 |
 |
|
 |
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library | |
 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library | |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 If the projections of surging energy demand, global warming, and fossil fuel scarcity are valid, the only solutions are conservation, solar and wind power, dams, and a major world expansion of nuclear energy.
 n September 11 the United States received a strong message in the energy arena, for those who have eyes to see it. The World Trade Center and Pentagon catastrophes should alert us to the need to address simmering world problems before they boil over. World energy use is one such problem. In the
The undeveloped countries have a high level of births, and it is projected that in 50 years their population will increase from 4 to 8 billion people. Over the same period, world population will increase from 6 to 10 billion. As the poorer countries move to increase their standard of living, their energy use will increase. If, on the average, in 50 years world energy use on a per-person basis reaches a third of that in the United States today, then world energy use will triple. Where will the world get this energy? The Bush-Cheney energy plan  he present government energy plan intends to meet our future energy requirements but only in the near term. It intends to increase our fossil fuel supplies, in part through the new Alaskan oil development. It also proposes to increase our nuclear energy availability, as well as to support expansion of renewable energy sources, but it is not clear that the present policy will prevent the more-distant energy disasters that may be upon us in several decades. Developing Alaskan oil will provide only a small amount of our future needed energy, and such a project does not address the threat of global warming. The plans to use more coal and gas do not address the problem either; indeed, they would add to the potential global-warming problems. The proposed nuclear energy program does not appear strong enough to develop the major U.S. and world expansion of nuclear energy required to counter global warming and meet the world's future energy needs. In other words, our energy policy does not appear to be working hard now to minimize, or eliminate, the potential world energy disasters of future decades.
Fossil fuels  ossil fuels present two major problems. First is the potentially disastrous warming of the earth, as fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Second are the potential shortages of natural gas and oil in the next half-century and coal in the next century, as world energy use increases. These fossil fuels were developed over hundreds of thousands of years as nature converted dead vegetation into the resources used today. They are being depleted, and increased dependence on them may lead to international conflict over short energy supplies. Remember that one reason for Japan's 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was its concern over access to fossil fuels.
Should we wait to see if these disasters take place, or should we try now to prevent them? Recall that this year's energy shortage in California occurred after some decades
If global warming is real, and if rising levels of CO2 are the cause, the transfer from fossil fuels to non-CO2-producing energy sources is the only major means to relieve the problem. Such sources include dams, solar and wind power, and nuclear energy. In China today, the world's largest dam is being built, and additional dams may be built in the undeveloped countries. In the developed world in general, dams have already been built at most practical sites. They supply some 8 percent of electricity. The environmental movement is against dams and proposes to remove many in the United States because they interfere with nature and the movement of fish on the rivers where they are located. Renewable solar and wind power  enewable solar and wind power are CO2-free sources that can supply the world with much-needed "clean" energy. It is projected, however, that they can provide only a small part of the total world energy demand. One limitation is that they are not steady sources. During the day there are periods when they are not available, as clouds cover the sun, or night approaches and winds stop blowing. Further, both solar and wind power require such large land areas that they have unwanted environmental effects and high costs.
For example, a thousand-megawatt fossil or nuclear electrical generating plant requires a few acres of land. A solar or wind power plant would require 50 to 100 square miles to generate that much power, leading to high costs of production and maintenance, environmental problems, and limited areas of efficient operation. It has been proposed that photovoltaic cells may be installed on roofs or distributed over other areas. Solar and wind power may also work well in isolated areas where electrical lines are not available. These special uses can be helpful, but clearly they provide only a limited amount of power. The point is that clean solar and wind power can be supportive. They should be utilized to the extent that they meet energy needs within the constraints of economy, environment, and time, but they are likely to be of limited use in providing the coming world's energy requirements. Thus, despite implications by some environmentalists, we should not expect that solar and wind power by themselves will solve our future energy problems. Their technology should continue to be studied and upgraded, so they can provide significant amounts of energy in the future. Fusion  n time, fusion energy may be a major addition to clean energy, but it is not feasible today. Fusion requires large accelerating machines that cause hydrogen nuclei to merge, turn into helium, and emit significant energy. The problem is that these nuclei repel each other until they get close enough to merge, only then emitting energy. Fusion specialists are planning to develop expensive test machines to demonstrate the means to develop economic energy-producing fusion machines. But such a solution is not expected for some decades into the future; it cannot be counted on.
Fuel cells  e read about the advantages of clean fuel cells, which might be used to power automobiles, or other needed mechanical devices, and would not produce CO2. But where do we get the fuel for these clean fuel cells? Hydrogen is considered the major fuel, but how do we get the hydrogen? One way is to use fossil fuels to generate electricity, power hydrolysis, and separate hydrogen from oxygen in water. It should be understood that the volume of CO2 emissions from the fossil fuels in such an apparatus would actually be larger than if fossil fuels were used directly to run an automobile. In other words, we need clean energy, not fossil fuels, to produce the hydrogen required for clean mechanical production.
