Nuclear Fission is a Better Energy Solution than Solar and Wind for the Climate

Michael Shellenberger is the President, Environmental Progress and he described the flaws with depending upon solar and wind to solve the climate issues.

Environmental Progress saved several nuclear power plants in the US and around the world. The clean energy from those reactors is more than the energy generated from solar power in the USA.

Environmental Progress has written the complete case for nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy has saved about 2 million lives by generating clean energy and reducing the use of coal, oil and natural gas.

They point out how the public has not understood that nuclear waste is safer than other energy waste.

They also show that solar and wind have increased the cost of electricity in California and Germany and other countries that have chosen to use a lot of solar and wind.

There are also studies which show that the more solar and wind make up the energy mix then the less value they provide. It costs more to make up for the intermittent power generation.

They have a complete analysis of the energy subsidies and how we get less energy from solar and wind when complete costs are factored.

9 thoughts on “Nuclear Fission is a Better Energy Solution than Solar and Wind for the Climate”

  1. The US Department of Energy did a study on that, since they were running a similar reactor at Hanford. They concluded that their reactor’s graphite wouldn’t burn. Also at Windscale in Britain, there was a fire in a graphite moderated reactor, but the only damaged graphite was that next to the burning fuel. However, some have claimed that the Chernobyl reactor’s graphite did burn. It seems unlikely that graphite oxidation would have contributed much to the heat in that pile. ‘ It is likely that the major contribution from graphite was to serve as a refractory container for decay heat buildup, zirconium oxidation along with carbothermic reduction of the UO2, and complex gas producing redox reactions… It has been demonstrated experimentally that oxidation nuclear grade graphite takes very high temperatures to initiate, and the contribution to total heat load is only a small fraction of the decay heat… For reasons that are well understood, graphite is considerably more difficult to burn than is coal, coke, or charcoal. Graphite has a much higher thermal conductivity than have coals, cokes or charcoals, making it easier to dissipate the heat produced by the burning and consequently making it more difficult to keep the graphite hot. In addition, coals, cokes and charcoals are heavily loaded with impurities which catalyze the oxidation processes… Nuclear graphite is one of the purest substances produced In massive quantities.’

  2. Nuclear grade graphite is almost impossible to burn – exothermically, anyway. If you pour molten uranium all over it, it will glow and decompose, but not catch and spread. Graphite powder is used as a fire extinguisher for metal fires.
    ‘Graphite-based (G-Plus, G-1, Lith-X, Chubb Pyromet) contains dry graphite that smothers burning metals. The first type developed, designed for magnesium, works on other metals as well. Unlike sodium chloride powder extinguishers, the graphite powder fire extinguishers can be used on very hot burning metal fires such as lithium, but unlike copper powder extinguishers will not stick to and extinguish flowing or vertical lithium fires. Like copper extinguishers, the graphite powder acts as a heat sink as well as smothering the metal fire.’

  3. You forgot to mention graphite make a nice fire. Pebbles are coated so they shouldn’t burn. Pebbles are also inherently safe since they expand as the temperature goes up and as they expand atomic fission goes down.

Comments are closed.