if any; and increase energy saving.

The problem that the world is now facing is how to satisfy the foresee increase in the demand of energy using the all available energy sources in the most efficient manner and without increasing the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere and climate changes. Without any doubt one of the available types of energy that has proved in the past that can be effectively used for the generation of electricity is nuclear energy. Can be confirmed that nuclear energy could be safely used for electricity generation in the future despite the problems that the nuclear industry faced in the past and now facing in several countries? The answer to this question is yes, nuclear energy can play again an important role in the energy balance of several countries in almost all regions as it did in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Over the last three years, several international assessments of the possible future of nuclear power in the world have been adjusted to more optimistic prospects for the horizon of 2030. The OECD International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2007 presents a reference scenario, an alternative policy scenario and a 450 stabilization case that includes respectively 415 GW, 525 GW and 833 GW of nuclear power. Electricity generation from nuclear plants under the high scenario would more than double from current levels to reach 6 560 TWh in 2030. Under the reference scenario the share of nuclear power in the world commercial primary energy supply would drop from 6% to 5% in 2030.

According to the International Energy Outlook for 2009 (IEO 2009), electricity generation from nuclear power is projected to increase from about 2.7 trillion kWh in 2006 to 3.8 trillion kWh in 2030, as concerns about rising fossil fuel prices, energy security, and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generation capacity. Higher fossil fuel prices allow nuclear power to become economically competitive with generation from coal, natural gas, and liquids despite the relatively high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear power plants.

Finally, it is expected that renewables could only satisfy between 20 and 30 % of the total demand of the world electricity in 2030 and some of this type of energy sources are very unstable and their outputs are being limited by weather conditions. The use of any fossil fuels could be as dangerous as the use nuclear energy in the long-term.

There is now general acceptance that the burning of fossil fuels is having a significant influence on the global climate. Effective mitigation of climate change will require deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with UK estimates of a 60–80% cut being necessary by 2050 [1], Still purer with the nuclear power, this last leaves behind dangerous wastes for thousands of years and risks contamination of land, air, and water[2]; the catastrophe of Japan is not far. Wind power can contribute to fulfilling several of the national environmental quality objectives decided by Parliament in 1991. Continued expansion of wind power is therefore of strategic importance [3], hence, the energy policy decision states that the objective is to facilitate a change to an ecologically sustainable energy production system [3], as example the Swedish Parliament adopted new energy guidelines in 1997 following the trend of moving towards an ecologically sustainable society. The decision also confirmed that the 1980 and 1991 guidelines still apply, i.e., that the nuclear power production is to be phased out at a slow rate so that the need for electrical can be met without risking employment and welfare. The first nuclear reactor of Barseback was shut down 30th of November 1999. Nuclear power production shall be replaced by improving the efficiency of electricity use, conversion to renewable forms of energy and other environmentally acceptable electricity production technologies [3].

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256186115_Design_and_Analysis_of_an_External-Rotor_Internal-Stator_Doubly_Fed_Induction_Generator_for_Small_Wind_Turbine_Application_by_Fem?ev=prf_pub

Article Design and Analysis of an External-Rotor Internal-Stator Dou...

I am definitely NOT for the use of nuclear energy.

However, for our energy needs, we cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels. Besides the set-backs of pollution, it is not a sustainable form of energy.

Similarly, nuclear energy is not sustainable. The risks that come with it are appalling.

Wind energy is clean, safe and sustainable. But it is not much used in my country, Malaysia. Thankfully though, we have hydro-electric power; that is also clean safe and sustainable.

To explore other forms of sustainable energy is a matter for governments to decide. On my part, I conserve, and reduce my usage of energy.

thank you,

.....Still purer with the nuclear power, this last leaves behind dangerous wastes for ***thousands of years *** and risks contamination of ***land***, ***air***, and ***water***[2]; ***the catastrophe of Japan is not far***.

best regards

It is an undisputed reality that the energy production and their sustained growth constitute indispensable elements to ensure the economic and social progress of any country. For this reason, the use of all types of energy available in the country, including nuclear energy, should be included in its energy mix in order to ensure its future economic and social development. However, there are certain factors that need to be considered by the competent authorities of a country during the selection of the most economic energy sources for the generation of electricity. For instance the use of fossil fuels is a major and growing contributor to the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, their reserves in some cases are decreasing and could be exhausted in 2050, while nuclear energy and renewable are almost carbon dioxide free.