Clearly, nonfossil energy is the key; nuclear energy may be the only significant means, although renewables and dams could also produce some of the needed hydrogen. Nuclear energy If global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels are real, a major expansion of nuclear energy is needed to solve or mitigate any potential coming disasters. Nuclear energy and its wastes have not harmed any member of the public in the United States or the Western world.
The key nuclear problems are public concerns over safety, waste disposal, and nuclear weapons development. Public concern over safety has resulted primarily from the accidents at Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl. There is, however, also concern over the effects of nuclear radiation. The nuclear industry has done a poor job in educating the public that TMI was, in a sense, a success. The plant met U.S. safety design criteria and, despite the melting of the nuclear fuel, no significant radiation reached the public. The extra radiation that reached as far as the reactor fence was less than would be absorbed during a two-week vacation in Denver, or on an airline trip across the country. The public is unduly frightened by radiation from nuclear plants. Consider that the only public deaths, some 20 in the Soviet Union due to the Chernobyl accident, were due to the mistake of letting children drink radioactive milk. Some 2,000 children who drank the milk contracted thyroid cancer; but most of the cancers were treated and deaths were prevented. One should, however, consider that tens of thousands of European women had abortions resulting from fear of radiation coming from Chernobyl. In point of fact, such radiation in Europe was much less than the yearly radiation from nature. Nuclear studies and data are now showing that nuclear radiation up to some 50 times that of nature's yearly radiation is not harmful and, indeed, may add to health by activating the cells' natural defense mechanisms. Again, the nuclear industry has done little to allay incorrect public fears and thus should take some culpability for the unnecessary European abortions. The recent air-crash destruction of the World Trade buildings has raised questions about the safety of nuclear plants, in the event of a similar attack. Studies are now measuring the risks. It may be that designs should be modified to reduce or eliminate possible public harm from such attacks. With respect to waste, it should be noted that over the past 45 years, since peaceful nuclear energy started, nuclear wastes have harmed no one. In principle, they could continue to be maintained at, or near, the reactor sites indefinitely, but most experts believe it would be better to have central sites that could maintain wastes produced by some 50 reactors over 50 years. Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the first such site to be developed, is not yet operational. Nonetheless, after more than 10 years of exploration and design studies, the Department of Energy has concluded that the present design will maintain nuclear wastes for over 10,000 years without exposing the public to any significant radiation. Considering long-term energy needs and the available supplies of uranium, storing the wastes of today's nuclear plants for 10,000 years seems highly unlikely. Uranium,
The point of the discussion above is that nuclear energy is likely to be needed for world welfare. Its major problems are caused by public concerns and opposition that formed when there was no perceived important need for nuclear power. However, with the coming need for expansion of clean energy, no solution appears possible without a major worldwide expansion of nuclear energy. Thus, as the public gains knowledge of the need for clean energy, we can expect a major worldwide revival and expansion of nuclear energy. This expansion will require an increase far outweighing the previous growth. Meeting future energy needs without increasing global-warming risks will require the use of solar and wind power, dams, and nuclear power. If at least half the future energy is nuclear, this will require a world expansion to some 5,000 nuclear plants by 2050, or 100 new plants per year for the coming decades. It might be noted that before the 1973 energy surplus, U.S. utilities were ordering about 40 nuclear plants a year. Thus, it should be clear that needed nuclear expansion can be met. Both the industrialized and developing countries must decide how to achieve the needed nuclear expansion in a safe, rational manner; how to avoid the dangerous expansion of fossil fuel use; and how to prevent the construction of unsafe (Chernobyl-type) reactors. An international nuclear energy approach is required. (Recommendations are included in "International Nuclear Energy Actions for the Future", see sidebar.) Conclusion f the global warming and scarce fossil fuel projections are valid, the only solutions are conservation, solar and wind power, dams, and a major world expansion of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy was developed and grew in the industrial world when there was a recognized need. At present, in most of the developed world, there is no near-term need for a significant energy or nuclear energy expansion. But, as noted, the world as a whole is facing a major future energy problem that could have
In the near term, nations can ignore the coming energy problems, but, given the potential for further world tragedies, delays should not be tolerated. The United States should move expeditiously to lead an international program that will assure a safe and satisfying energy future for the world and our children.  Bertram Wolfe is a member of the National Academy of Engineering; a past president and fellow of the American Nuclear Society; a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; a retired vice president of General Electric; a past designer of nuclear plants; a well-known writer and speaker about energy and nuclear energy; and the recipient of a number of prestigious awards. |
|
Copyright © 2003 The World & I. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |
