I, for one, would also agree with Biomaven regarding nuclear power.
I say that because, the way I see it, any major Western industrial country must have a, preferably, guaranteed 24 hour BASE LOAD supply of electricity. This can run into tens of thousands of Megawatts.
Unfortunately that cannot be GUARANTEED from most of the "green" supplies such as wind or sun.
Tidal, ocean currents and wave energy are somewhat more reliable, but there's a problem when one requires very large amounts of Megawatts.
With Tidal you only have about two 4 hourly periods a day to collect sufficient sea water to provide a head to drive turbines. Not to mention the fact that such a country also requires a suitable coast line.
Ocean currents are there all the time but it would take major offshore, sub-sea structures to capture that energy and then you still have to transfer it to shore with losses along the way.
Wave energy is OK but you do need ongoing wave formations and sometimes things can go flat.
Hydroelectric is usually the best, but not many countries are blessed with an ongoing water supply from high elevations, such as Norway.
So that leaves the likes of coal, fuel or gas. And as we've seen they present their own problems with regard to pollution, dwindling supply and cost.
Power generation from Nuclear power is a relatively simple process. You immerse radioactive rods into a receptacle, an interaction takes place and heat is generated. That boils water and the steam produced turns a turbine generator to provide electricity.
Needless to say, the development of "Breeder Reactors" would be first prize because then you're producing your own future fuel supply from the nuclear fuel you're currently using.
Two of the important considerations with Nuclear power are Containment and the ability to raise and lower the fuel rods.
In the most recent Japanese Nuclear disaster it wasn't any aspect of the Nuclear power that was the problem. It was the fact that the power supply to the equipment to raise the rods was compromised due to the fact that the Tsunami flooded the equipment facility. That meant that the nuclear reaction of the older rods carried on and lead to a virtual "melt down".
What Nuclear Power needs, amongst other things, is adequate design and competent construction, as well as competent and experienced management of the facility.
As an example, France obtains about 70% of its power requirements from Nuclear Power, and she has been doing that for many years with no major problems.
In my opinion, once you have Nuclear Power, providing a guaranteed Base Load, you can then supplement and add to the electricity demands of a country, especially the domestic and household demand, with Wind, Sun, etc....
With regard to COMPARATIVE COSTS .... I came across an article about 2 years ago which revealed the following ...
"Apparently, when one combines the cost per kWh, of Construction, Production and De-commissioning, it seems that NUCLEAR comes to about 4 US cents/kWh, and Coal is also about 4 US cents/kWh.
Wind power is about 8 US cents/kWh and Solar, is much higher, at about 22 US cents/kWh.
Hydro power is the lowest at about 3 US cents/kWh, but not that many countries are blessed with that capability."
|
