Nuclear Energy is not the best energy source for future

According to experts1 does not exist only one option of energy resource for future, but there are many different options. All of them are related with security, predictability, affordability, plenty, and cleaning.2 Humanity have nine options for future at least: Hydro, Coal, Bio-fuels, Solar, Gas, Marine, Oil, Nuclear, and Wind. The International Energy Agency affirm that energy use will raise almost doubles by 2050.3 Additionally, there is a tendency to reduce energy production and consumption to electrical energy production and consumption. It means that the problem of energy resources for future is linked with sources to create electrical energy. In front of these problems many people think that Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source for a complete country4 or even for all humans. For them affordability is the main factor because one kilogram of uranium gives 360,000 kWh in average.5 Additionally, renewable energy sources could be really helpful but they won solve problems in all cases. The idea of the best energy source is related with criteria that are more important for future, and with natural resources in each case. Since many years ago affordability of energy resources is the most important feature, but I think that is a presentist criteria that doesn't consider many consequences for future generations, and it's only interested in satisfy demands of actual societies. In many countries people are addicted to energy consumption, specially to electrical energy. Electricity has a wide range of uses in houses, but it's not used efficiently. For example, electricity is used for heating because is cheaper than natural gas, but it

1 2 3 4 5

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324485004578424624254723536 https://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/ http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/ https://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/edf-energys-approach/why-we-choose-new-nuclear http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/#.UmbL87M2x0i

happens because in many countries electricity is created using coal that is a really cheap fuel, although it is the dirtiest fuel in the world. A coal ton costs between $ 10 and $ 60 dollars6, and one ton could produce 1,870 kWh or almost 1 kWh per Pound. It means that 1 kWh produced with coal costs 0.03 cents if it the ton costs $ 60 dollars. That is a crazy thing because coal is the most dirty fuel and it is not plenty in many countries. But, if we focus in predictability Nuclear Power could be the best option because a nuclear plant could be build in almost any place on the earth and in a short time. You need only a little amount of water for to it works. How ever, the really big problem is nuclear waste. A nuclear reactor works not with natural uranium (U-235) but with enriched uranium (U-238), and to produce 1 kilogram of U-238 we get more than 11 kilograms of U-235 that is not used to produce energy but is very dangerous for people. Additionally, the problem has a big scale because a large nuclear reactor (1000 Mw) requires about 200 tonnes of U-238 nuclear power reactor generating electricity for one year7. It means 2200 tons of nuclear waste per year only for enrichment process. If we consider that to maintain efficient reactor performance, about one-third of the spent fuel must be removed every year or 18 months, and must be replaced with fresh fuel, we can see that nuclear energy has been creating a really big snowball that is pursuing humanity. Nuclear power's defenders argue that nuclear waste could be recycled, but in fact there is just a 3% of U-238 in each kilogram of nuclear waste. Then, only 3% of waste could be recycled. A real recycling program would need almost all nuclear waste that is produced by 500 reactors in the world8. If w can't reuse nuclear waste, it will stay with our child, grand-child and for a long while on the earth. Nuclear energy means dangerous nuclear waste for future generations. That means that this energy source could be the worst energy option for future.

6 7

http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-CycleOverview/#.UmhYWLM2z6w http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Another really important feature for the best energy source is cleaning. About it, nuclear power seems the worst option, but for some people that is not true. The World Nuclear Organization considers that safety and security is almost complete covered in all plants, but there are more than enough cases to do not trust in what they say. For its promoters Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Tokaimura accidents have had a just little impact in people and environment.9 If we compare, they say, the nuclear experience of Chernobyl accident and Fukushima, we can see that nuclear industry has three times more experience. Even, they affirm that third generation of nuclear reactors are solving all problems that had other kind of reactors had had, and that they will be better in 2050 when will arrive a fourth generation of them. In contrast, it is very easy show that even if nuclear technology is not very safe in different cases like shut down sand earthquakes. Additionally, some nuclear companies do not share all its information about accidents, and cleaning protocols. Even governments and companies have tried to hire the levels and consequences of accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. They offer controversial accounts about uranium waste management and of technological conditions of nuclear plant. Nuclear energy promoters try to minimize probability and possible consequences of radiation10 because if they recognize it, they must accept that it could have terrible effects in people's health for hundred of years because of radiation. In the end, security appears as one of the most important feature for energy resources for future and it is totally linked with cleaning. The last argument that nuclear energy defenders offer is efficiency. They argue that nuclear energy pollutes as much as Hydro, biomass, solar or wind energies or even less than them if we consider its low efficiency. For example a wind energy generators could produce 40 kWh per month average, but generators for land cost a little more than 900 dollars and marine generators 1250 dollars with a wind speed of 12 or 13 miles per hour. Additionally, if everyday energy consumption average in

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/

10 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Radiation-and-Life/#.UmiU77M2z6w

Mexico is 15 kWh, you would need more than 10 generators to cover the energy consumption for one only house. In the other hand, many renewable energies are cheap because they have subsidies from different governments around the world. Then, if they weren't subsided, renewable flues would be more expensive. 11 Contrary to people think some green fuels are not cheap energy. That is no true. Different governments are paying with money form citizens (taxes) to it could be cheap. In the end people continue polluting environment with green, renewable or not renewable fuels. A the source that is not efficient, it is not convenient for future. Finally, I think that doesn't exist a perfect energy source. All energy sources produce waste and pollution of environment. One of them looks like better that others. Then, what could be the criteria to chose a energy source for future. In my opinion, If we think present generations must be focus in find and improve different energy sources that can be closer to our idea of perfect fuel. I mean a fuel that could be the best possible option in each case or in some cases, but not in all cases. I think that the best option must be linked with a context and that there is not only one for everyone. Security, predictability, affordability, plenty, and cleaning are related with a context. Then, to guarantee for future means put away market values and focus in environmental resources. If we continue following market demands, the future will be of market owners: Coke-Cola, Monsanto, Giorgio Armany, Nestle, Shell, British Petroleum, and so on. If we want future for us we must take present in our hands. The solution is not in energy sources but what kind of future do we want.

11 http://theenergycollective.com/jessicalovering/266841/mark-bittman-s-renewables-delusions