NEW ENERGY BEATS NUKES EVERY WAY

The nuclear option: Safety concerns are only one big reason wind and solar better
Mark Z. Jacobson, March 20, 2011 (NY Daily News)

"The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down - releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees - have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk. [As Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University,] I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and
toward safe, clean, renewable energy."

click to enlarge

"First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth. Meltdowns can be caused not only by human error and natural disasters, but also by a terrorist with a large plane…[This] is dwarfed by the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, as evidenced by the attempted or actual development of weapons capabilities in Pakistan, India, Iran and to some extent North Korea secretly under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.

"If the world's energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes - and nuclear supplied such energy - 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed…[E]ven 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons…[One such weapon] could kill 1 to 16 million people…"

click to enlarge

"Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? …[With WWS – wind, water and sunlight – the] chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists…is zero…WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated…"

"Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5% [and only half is scheduled maintenance]…Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output…[O]thers (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly…[C]ombining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup."

click to enlarge

"…Solar power in sunny locations can power the entire world for all purposes 30 times over; wind in windy locations on or near land can power the world 6 to 15 times over. Only 0.4% more of the entire planet’s physical land would be needed to power everyone, everywhere with WWS…Despite what you may have heard, on-land wind, hydroelectric and geothermal power are cost-competitive with conventional energy. Solar costs are higher but decreasing…[Policy makers] leaning toward nuclear should consider…health and safety… and the scientific method, instead of the trail of lobbyists, when deciding the future of this country…"