Times have changed and running the world on fossil fuel energy can no longer be taken for granted. At the moment two types of energy sources are being considered during the transition of countries to sustainable energy. Coal mining is being pursued throughout the world with businesses very serious about getting all the coal possible out of the earth. Nuclear energy has needed a lot of help from governments to stay afloat until now and that situation would not change (Rutgers 2011).
Since the dangerous accidents such the one at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979. This was caused by a stuck valve which led to the partial core meltdown reports an online resource at Dickinson College (Malmsheimer et al. 2007). The climate shifts caused by global warming necessitate stopping CO2 emissions as much as possible; many are raising the use of nuclear energy as a viable energy source especially compared to coal.
The technology designs for cleaning CO2 out of coal plant emissions has been around for many years but industry has not wanted to invest in the pollutant cleaning equipment (ACS 2011). Now with the obvious changes in weather and the incidence of extreme weather becoming so common, people and regulation agencies are demanding less CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Even newer and better technologies have been developed. Simple technologies turn out to have usefulness too.
The demand for electricity is growing all the time. Holton (2005) reports that “The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration tracks world energy trends and projects a 75% increase in global electricity use between 2000 and 2020. By 2050 a tripling of us is probable. Electricity production currently is responsible for an estimated one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions.”
Many are calling for the use of coal as an energy source during the transition to sustainable energy. This paper will compare some of the positive and negative aspects of coal energy versus nuclear energy.
David Lochbaum (2005) a nuclear safety engineering speaking on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists has explained that at the organization, “We are not fundamentally opposed to nuclear power, but there are better choices. In addition, we now have spent nuclear fuel in storage places where it is not meant to be. It’s not a health threat yet, but it could be.” He is referring to one of the greatest arguments against nuclear energy: there is no way yet devised to store the waste product.
‘Spent fuel’ is the fuel that has been used to make energy; it is the waste product. Large quantities are stored at the Sarcophagus, the name of the storage facility, a burial site, at Yucca Mountain in the state of Nevada (Pool 1997). The waste product of nuclear energy production has a radioactive life span of 10,000 years; finding a guaranteed geologically safe site is perhaps an unrealistic goal (Holton 2005).
In March, 2011 the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan was caused by an earthquake generated tsunami adding a reason for further resistance to nuclear power. People already anti-nuclear power feel their argument has been strengthened. The disaster at Chernobyl was the worst nuclear energy plan in modern history because of a poorly designed nuclear energy plant and poorly trained technicians. That is not used as an argument against nuclear energy now because plants in the USA are built with containment structures around the core and well trained technicians.
Security threat is another negative issue connected to using nuclear energy. It does not have a counterpart in the coal energy argument so will not be examined in this essay.
Suassani (2007) has concluded that “nuclear energy will remain important part of the global energy mix, but it is not the panacea that many advocates are selling.” He explains that in terms of slowing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions the building of the plants necessary will take time and the CO2 emissions need to be decreased as soon as possible. He also says that nuclear energy can’t substitute for petroleum in the transportation segment (Suassani 2007).
On the positive side he suggests that “In the distant future, perhaps nuclear energy may help offset transportations emissions through the production of hydrogen” (Suassani 2007). Suassani (2007) offers a stronger argument for nuclear when he considers that nuclear “could grow faster to 519 gigawatts by 2030” with the caveat that this can only happen with policy support. The market changes that could help nuclear energy become more viable competitively is to raise prices for natural gas and coal through a carbon tax and make smaller reactors so start up money needed would be less and the waste disposal would to be such a great volume as from large reactors (Suassani 2007).
The American Chemical Society quotes experts from NASA’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2011) who emphasize, “. . . that the global climate change problem becomes manageable only if society deals quickly with emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal in electric power plants. The only practical way to preserve (the) planet (is to) rapidly phase out coal emissions and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as oil shale and tar sands. The United States could completely stop emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired electric power plants . . . within 20 years by using technology that already exists or could be commercially available within a decade” (ACS study 2011).
That means that coal could still be used as an energy source but the facilities using coal must adopt the technology to keep carbon dioxide emissions from reaching the atmosphere. The authors of the study offered many energy generating sources including “deployment of advanced (fourth-generation) nuclear power plants; and carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants” (ACS 2011).
At the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) a group of scientists offered a simple solution to eliminate more CO2 "scrubbing carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the flue gases from coal-burning electric power generating stations” by using the same ingredients that are found in hair conditioner. Their research demonstrated that the ingredients, known as amino-silicones, “have the potential to remove 90% of CO2 from simulated flue gas” (ACS 2011).
Dr. Perry at the ACS meeting emphasized the problem with CO2 from coal burning plants by quantifying the effect, “An estimated 2.8 billion tons of the gas enters the atmosphere each year from the 8,000 coal-fired power plants in the United States alone; those are among 50,000 coal-fired generating stations worldwide” (2011).
