What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?

Following Japan's nuclear problems environmental groups are baying even more for 'nuclear power generation' banishment.

Do they have an alternative power source?

Wood?

Coal?

There are problems with these sources as well.What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?If anything, the situation in Japan shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding.


Here is an informative article describing the situation:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fu鈥?/a>

And here is where you find current, factual status information:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsun鈥?/a>
Historical status:
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011鈥?/a>

And a slide presentation that describes the effects:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/radiologi鈥?/a>

And here is a chart that helps make sense of the numbers:
http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

And before you come down on nuclear energy, take a look at coal. In the U.S. 20 to 60 coal miners die each year compared to zero nuclear power plant workers. Pollution from coal power plants kill over 20,000 people in the U.S. annually compared to about 100 people killed world-wide from nuclear power over the last forty years. The only thing coal has going for it is that it doesn't have "nuclear" in the wording so therefore it must be safe. It seems that most people have learned about nuclear energy from sci-fi B movies rather than from studying the science.

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_fran鈥?/a>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/u鈥?/a>

And coal power isn't radiation-free either:

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/coala鈥?/a>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl鈥?/a>

Note that wood is a fairly limited resource, and a large polluter as well. The U.S. has already removed over 90% of the original forest that covered North America. If wood was used more than it is now there would only be a few ornamental trees left.

The real answer is conservation. We could spend the money we now spend for wars in regions that don't want us to insulate our houses and buildings better. Although people mostly think of transportation as the energy hog, heating and cooling houses actually uses up a big chunk of energy. It's possible to insulate a house so that it uses about $50 worth of energy a year for heating and cooling--even in the more extreme climates. However, it seems that we--or at least the politicians--would rather spend money on wars than on conservation.What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?
lots of countries do quite well without nuclear energy. It is by no means essential. Australia has no nuclear power plants. NZ has none either.



Even though a lot of people keep saying Wind solar etc are not viable for base load generation they in fact are very suitable. You just have to configure them properly together with cheap efficient storage...pumped hydro is one such method.



there are a whole range of renewable energy sources and a combination of many will be more than enough to provide all the energy we need.What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?Wood and coal both burn oxygen and create CO2. Bad.

Nuclear does not create green house gases. Good.

Timber and mining are two of the most dangerous jobs on the planet. Bad.

Spent nuclear fuel is still very hazardous and will be for centuries. Bad.

You can not hide nuclear waste deep in a mountain and rest assured that it will not come back to haunt you. Bad.

Wind and solar are clean but unreliable sources of power generation so we need back up from dirty non renewable sources. Bad.

Is there a good solution? No. Is there a better way of dealing with dirty power? Yes. Is it cheap? No. Is it perfect? You know it isn't.



Start by using geo thermal heat pumps for heating and cooling. 6 feet down the Earth is a constant temperature. Using that constant temperature a heat pump can both heat and cool our buildings which are a major energy drain for the country. Once you have the heat pump all you need is electricity to power the pumps in the heat pump. There is a theme here, stay with me.



Electric vehicles can run off of a power line embedded into the roads in a similar way that your electric tooth brush gets power from an electric outlet. More electricity is needed for that. A lot of electricity but no more vehicle pollution. And jobs for the infrastructure upgrade is a bonus.



Those two examples have dealt with the two greatest sources of energy consumption in our country, there are others but I know you are dying to know where all that extra electric power is from.



This is the not perfect part I promised. More power plants. Centralize power production and scrub the pollutants on the spot before they get into the environment. Polluting and scrubbing it away is still creating the pollution in the first place I know. It isn't perfect but it is better.



One way is to scrub the smoke stack emissions is by filtering it through water. The water becomes CO2 rich and a perfect environment for growing algae. Algae can be turned into gasoline, bio diesel, jet fuel etc. Perfect? No. Scrubbed CO2 can be used to increase the production of oil wells. Domestic oil wells that already exist and the CO2 is then trapped under ground. Is that any better than hiding unspent nuclear fuel in a mountain? Yes. The effects of releasing CO2 is less harmful than the release of nuclear radiation.



This is getting long but you get the idea. Until a clean, cheap power source replaces petroleum we have to bandage up the present system and go with it. The improvements we make to our infrastructure will not be wasted on the future.What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?
I do not believe there is at this time there is any alternative to Nuclear if the requirement is reliable 24/7 CO2-Free power. Solar / Wind / GEO / Hydro / Tidal / etc. can all help some, but none even come close to providing the massive amount of reliable power we need to support our society.



Solar and Wind are much to unreliable so we must operate and maintain the old system to cover the time the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. This drives the cost up dramatically and still produces CO2.



Geo can help some by putting more heat and A/C units on it, but is pretty much unusable in cities where power is concentrated because it requires a lot of area per unit.



Hydro - It is almost impossible to get a new permit because of environmental concerns, and there are few sites left to make them of significant size.



Tidal / Wave - Been tried many times. It works but economic, Tech., and space restraints are enormous.What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?Yes, there are places on Earth that have no nuclear power generating stations, and New Zealand also only has one coal powered generating station. Most of the power is produced by geothermal and hydroelectric.

