nuclear-news

Nuclear power a drastically wrong answer to climate change. Solar power holds the key

a nuclear power plant gives off twice as much energy by way of waste heat than it generates. The environment — whether the atmosphere, oceans, or rivers — would be unable to absorb that much extra heat without drastic climatic consequences

Small Sliver Of Sahara Desert Could Power Entire World With Solar Energy  NYT September 24th, 2016 by Steve Hanley  How big of a solar farm would you need to power the entire world with renewable energy? That’s a question addressed recently on Quora, the website that specializes in providing in depth, well researched answers to important questions. Actually, the original question was quite different. The discussion started this way. “Could the world feasibly switch to all-nuclear power generation? If so, would that be a good counter to global warming?” For an answer, Quora turned to Mehran Moalem, PhD, a professor at UC Berkeley and expert on nuclear materials and the nuclear fuel cycle.

Professor Moalem began with this brief biographical information. “I have taught courses in nuclear engineering and a few seminar courses in alternative energies. I also worked for two years starting up six solar factories around the globe. In spite of my personal like for nuclear engineering, I have to admit it is hard to argue for it. Here is the simplified math behind it.”

Moalem then calculated that the world uses approximately 17.3 terawatts of continuous power each year. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Actually it is. But, he says, a solar farm just 43,000 miles square would produce just about that amount of power. Moalem says the Sahara Desert covers 3.6 million square miles. If you’re into math, that means covering just 1.2% of the Sahara with solar power could provide the entire world with all its electrical needs.

It turns out the Sahara is also an ideal site for solar power. Because it is on the Equator, it receives 12 hours of sunlight virtually every day of the year. Also because of its location, that sunlight tends to shine directly down, meaning solar panels located there can be two to three times more efficient than those located in higher latitudes, like Europe and North America.

Moalem puts the price of such a system at $5 trillion dollars. Wow! That’s a lot of money, right? Actually, no it’s not, the professors says. Its less than the US spent to bail out banks 8 years ago. It’s about 10% of world GDP. The cost of building a nuclear power plant with a similar capacity would be more than 10 times as much.

He points out that this is a one time cost. Once such a facility gets built, the energy it produces is free. There are no ongoing costs for fuel, no generators to spin, to boilers to make steam. Moalen thinks that’s a pretty cheap price for something that could replace every other power source on earth, especially those that spew deadly pollution into the air.

Even though he is nuclear power engineer, Moalem says nuclear is not the way to meet world energy needs. One important reason is that a nuclear power plant gives off twice as much energy by way of waste heat than it generates. The environment — whether the atmosphere, oceans, or rivers — would be unable to absorb that much extra heat without drastic climatic consequences…….http://solarlove.org/sahara-desert-power-world-solar-energy/

September 26, 2016 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change, renewable