Considering the different available energy sources that the world can use now to satisfy the foresee increase in energy demand in the coming years, there should be no doubt that, at least for the next decades, there are only a few realistic options available to reduce further the CO2 emissions as a result of the electricity generation. These options are, among others, the following: Increase efficiency in electricity generation and use; expand use of all available renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal, among others as much as possible; massive introduction of new advanced technology like the capture carbon dioxide emissions technology at fossil-fueled (especially coal) electric generating plants, with the purpose to permanently sequester the carbon produced by these plants; increase use of new types of nuclear power reactors that are inherent safe and proliferation risk-free and with the production of small quantity of waste if any; and increase energy saving.

The problem that the world is now facing is how to satisfy the foresee increase in the demand of energy using the all available energy sources in the most efficient manner and without increasing the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere and climate changes. Without any doubt one of the available types of energy that has proved in the past that can be effectively used for the generation of electricity is nuclear energy. Can be confirmed that nuclear energy could be safely used for electricity generation in the future despite the problems that the nuclear industry faced in the past and now facing in several countries? The answer to this question is yes, nuclear energy can play again an important role in the energy balance of several countries in almost all regions as it did in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Over the last three years, several international assessments of the possible future of nuclear power in the world have been adjusted to more optimistic prospects for the horizon of 2030. The OECD International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2007 presents a reference scenario, an alternative policy scenario and a 450 stabilization case that includes respectively 415 GW, 525 GW and 833 GW of nuclear power. Electricity generation from nuclear plants under the high scenario would more than double from current levels to reach 6 560 TWh in 2030. Under the reference scenario the share of nuclear power in the world commercial primary energy supply would drop from 6% to 5% in 2030.

According to the International Energy Outlook for 2009 (IEO 2009), electricity generation from nuclear power is projected to increase from about 2.7 trillion kWh in 2006 to 3.8 trillion kWh in 2030, as concerns about rising fossil fuel prices, energy security, and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generation capacity. Higher fossil fuel prices allow nuclear power to become economically competitive with generation from coal, natural gas, and liquids despite the relatively high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear power plants.

Finally, it is expected that renewables could only satisfy between 20 and 30 % of the total demand of the world electricity in 2030 and some of this type of energy sources are very unstable and their outputs are being limited by weather conditions. The use of any fossil fuels could be as dangerous as the use nuclear energy in the long-term.

Thanks Jorge. You have provided a lot of valuable information. Can we really be quite sure that another incident like Chernobyl is not likely to occur again?

Dear Miranda. No, it is impossible to give you this assurance not only in the field of nuclear power but in any other fields as well. An accident in the industry is something difficult to reduce to zero. But what we can be sure is that new safety measures adopted after a Fukushima nuclear accident will reduce further the possibility that a serious nuclear accident could happen again.

Can someone name a type of power plant producing "clean" electrical energy?

Dear Giorgio

If you consider only the production of electricity, then solar power plants, wind power plants, hydro power plant, nuclear power plants, the use of tilde wave, and geothermal power plants produce "clean electricity". However, if you consider the whole cycle, then no power plants produce "clean electricity", because the construction of the plant used diesel for transportation of equipment and other materials, the preparation of the site also consume diesel, and so on.

The requirement of energy consumption by a human being is huge. No solar or wind energy is adequate to meet constant heating and cooling, automation, vehicles etc. Nuclear energy is greatly large in energy density and important in view of limited resources of fossil fuel and carbon emission. I would surely go nuclear. We have to make a choice- we want a primitive life or a luxurious life. If we go back in time, use horses and cycles, live without machines and face the environment and only use energy for long distance flights and trains etc., we be we can avoid nuclear energy. Instead of avoiding nuclear energy we should address the issue of disposal of nuclear waste.

That's exactly my point of view! Plus how much a plant is clean depends on the system and local context. Solar power + is great in the desert, quite stupid in Tuscany, very inconvenient in the desert. Nuclear is great if you have 20+ power plant and an advanced country (see France), very expensive and dangerous if you have just few MWe. There is not such thing as an "absolute" best plant. All depends on the local situation!

No, there is no absolute best power plant for all countries. As I said in my comments, all available energy sources should be considered during the preparation of the energy mix of any country. You cannot exclude a specific type of energy source just because "you do not like it". However, no all types of energy sources could be used in all places and countries and this is something that experts and politicians should have in mind when discuss which is the best energy mix for the country from the technological, environmental, and economic point of view.

