Choosing fossil fuels over nuclear reactors

NewsFlash:

Choosing fossil fuels over nuclear reactors

Written by Sunny Oputa Thursday, 23 June 2011 23:34

It’s no fairy tale that the world energy demand will continue to increase, amid the growth in human population, the gargantuan energy appetite of United States and the buoyancy of the emerging economies of Brazil, China and India. According to OPEC, the world oil demand for 2010 was 85.5mb/d and is estimated to reach 91.0mb/d in 2015. Currently, both OPEC and Non-OPEC Producing nations supply 81.2mb/d of oil into the market and a projection of about 84.7mb/d market supply in 2011. In order to meet the short fall in world’s energy demand through crude oil, the new thinking is to enhance increase utilization of natural gas, nuclear energy, the emerging shale gas and alternatives sources such as solar, wind energy, geothermal and biofuel in the global energy mix.

Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant

Source: Wikipedia

While other alternative sources of energy are comparatively good to go along with fossil fuels to balance the world energy demand, it will amount to colossal mistake to continue to incorporate nuclear energy as part of the energy of the future. Again, it is a monumental misnomer to dub nuclear energy as a “clean energy”. What is really clean about energy that emanates from nuclear reactors that portend the ability to annihilate a community in a less controllable way? Clean, you may say, that nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen which form the greenhouse gases that threaten the environment. However, during the mining of uranium which is the main substance used in nuclear plants, fossil fuels are used , which in the process can still release gases in the environment .

Deepwater and offshore drilling of oil has its own dangers such as the Horizon rig accident at the Gulf of Mexico and the massive oil spill in Alaska. There is no way the dangers that emanate from oil drill could be compared to what happens when a nuclear plant explodes. Globally oil stands out in the world energy mix and it is the only fuel for now that closely meets the world’s energy demands. Recently enacted oil exploration and production policies by diverse producing nations to end gas flaring and met high environmental standards and the availability of technologies have tremendously helped in the control of carbon emission in the atmosphere.

. As if the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of April 26, 1986 in Ukraine of the former Soviet Union, was not enough lesson for the users, developers and proponents of nuclear energy to recede; the recent Fukushima nuclear reactors explosion in Japan due to the tsunami and earthquake that happened this March, might push nuclear -enriched nations and aspiring ones to pause, ponder and seek for another path to meet their energy demand and totally stop nuclear proliferation.

Whether it is the development and use of civil nuclear to meet a nation’s energy demand or nuclear armament to enhance military superiority; there are better alternatives. The fossil fuel – oil in all ramifications is a better alternative to the so called clean energy derived from nuclear plants. Oil will for the next fifty years continue to lead the world energy mix. For the use of nuclear armament to show military strength, peace and respect for one another is the answer.

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster that happened in the town of Pripyat in Ukraine in 1986 during a test, which was a level 7 event according to the International Nuclear Event Scale, was considered one of the worst nuclear power plant accidents in the world. The catastrophe consumed many lives and maimed people for life. Despite the human loss, and economic misfortunes it brought to the region, Ukraine continued to operate the plant until 2000. After experiencing the devastation of the dropping of the “Little Boy” in Hiroshima and the “Fat Man” in Nagasaki by the United States in Japan during the World War 11 in August 1945, which killed more than 400,000 people and crushed the economy of the country; the Land of the rising sun as Japan is called continued to pursue nuclear development and use. Like Japan, world powers such as United States, France, Britain, China and countries such as North Korean, Israel, India and many others have continued to maintain and develop nuclear plants despite global outcries.

The recent melting of fuel rods inside damaged reactors at the Fukushima plant in Japan has tendency of causing serious radioactive leaks. Radioactive materials that will be blasted into the atmosphere fro the Fukushima can easily reach the West Coast of United States and beyond. According to Dr. John Large, a nuclear expert who has shown concern on the extent of the propagation of the radioactive materials said that where the radiation ends up is “in the laps of the gods.” This statement from an expert forebodes deep danger that this might turn out to be a universal catastrophe. Professor Maku, another expert said “It might take between 50 -100 years to finish cleaning up the radioactive menace of the failed Fukushima plant.”

Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro), on the north end of March Point southeast of Anacortes, Washington

Source: Wikipedia

The actions of countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Italy to set up plans to close their nuclear plans are commendable. And in so doing, these nations are showing their love for humanity and also charting pathway for global peace. In the first week of June, after a massive anti-nuclear protest following the Fukushima disaster, German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a detailed proposal to close all 17 nuclear plants of Germany by 2022. Nuclear plants produce about a quarter of the country’s electricity. Chancellor Merkel is proposing that Germany get its extra energy supply through wind farms and other sources, but not nuclear reactors. Philipp Rosler, German’s Federal Economics Minister estimated that the plan to shut down nuclear plants in the country will raise electricity cost to consumers by one cent per kilowatt/hour. This will amount to yearly increase of about $57 per family. Truly, in times of economic crisis as the world is wriggling through every cent makes a big sense. However, it is not comparable to the dangers of nuclear reactors and the benefit of not having them. The monetary value of life is priceless.

The government of Switzerland after a stream of anti-nuclear protest also announced to decommission the county’s five existing reactors by the end of 2034. Switzerland gets 40% of its current energy from nuclear plants. The country has marshaled out plans to substitute its energy mix by increasing utilization of renewable energy. Against, the wish of Berlusconi’s government that wanted to open up Italy’s energy program in 2014, the citizens of that country voted en masse to put an end to nuclear plants.

Germany has shown the lead as the largest industrial economy to propose plans for shutting down its nuclear plants. Whether nuclear plants provide 60 – 80% of electricity need of any country, there is more to life than what we think at present. The world has a choice to make to choose life or death by either continuing the use and proliferation of nuclear plants or to embrace fossil fuel and other alternative energy to meet up global demand. Since well controlled carbon is source of life, the world is better of with the fossil fuel.