The Future of Energy

Singh, Amarjit

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2009)9:1(9)

Free access

FEATURES

Jan 1, 2009

The Future of Energy

Author: Amarjit Singh, F.ASCEAuthor Affiliations

Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering

Volume 9, Issue 1

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2009)9:1(9)

PDF

Abstract

What should the world do about global warming and air pollution as a result of burning fossil fuels? The argument isn’t about whether global warming exists or not, but rather what really causes it. There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels and automobile emissions adversely affect the health of humans, animals, and birds. We have seen that solar cycles might be entering a significant stage, such that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels, global warming would likely continue apace. Hydrogen fuel cells will actually contribute to global warming because water vapor emissions are a greenhouse gas. The planet and humankind will, nevertheless, survive a warming onslaught. But, air pollution is a bigger disaster caused by the burning of fossil fuels that may irreversibly affect (or mutate) humans. I argue that nuclear energy is the choice of last resort that has to be activated now. Nuclear energy costs are comparable to costs for energy from coal and fossil fuels.

We know the facts: the Earth is warming. But, at what rate? Hansen et al. (2006) from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) put the rate at

0.2 ° C

per decade over the past thirty years. Maybe that really isn’t so much, well tolerable by humans, but current temperatures, according to Hansen et al., are the highest they’ve been in the past

12,000 years

. They made this assessment by obtaining a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from the magnesium content in the shells of microscopic sea-surface animals recorded in ocean sediments. However, Robinson et al. (2007) establish that sea-surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea were higher in 1,000 AD by

1 ° C

and in 1,000 BC by

2 ° C

. They discovered this by determining isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea. The surface temperatures in the United States mainland rose by

0.05 ° C

per decade in the last century, which amounts to far less than shown by Hansen et al. (2006).

Antarctica is reported to have warmed only

0.2 ° C

from 1850 to 2000. Antarctica actually cooled markedly during the 1990s while the Southern Hemisphere rose by

1.4 ° C

over the past century (New evidence 2006). Data for this came from oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in ice cores that received more than

15 inches

of snow per year. According to data provided by Robinson et al. (2007) the average ice core temperatures were last this high

110,000 years

ago.

Although Kuplinski and Byrd (2008) report that the sun is not causing global warming, Robinson et al. (2007) are firm that the sun is the cause. Handwerk (2006) reports solar astronomer Peter Foukal saying that the sun can’t be blamed for global warming; however, Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson claims that the “Earth’s current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate

1,500 - year

cycle in the sun’s irradiance” (Avery 2007). Patterson’s research team drilled sediment cores in the mud in deep local fjords off Canada’s west coast to get

5,000 - year

climate profiles.

Between science writers and climatologists, astronomers and solar-terrestrial physicists, atmospheric scientists and astrophysicists, chemists and paleoclimatologists, and so many other scientists, the differences of opinion and interpretation are substantial. These differences take place among reputable and distinguished scientists, with scientists tearing each other down like game (which begs the question, can any scientist really be considered distinguished?). Kaplincki (2006) very succinctly discusses the disputes between the scientists, especially in relation to the role of the sun in global warming, making us wonder whether anyone is right, and whether we really will get anywhere without doubt. At times like this, I feel so happy that I’m a construction engineer.

Not all parts of the Earth are heating uniformly. What’s more, the Earth has a history of reversing temperature direction without warning. Scientists, as proud as they may be, are no match for the universe and Earth—at least not yet. With their tools and equipment, they are probably as good as the scientist attempting to measure the depth of an ocean with a one-foot ruler. Sarcasm aside, scientists can scarcely predict the future. What’s more, theories today are cast aside tomorrow. Remember how they bled George Washington to death? So, let us remember that our scientists are still learning and that our science is still evolving. We should not make the same mistake as the commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office in 1899, Charles Duell, who stated “Everything that can be invented has been invented” (see Michalko 2006).

Of one thing there is no doubt: global warming is a fact and has been an old story for the past

15,000 years

, helping us emerge from the ice age into a beautiful garden. It is also possible that global warming can melt the oceans and raise sea levels over the short term. The alarm about global warming is important, but must be placed in perspective and not exaggerated (“Global warming” 2003; Michaels 1998).

Which Greenhouse Gases?

It is commonly believed that

C O_{2}

is a major greenhouse gas, perhaps the main culprit of global warming. If Al Gore and others are to be believed, elimination of

C O_{2}

should solve our climate problem, because greenhouse gases definitely prevent the Earth’s heat from escaping into space. According to Al Gore, these greenhouse gases are supposedly cooking us like a “microwave.” Well, not exactly.

Important greenhouse gases are water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and miscellaneous gases such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Greenhouse gases—produced by natural and industrial processes—result in

C O_{2}

levels of

380 parts per million per volume

(ppmv) in the atmosphere. From ice-core samples and records, we know that current levels of

C O_{2}

are approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) higher than during preindustrial times, such as in the medieval era, when direct human influence was negligible. The levels in 1900 were about

300 ppm

. (Wikipedia, Greenhouse Gas 2008c; Patterson 2005).