One of the biggest detriments to burning coal is the damage done to the earth by digging mines. There is even a fairly new, modern way of getting coal of the mountains – taking the top right off the mountain. This strategy is known as Mountain Top Removal (MTR) and has caused a strong negative reaction by citizens and state governments.
Source Watch (2011) reports that “The process involves using explosives to remove up to 1,000 vertical feet of rock to reach the coal seams. The resulting debris is often scraped into the adjacent valleys in what is called a valley fill.” The Appalachian Mountains have been reshaped by this type of mining and are trying to deal with all the environmental problems it causes.
Changes to the environment to the land’s surface, the ecosystems and the watershed capabilities using the MTR technique are catastrophic. This type of mining also generates toxic waste which has been dangerously stored by the coal mining companies leading to a constant battle with the coal mining companies by the residents in the region.
On the other hand those in favor of continuing the use of the MTR technique list efficiency (over underground mining especially), the ability to provide jobs and the flat land which they claim is better than the mountainous terrain (Source Watch 2011).
After reviewing the literature to determine the pros and cons of coal energy versus nuclear energy no direct, strait forward choice can be made. It seems each choice must be tied to caveats because the dangers associated with each of the type of energy production are great.
In studies undertaken by Greenberg, Truelove and Bloustein (2011) they tried to understand the dynamics related to the opinion of people about the use of coal energy versus nuclear energy. The goal of the studies was to find out if common risk beliefs influenced consumer preferences. In their first study they report that, “About 30 percent of respondents favored increased reliance on nuclear energy, despite admitting the possibility of a serious accident.” On the second study they found that, “About 10 percent favored greater reliance on coal, while acknowledging the fossil fuels’ role in global warming.” (Greenberg, Truelove & Bloustein 2011).
In conclusion Greenberg, Truelove and Bloustein (2011) report, “Results from the total sample showed that about 25 percent of participants wanted to increase reliance on coal and 66 percent preferred to decrease dependence on it.”
Because fossil fuels in general and coal in particular are not going to be available for much longer alternatives must be found. If we learn lessons from the past we will choose more efficient and safer technologies for energy. Burning coal for energy is a common way that CO2 has entered the atmosphere in large amounts since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Nuclear energy can produce a lot of energy as a product of nuclear fission reactions in a short amount of time. The problem of using a technology that produces a dangerous, radioactive product is a big risk. The nuclear energy waste products still have no safe storage place and no way to be destroyed. I don’t have any doubt that there is a good probability that the scientists of the world will eventually come up with a solution to solve the radioactive waste product problem.
I have had some problems deciding what I would choose as the best alternative when compared to each other; coal energy or nuclear energy. I am on the side of stopping the mountain top removal method of mining coal. I think that all coal mining should be decreased; not increased the mines and closed safely.
On the other hand the technology for scrubbers in coal burning facilities should be put into place immediately. In that way the rest of the coal can be used without the great volume of CO2 entering the atmosphere from the burning coal.
All of the arguments I found by experts pro using nuclear energy always had caveats added to the argument pertaining to the risks. Nuclear energy does not seem to be a reasonable choice to me. The idea of producing as a by-product of nuclear energy a dangerous, radioactive waste is too much of a risk. The recent terrible experience of the Japanese with the nuclear plants damaged in May, 2011 from a natural disaster does not bode well for the future of nuclear energy in my mind.
Works Cited
American Chemical Society. "New CO2'scrubber' from ingredient in hair conditioners."ScienceDaily, 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
American Chemical Society. "U.S. could eliminate CO2 emissions from coal in 20 years, experts say." ScienceDaily, 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011
Greenberg, M., Truelove, H. B., and Bloustein, E. J. 2011. Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident? Risk Analysis. 31 (5): 819.
Holton, W. C. 2005. Power Surge: Renewed Interest in Nuclear Energy. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113 (11) 742.
Malmsheimer, L. M., Gerencser, J., Reeves, R. K., Triller, M., Luetzelschwab, J., Osborne, J. Campbel, M., Weaver, J. and Smith, T. 2007. Three Mile Island Emergency. Dickinson College. Threemileisland.org. 17 Oct. 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
Nuclear Power: Safety First. 2011. Union of Concerned Scientists. Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. www.ucsusa.org Nov. 2011. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
Pool, R. 1997. Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology. NY: Oxford University Press. Print.
Top of Form
Rutgers University. 2011. "The energy debate: Coal vs. nuclear." ScienceDaily, 13 Jun. 2011. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.
Mountaintop removal. 2011. Sourcewatch.org. 17 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
Bottom of Form
Squassoni, S. May 2007. Risks and Realities: the "new Nuclear Energy Revival.” Arms Control Today. 37 (4) 6+. Print.
