After the recent declaration of USA about its NDC of ~ 50% as per the Paris Climate Agreement. Now the scientific debate regarding alternate energy sources to meet the ever-increasing energy demand becomes more vivid and interesting. There are many publications putting the relevance of five renewable sources and nuclear energy. Recent advancements and innovations made nuclear energy more competitive and feasible options after the Texas winter event. It is high time to discuss the drivers and barriers of the clean and low-carbon energy sources in near future. Pls give your scientific view on this subject
Dear Sunil Kumar Sahoo ,
This is never simple!
There is a deep bitterness in use of nuclear energy, a fact that it had one of worst beginnings of humanity's history due to its warlike application in WWII over Japan.
However, if we think coldly, without preconceptions and without our deep sadness at fact that there are nuclear bombs, Prof. Enrico Fermi at University of Chicago, showed that nuclear energy could be used for human development (CP1 - Chicago Pile One - First Fission Reactor), without taking into account all benefits of medical treatments with radiation (Profa. Marie Skłodowska-Curie).
I was very surprised by simple and very deep placement of Prof. James Lovelock (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock) in which, after much writing about Gaia, in his amazing lucidity of ideas and understanding of nature he speaks of his opinion with the use of nuclear energy (https://www.youtube .com / watch? v = mYP22KfI8lw and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGziItCwDJA).
In fact, by observing transparently the energy necessary for humanity to continue to develop, we cannot afford to use one or the other, we have to use everything that exists.
I deeply hope that starting in 2025, we will be able to enjoy a better future with controlled thermonuclear fusion via the ITER tokamak (iter.org).
Regards,
Wiltgen
Renewable energy has better future. Once implemented it does not require expensive and damaging mining of resources for fuel to keep it running. Mining itself contributes to global crisis because of energy required for extraction and processing of fuel. Furthermore, mining lowers the efficiency of energy conversion of nuclear technology. Human population on earth has reached a point where resource extraction becomes finite and very expensive. Renewable energy is more efficient because it converts energy that is already available to us. For comparison, our ancestor were able to explore globe by ocean using freely available energy - wind. If they use steam power, their progress would be extremely slow at best.
The real source of climate crisis is how we used the fossil fuel technology not the technology itself. We simple trashed CO2 in air without regards to long term consequences (gas-air). We trashed plastics for the same reason (solids, earth) and as consequence we can find microplastics even in human body. Nuclear technology waste is trashed too and it will bring far more deadly and irreversible consequences for humanity. Renewable does not produce waste during energy conversion process. This technology can be made with recyclable materials too. As I mentioned before, human population is just too large for this planet to provide energy that this civilization demand. Even fusion is limited because it require resources/waste disposal for energy conversion process and it does not follow the close cycle system that nature ecosystem is build on.
Recent innovations in SMR technology, wealth from waste concept, improved safety controls, and others make nuclear energy is more competitive in the future. Eventually, renewable energy appears to be more attractive but the barriers are more promising. For example, the quantity of space that required more wind or solar energy is about 100 to 500 times greater than equivalent nuclear energy and also dependable on climate conditions. Therefore, nuclear energy has an edge over renewable energy sources to meet the burgeoning energy need of the globe.
Las energías renovables son el camino del futuro energético
It is not a question of preference, one over the other but concern about the reliability, environmental impact, cost-effectiveness, and public acceptability. Also, serious introspection is required on supply-demand and justification/optimization of requirements in the future considering the climate changes.
Renewable energies (solar, wind, geothermal) are not base energies, since one can not control the source of them; they are 'peak' energies. By the contrary, nuclear energy is a base energy and it does not contaminate (no emission of CO2 and other dangerous products). If people are able to understand this point, this is other topic.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India