Nuclear Power vs. Solar Power
As we wade through our present energy crisis, I am hearing a lot more about nuclear energy as a viable option for a green future. And why shouldn’t I? It turns out that nuclear power already provides about 20% of my electricity–a large percentage when stood against solar power’s current numbers. It also turns out that nuclear power is a big part of John McCain’s energy plan.
So is nuclear power clean? Is it sustainable? How does solar power compare? These are just a few questions that immediately popped into my head. So now, I’ll try to answer them:
Is Nuclear Power Sustainable?
Nuclear Power, which is derived from the fission of uranium, plutonium, or thorium, is sustainable in that we have hundreds to thousands of years of usable uranium available. Although, I imagine that number might diminish over the years as demand increased (especially if we were to adopt nuclear as our primary power source). I should note that nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source…it’s just that there’s a lot of it.
Is Nuclear Power Clean?
Nuclear power, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, is quite clean. It does not directly emit any greenhouse gases. However, the nuclear fuel cycle produces them indirectly, but at a drastically slower rate than fossil fuel sources.
Much of the debate over nuclear power has surrounded waste disposal. In the U.S. the solution has been to box it up and store it beneath the state of Nevada. This waste ranges from high-level to low-level waste, high-level being the stuff we all hear about, and low-level being clothes, gloves, materials used in the power plants, and other items exposed to radiation. Uranium can be reprocessed (for the plutonium) and used as a fuel in the plant itself. However, it is this reprocessing that facilitates the making of nuclear bombs.
How does Solar Compare to Nuclear Power?
Solar and Nuclear power each have their advantages. Although, at this time nuclear power would probably run away with the trophy if not for the environmental and political holdups. Here are their respective advantages, as I see them:
- Nuclear
- would have an easier transition to a centralized grid system.already provides a good portion of our electricity
- does not emit greenhouse gases
- plenty of resource available
- presently cheaper than solar power
- Solar
- is a renewable energy source
- available to anyone with a home (ignoring cost inhibitions)
- has no volatile waste (other than panels which could likely be recycled)
- several emerging technologies that can improve efficiency and central station generation abilities.
These are the advantages, put simply, that I can see right now. There are proponents of one, the other, or both. I see a brighter future for solar for three reasons:
1. It is completely, even daily, renewable.
2. Solar is fast advancing. We are likely on the cusp of a technological windfall for solar power.
3. The risks for nuclear power are high and unlikely to get resolved soon. So far it seems that, in an attempt to stop polluting the sky, we would throw our toxins into the ground.
Posted on August 11th in Solar Information by David.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Solar power is renewable and non toxic. Nuclear power is larger scale and can give more bang for the buck, not to mention doesn’t take up hundreds of acres to power cities. But Solar won’t HARM us, it simply uses the sun and has no bi-product.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
While we look at the GHG emissions from all the sources we comfortablyleave the amount of GHG that goes into the production of the Solar panles.
Especially the raw materials for the solar like Silicon, other gases and consumable all require a huge power and emits lot of GHG
Some body need to really put his head down and work on what is the net carbon from this source.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] These cons are rapidly evaporating, and the long-term projections are encouraging. Some argue that nuclear power, more drilling, and wind farms are more feasible than solar [...]
January 31st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
No one really looks at the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels. If people only knew…
April 14th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Actualy there’s nothing better than a safe & clean energy, solar power is better than all powers…
June 10th, 2010 at 5:36 am
How about this, a combination of Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geo Thermal, Parabolic Mirrors, ect… is the key.
We can’t put all our eggs into one basket.
As far as the Costs go for each one; how do you put a cost on a clean evironment? Cost is alway “Relative.”
June 21st, 2010 at 1:01 am
@Rob if only YOU knew… You can find such info even on wikipedia theses days. The energetic payback time for solar panels is about 1-2 years. Their lifespan is about 20-30 years. So the answer is: yes, they EASILY provide much more energy than they require. For wind turbines this output/input ratio (energetic ROI) is even more positive.
October 6th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Gerd – you’re living in a dream world if you think the payback on solar panels is 1-2 years. Maybe for heating the water in a rain barrel. A quick survey of sites with (seemingly) reliable information says you’re off by a factor of 10. From Homeowner.net (http://www.homeownernet.com/energy/solar_home.html): A 3-4 KW [Kilowatt] system for a 3000 square foot home can cost from $24,000 to $40,000, and take 10 years or more to pay back. These numbers look pretty accurate, as I have investigated installing solar panels on my own house, thinking we’d be able to save some money. The entry cost is just too high to justify for the average homeowner. Government subsidies aren’t the answer; they’re an inefficient re-allocation of capital resources (but then, everything the Government does is inefficient).
I don’t know how much your electric bills are, but they’re probably not $1000 to $1,666 per month (the amount you’d need to save to recoup the cost in 2 years). Additionally, you have the problem of availability of the sun: it doesn’t shine 24 hours per day, or when it’s cloudy. Storage is still problematic, because the batteries required to save up excess energy generated (assuming there is any) are very expensive.
Currently, solar-powered anything exists only because vested interests in government agencies insist that it must: without subsidies, no one would bother, because it’s not cost-effective.
December 26th, 2010 at 1:06 am
Hey marfdrat, read the post properly before replying.
Gerd and Rob were talking about the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels, not the cost of them.
The carbon footprint of producing solar pv’s is about 1-2 years and falling. One of the biggest appeals of Solar over Nuclear is that the costs of Solar per unit power continues to fall and will continue to fall as it follows it’s growth curve in technology (conversion efficiency, cost of production…), whereas Nuclear has hit a brick wall and fallen unconscious in it’s cost efficiency (http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2008/update78) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants)
Nuclear ain’t following any sort of moore’s law, that’s for sure.
As Solar is developed further, particularly pv, initial carbon footprint will as it has been, continue to fall.
Each generation of nuclear power takes decades to develop. The much hyped (by nuclear advocates) gen iv reactor, is still vapourware and I believe its full spec isn’t due until the year 2030. Nuclear just can’t compete with solar where thousands of laboratories around the world are generating more energy and cost efficient solar pv cells, and as solar becomes more efficient, so does it’s popularity hence mass production cost efficiencies come more into play.
Fantastic work is also being done by the likes of Dan Nocera and others in related fields and I’d say that by the year 2050, Solar power will be too cheap to meter.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:59 am
[...] These cons are rapidly evaporating, and the long-term projections are encouraging. Some argue that nuclear power, more drilling, and wind farms are more feasible than solar energy. [...]