I totally agree again qith you Jorge. I tried to address the economic aspect in "Small-medium sized nuclear coal and gas power plant: A probabilistic analysis of their financial performances and influence of CO2 cost" and the not economic aspect in "Sustainability in the power plant choice". Both the papers (end several other) are availble as full text here in RG. All your comments are very wellcome

The clean power sources remain as evident wind, hydro and solar. But I am wondering if (and only if) we had a source of Hydrogen or clean and inexpensive production, that will be cleanest and best. The hydrogen fuel if obtained by some artificial photosynthesis like process from water and sunlight, then we burn hydrogen directly or fuel cells to produce electricity which again produces only water and only water.

Dear Jindal

Of course, the use of hydrogen for the generation of electricity is an excellent option but we need to solve an important problem. How we can obtain the hydrogen for this purpose?

An important limiting factor in the use of hydrogen worldwide as an energy source is the need to use other energy source to produce it. A key attraction of hydrogen as an energy vector is that can be produced from a variety of sources, including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuel sources. The production of hydrogen today is mainly performed by steam reforming, partial oxidation of gaseous or liquid fuels or the gasification of coal. Electrolysis is used when a small amount of pure hydrogen is required at a specific site. The purification of hydrogen rich gases is an important step in improving the quality of hydrogen produced, depending on eventual use. Certain fuel types require very high purity hydrogen. Distribution of hydrogen is done through pipelines, or using trucks carrying hydrogen in high-pressure gas cylinders or cryogenic tanks. The latter involves an energy-intensive liquefaction step, though the energy required just to compress gaseous hydrogen is itself significant. In the short- to-medium term, the lack of readily available non-fossil sources means that the bulk of hydrogen produced will come from fossil fuels, firstly without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and then with CCS in the medium term. The long-term goal is to produce hydrogen from indigenous carbon-free and carbon-clean energy sources.

It is important to stress that if we use fossil fuels with this purpose, then the production of hydrogen will not be clean, because CO2 will be release to the atmosphere. The only possibility to produce hydrogen without the emission of CO2 is to use renewable energies, which could not be always available and competitive or nuclear energy.

There is already today a major worldwide industry that provides hydrogen as a chemical used in making nitrogen fertilizers and in converting low-grade crude oils into transport fuels, but this hydrogen is made from natural gas, giving rise to emissions of CO2. To make hydrogen cleanly and on a large scale, two nuclear- powered processes are conceivable. In the short term, hydrogen can be produced economically by electrolysis of water using off-peak nuclear power. In future, a major possibility is direct thermo-chemical conversion of water using high-temperature reactors.

@Jorge, I already wrote in my earlier comment if hydrogen production can be possible in an inexpensive and clean way, it is best. You have also included the problem of storage and transportation of hydrogen. Yes these are issues which are being handled in some ways like storing in carbon nanotubes or hydrates etc. But let us postpone that problem and focus on production in a cheap and clean way. Electrolysis of water is one of the clean ways but then it is not only costly but should be used if we are having electricity to waste. for example in running vehicles, the battery is getting charged and overcharged. The overcharging electricity can be utilized to elecrolyse water to feed back hydrogen fuel which may supplement the fossil fuel on which the vehicle is running.

But I am talking of newer methods for hydrogen production where research needs focus. One way is to see how efficient we can make artificial photosynthesis or equivalent process which uses only sunlight as energy source to in a way electrolyze water. The process is taking place in nature continuously where green plant leaves use it to convert CO2 into O2 which is an equivalent process.

Secondly the alkali metals like Na and K react with water vigorously, infact explosively to produce hydrogen. Can we have cheap production of Na or K?

I think its a good links

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12723092

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/31/japan-nuclear-plant-explosion

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/13/japan-fukushima-nuclear-power-station-explosion

regards

Thank you

There are other problems with the use hydrogen right now. In addition to the problems already identified, we should be aware of the necessary infrastructure that needs to be built to support a massive use of this type of energy source in the transportation sector and for the generation of electricity. I am in favor of the use of clean energy as much as we can but this is not enough. We need time and improvement of the type of technology that use hydrogen as an energy source.

My perspective on nuclear is here:

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/BAS_abbott2012.pdf

My perspective on hydrogen is here:

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/PIE_abbott2010.pdf

@Derek Abbott ,@ Jorge Morales Pedraza, @ Vijay Jindal: you are welcome.

@Derek your articles are wonderful- I just glanced at these. I like your estimates and evaluation and now appreciate why nuclear energy is not a solution for the future despite extremely large energy density.

