“Switching from a finite supply of oil to a finite supply of uranium cannot work for the long term”, claims an article written by Caroline Lucas published in the Herald Scotland November 7, 2010. Lucas’ argument seems to be that there must be a shift directly from oil to solely green technologies and therefore a shift from centralized power supply to small scale grids. She argues that nuclear is not economically viable or sustainable, nor is it “genuinely low carbon”, and therefore we must stop our use of nuclear energy completely. Finally the claim is made that politicians like nuclear energy because it is greener that oil and gas and people do not want to have to change their lifestyles, i.e. energy consumption. However Lucas provides little support for her claims and views, which weakens her argument drastically.
While Lucas argues that nuclear power is not sustainable in the long run, others would believe otherwise. There are vast supplies of uranium still in the Earth, approximately 8.3 million tonnes with high estimates of 35 million. This amount could support current global demand for nuclear energy which is 80-100000 tonnes/year for over 100 more years (World Nuclear Association). While clearly this supply will not last forever, one must consider what time frame long run refers to as some might consider upwards of 100 years rather long term. Also with respect to sustainability Lucas points out the finite lifetime of nuclear plants but fails to address the fact that there is also a finite lifetime of green technologies. For example the average solar panel lifetime is 20-25 years with efficiency decreasing drastically over this time period (Solar Panel Info). Compared with the lifetime of a nuclear plant which is 60-80 years, the lifetime and efficiency of solar panels is much smaller and therefore could not come close to supporting current energy consumption. What Lucas should have done to strengthen her argument was give pros and cons of each technology and draw a conclusion based on these facts.
Another large theme Lucas presents focuses on the economic side of the issue, claiming that nuclear is much too expensive to be a viable solution. However at the present time in Canada, electricity from nuclear costs 4.5 cents/kwh, and electricity from solar panels for example costs 80 cents/ kwh, which is nearly twenty times more (OPG, FIT). This difference in price and the present time provides not incentive for people to change their source of energy, which severely limits the development of green technologies when comparing to efficient and cheap sources. Another claim of Lucas’ also faces the aforementioned issue in regards to public decision. She suggests a shift towards higher energy efficiency and affordable public transit. This is a good idea in theory however would require a great deal of investment and subsidizes from the government in order to not only implement it but to convince people to change their habits. This is unlikely to be possible without an increase in taxes or some other social program to obtain funds and raise awareness to catalyze a change. This is not unlike the issue of high costs for building and decommissioning nuclear plants which also require money from taxpayers. The question is which one incurs the lowest overall cost while also obtaining the highest benefit to society.
Examining the environmental aspect of Lucas’ argument also raises some issue with her claims. Lucas states that nuclear energy is not “genuinely carbon free”, however green technologies are not necessarily green either. When accounting for a product or service’s carbon footprint, the entire lifecycle of that product must be taken into account; from the harvesting of the natural resources to the eventual disposal, recycling or down cycling. This being said one could argue that some green technologies are not genuinely carbon free either. To illustrate I will discuss solar panels once again. Solar panels, although they use no fuel or produce no carbon emissions while in use, their production requires the mining of special metals which is very energy intensive relying on large amounts of fossil fuels. Also recycling these materials after use is nearly impossible, resulting in an inability to reuse most of the components. Therefore one could argue that green technologies are not any less carbon producing that nuclear.
The big problem with Lucas’ argument is that she does not provide any specific facts about the negative aspects of obtaining power from nuclear energy, nor does she provide and specific viable alternative which could used in place of nuclear power in the transition away from oil and non renewable resources in general. Lucas fails to recognize that implementing green technologies in a scale large enough to sustain energy demand with no use of nuclear or other non renewable fuels would take extreme amounts of energy and time. It is an idealistic idea, and most definitely not an attainable one in a short time span. Instead of merely stating that “nuclear energy is not a viable stop-gap”, Lucas should have presented valid facts from both sides of the argument in order to give readers a representative and realistic view of the issue. This would also make it possible for readers to make a more informed decision about their opinion on the matter, making the article more impactful to everyone. Both nuclear energy and green technologies have some similar downsides, and therefore one must weigh the cost and benefit of each of these technologies to determine what the best option is. Furthermore, while the end result of more sustainable energy sources and overall way of life is ideal, this transition must be taken in small steps to be really effective, viable and long lasting. Lucas could have made her argument against nuclear energy much more effective and valid had she stated that nuclear may help ease the transition from oil and gas reserves to more sustainable green technologies, but should be limited to such and not be developed further.
Word Count: 991
REFERENCES
Nuclear is not a viable energy stop gap. Caroline Lucas. Herald Scotland. November 7, 2010.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/nuclear-is-not-a-viable-energy-stop-gap-1.1066419
Feed In Tariff Prices for Renewable Energy Products in Ontario
http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/102/11128_FIT_Price_Schedule_August_13_2010.pdf
World Nuclear Association
http://www.world-nuclear.org
Ontario Power Generation Reports 2009 Financial Results
www.opg.com
http://www.solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost.php
http://www.freewebs.com/renewableandnuclear/
No comments:
Post a Comment