In the US only about 20% of the national grid mix is Nuclear. I don't think anyone has seriously considered wood a viable alternative for power generation stations. But there are viable alternatives.

The jet stream can provide energy 24/7 to high altitude wind generators on tethers: http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/鈥?/a>

Solar energy has several potential configurations that would be very workable. With concurrent energy storage in hot salts a CSP plant can provide power 24/7

Solar chimneys can provide power 24/7 also using built in heat storage. These facilities are unique in that they require little to no water: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/my-f鈥?/a>

We can't find the answers where we fail to look.
Presently, there is no real alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear power. We have already grown our population beyond the point that any renewable resource will be able to keep up. When the oil runs out, and coal will be right behind it, the number of people that will starve and die of disease will be in the billions. Between the U.S. and E.U., we use over 30 million barrels of oil each day. There are no renewable sources that can match that, let alone the increased usage in China and India. So, right now, we need to build nuclear power plants as fast as we can to stretch the fossil fuels as long as we can.What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?
there are many alternatives, but the technology has to improve a lot. for example. thermal and solar are one of the best option available for generating clean energy. Hydroelectric power is also one of the cleanest form of energy production, except if don't consider its effect to the surrounding land and habitats. Another interesting form of energy production can be in a form of Pizeo electric power.. although this technology has to go a long way, but it can be a good option, especially in a populated area and if we prefer local energy production.
Japan's recent nuclear problems were largely due to poor planning...had they built their reactor sites some 30-40 feet higher or installed more robust backup cooling systems, they would not have the problems they have now. It's incredible that a country with their issues with nuclear problems in the past would not have made sure there was no way for the cooling systems to have gone down. The TEPCO engineers and government officials did not consider past earthquake data well enough when designing the sites. Japan had a large quake back in 1896 that created a 125 foot tidal wave in some areas...you can't say they weren't aware of the dangers...they chose to ignore them and their gamble did not pay off.



" Wave heights of up to 38.2 meters (125 ft) were measured"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Meiji-鈥?/a>



In the 2004 Boxing Day earthquake/ tsunami that struck Indonesia, India had shut down their coastal reactors and restarted them a couple days later with no harmful effects.



Nuclear power plants have also been designed to create plutonium for use in weapons which makes them more profitable but results in more harmful, long-term waste issues. There are other reactor designs such as molten-salt or those which use thorium that are far safer and have fewer issues with proliferation and spent fuel...some actually burn spent fuel which eliminates wastes or reduces how long wastes have to be stored...half-lives less than 50 years.. Mini-nuke reactors aare being designed and built which can be bured in the ground, are safer, terrorism proof and offer cheap, clean power for decades.



"Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years "

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article鈥?/a>



"Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes拢13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry"



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20鈥?/a>



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf09.鈥?/a>



Molten salt reactors...

"Invented in the USA in 1954

Not yet commercialized, even after 2 successful MSRs were built %26amp; operated

Meltdown proof

Does not produce weapons grade plutonium

Has inherent nonproliferation features

Thousands of years of energy

Its wastes are simpler and less toxic than current nuclear wastes

Only hundreds of years of storage versus thousands for the current wastes

Can burn the existing wastes (spent fuel)!

Higher thermal efficiencies (operates at a "Red Heat"; ~700掳 C [1260掳 F]) "



http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/



We currently produce some 17 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy from fossil fuels on a global basis..



Blacklight power....a new form of energy which could replace all other forms of large scale energy production...

"Rowan University replicates BlackLight's new hydrogen-based energy source.



The BlackLight Process generates more than 200 times the energy of burning hydrogen that can be harnessed to replace the thermal power in coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants. "





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfjOIoPwo鈥?/a>



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJ鈥?/a>



http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/08/1鈥?/a>



Blue energy...creating electricity from seawater and fresh water...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200鈥?/a>What is a viable alternative to nuclear power generation?
What about new nuke plants? The ones we have now in the US, 30% leak radioactive substances. They were designed for a 20 year operating life, but they just ask for another 20 year extension and ALL so far have gotten them, with the permission to operate at 120% of the power they were designed to operate at WHEN NEW! That's like filling the deck of an old, single hull tanker with thousands of barrels of oil loosely strapped down- an almost certain case of a disaster about to happen just so a company can make a little more money for a few years. YOU as a taxpayer will be responsible for any/all damage that will eventually happen when things do go wrong.
at this moment there are no cost effective ways but one is nearing a phase where it can be tested in large scale the tokamak fusion reactor the articles on the reactor are really good and have a lot of info and this option is far safe or than current nuclear Power
Reduced power consumption.



Also increased spending on research, including full scale testing, of green energy sources. There are all sorts of different ideas.

But the societal flow on effects become ever increasing. Alot of people rely on mining for money.
... What then are the alternatives to nuclear power? How do we ramp up our power generation capacity? ... and less demanding of water than coal or nuclear power, natural gas could be a viable alternative. Technology ...
NO

there are but they are too much messy and not cost effective + not enviroment friendly

Nuclear power is cheaper and clearer to enviroemnt than coal, gas and oil
Sun, tideal, wind, burning trash (a lot cleaner then a landfill)
Good mix of answers. Still to consider is the safe disposal/ storage of nuclear waste