However, I see an overall pessimism in energy production. Though you seem to suggest a combination of solar and hydrogen. However I do not find any efficient and low cost hydrogen production.Solar energy be it elementary or sophisticated technology, sufferes from low energy density. Electrolysis costs more energy. Why people do not try highly exothermic chemical reaction of say sodium or potassium metal in a controlled way to produce hydrogen? This could be done in such a small container as the tank of a vehicle. The cost factors of Na or K need to be worked out and so also toxicity of NaOH or KOH etc.

This is one of the reasons why nuclear energy cannot be excluded from the energy mix of all countries during the coming decades:

Four eminent climate and energy scientists have issued a plea for world leaders to support the development and deployment of nuclear energy in an open letter that has achieved global coverage in news media.

In the letter, the four scientists urge the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems as vital if the world is to address the problems presented by climate change.

The world needs to meet growing global energy demand without "using the atmosphere as a waste dump", and while the scientists acknowledge the role that renewable energy will play in the future energy economy, they contend that to stabilize the climate without recourse to nuclear remains a possibility in theory only. Although describing current nuclear power plants as "far from perfect", they point to features including new safety systems, reducing proliferation risks, improving efficiency and favorable economics presented by modern nuclear technology.

According to the four scientists, no energy system is without downsides but energy system decisions should be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.

Earlier this year, a study co-authored by a former NASA scientist estimated that the use of nuclear power between 1971 and 2009 had likely prevented at least 1.84 million deaths from the effects of fossil fuel combustion pollution worldwide.

This is another reason:

Due to different reasons, and particularly after the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the debate about the future role of nuclear energy for electricity generation in the energy mix of several countries was reopened once again in the European region. There are several reasons for this. The first of these reasons is the high price of oil. The second reason is the need to reduce the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The third reason is the dependency of the EU and other European States to the import of fossil fuels.

During the consideration of the role that nuclear energy should have in the energy balance in the European States in the coming years, three main realities should be taken into account:

-The level of criticisms of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is rising again in several European States after the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Germany has shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear power reactors in operation in 2011. The UK shuts down 2units in 2012; other countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and Sweden have plans to shut down all nuclear power reactors currently in operation or have cancelled the expansion of their nuclear programs or the introduction of this type of programs for the generation of electricity in the future.

-Economics comparison. Whether the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is more economical or not than the use of other energy sources will depend on how cheap it is compared to other alternative energy sources;

-Is nuclear energy a secure energy source for the generation of electricity or it is very dangerous bearing in mind the Three Miles Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents? Does the world have in their hands now any other alternative energy sources that are more secure, can provide the level of electricity generation that the countries need when is needed, and it is clean and economic than nuclear energy? If the reply is yes, then they can be used immediately to generate the total energy electricity produced by the 436 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries in 2012, before the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant?

Currently, the European region (including Russia and Ukraine) generates around 31 % of its electricity from 195 nuclear power reactors currently in operation in 17 countries.

According to some expert’s opinion, it is a fact that nuclear energy is already making a substantial contribution to an energy policy that is low in carbon, cost-effective and that provides assured supply.

Today, a strong debate is happening among the oldest and most industrialized EU Member States, which do not want to slow down their economic growth and wish to overcome the current economic and social crisis that some of them are now facing.

This crisis is putting in danger not only the stability of several countries but also the common currency of 23 States (the euro). For this reason, a group of countries is thinking to continue using nuclear energy for the generation of electricity as a real alternative, even after the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. On the other hand, others countries are taking measures to slow down the expansion of their current nuclear power programs or will shut down some or all of their nuclear power reactors in the coming years. The problem that the world is now facing is how to meet the foreseeable increase in the demand of energy using all available energy sources in the most efficient and economic manner and without increasing the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Undoubtedly, one of the available types of energy sources that have proved in the past that can be effectively used for the generation of electricity is nuclear energy. The International Energy Outlook for 2011 (IEO 2011) indicated that electricity generation from nuclear power worldwide is expected to increase from 2.6 trillion kWh in 2008 to 4.9 trillion kWh in 2035, an increase of 88 %. However, there is a great concern about building new nuclear capacity due to construction costs, energy security and greenhouse gas emissions in several regions of the world.

Dear all contributors:

Fukushima is the WORST nuclear disaster in world history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwg0r9R1aFE

Japan Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Explosion Damage - Aerial Views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_oWWFi6T44