Water vapor has been shown to be the largest contributor to greenhouse gases by far (Lindzen 1992). “Global warming” (2008) reports that 95 percent of all greenhouse gases are water vapor. Table 1 gives their breakdown.

“Of the 186 billion tons of $C O_{2}$ that enter Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only six billion tons are from human activity. Approximately ninety billion tons come from biologic activity in Earth’s oceans and another ninety billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants (“Global warming” 2008).

Table 1. Greenhouse Gas Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect (Modified from “Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers” 2008)

Greenhouse gas (based on parts per billion adjusted for heat retention characteristics)	% of all greenhouse gases	% natural	% human-made
Water vapor	95	94.999	0.001
Carbon dioxide	3.618	3.502	0.116
Methane	0.36	0.294	0.066
Nitrous oxide	0.95	0.903	0.047
Other gases (CFC, etc.)	0.072	0.025	0.047
TOTAL	100	99.72	0.28

Moreover,

C O_{2}

that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by activities on Earth. Biological activities in the oceans and plant kingdom are the great repositories (source and sink) of

C O_{2}

that we cannot aim to get rid of, unless to our own demise.

Greenhouse gases are 95 percent water vapor, which contributes to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is only 3.6 percent of the greenhouse gases, and contributes by approximately that percentage to the warming effect. Apparently, only 3.2 percent of atmospheric

C O_{2}

is generated from human activities such as coal plants and fossil fuel burning, whereas the plant kingdom and natural volcanic activity contribute to natural

C O_{2}

. In contrast, 99.99 percent of water vapor is natural and comes from oceans and clouds, and 18 percent of methane and 65 percent of CFCs are from human activity (“Global warming” 2008). Even if all human-induced methane and CFCs increased ten times, which is realistically impossible, they would have a miniscule effect on global warming. In addition, Essenhigh (2008), a professor of energy conversion, believes that

C O_{2}

is simply unable to drive global warming, but that global warming may drive

C O_{2}

increases, if they occur at all. Lindzen (1992) and “The real” (2006) also believe that

C O_{2}

is simply unable to be the major contributor of greenhouse effects. And, if humankind wishes to reduce the greenhouse effect of water vapor, it is absolutely beyond our control.

It is believed that the current concentration of

C O_{2}

in the atmosphere is

380 ppm

. An increase of

2 ° C

can occur if the

C O_{2}

concentration increases to 450 ppm, which may take a century or two (“How much” 2006). But, this estimate is based on models that make too many assumptions and can therefore not stand up to scientific rigor. Brahic (2007) asserts that human

C O_{2}

emissions are too tiny to matter. At most, the human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28 percent, which is also too small to matter (“Global warming” 2003). Meteorologist Haby (2008) writes that whereas

C O_{2}

is indisputably a more efficient greenhouse gas in trapping long-wave radiation, “the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not,” largely because there is sixty times more water vapor in the atmosphere than

C O_{2}

.

Even though reckless insertion of

C O_{2}

into the atmosphere can dramatically influence the greenhouse effect, it can quite safely be deduced that

C O_{2}

is probably not the big culprit of global warming that the media has made it out to be (Chandler 2007; Beck 2006), though it is not entirely causeless. Michaels (1998) wrote:

“The result is that the administration [Clinton–Gore] now positions itself in front of virtually every unusual weather event and blames it on human-induced climate change. Each of these assertions has been dramatically flawed, and the scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies are beginning to harm credibility” [emphasis added].

So, What’s the Problem? Air Pollution

If human-induced

C O_{2}

is indeed causing global warming, we must be on our guard. If human activities and CO₂ are not really causing global warming, what is all the fuss about? Frankly, there is evidence that there has been a lot of misguided testimony presented in the media. For instance, the U.S. Department of Energy reported in October 2000 during the Clinton–Gore Administration, that 99 percent of greenhouse gases were

C O_{2}

(“Global warming” 2008). However, they did not include water vapor in their submission, ignoring the most important contributor of all. This type of science reporting does not serve humanity very well. If the problem is not really one of global warming, which humankind will be able to survive, there is still the problem of air pollution. How did we get to this?

Health Effects of Air Pollution

Fog and Smog

The fact is that while the relatively small amounts of

C O_{2}

and nitrous oxides put into the atmosphere do not have a significant impact on global warming, they have a very significant impact on air pollution and air quality. This is evident by the “soot” that appears in cities such as Beijing, Kolkata, Hong Kong, and Mumbai. The soot is a heightened version of smog that happens when water particles coalesce around smoke and gas particles. Empirically,

smoke + fog = smog

(“Air pollution soaring high” 2008).

Nitrogen oxide gases are produced from fossil-burning power plants and the transportation sector. Nitrogen oxides

(N O_{x})

emitted from the deisel and gasoline used by automobiles, airplanes, ships, and construction equipment, as well as the burning of low-grade coal, which is high in sulfur, contribute to smog that becomes manifest in hazy skies for many days. Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide generate the yellow-brown clouds over many cities. They irritate the lungs of humans, birds, and animal species, causing bronchitis. Owing to reduced resistance to respiratory infections, they increase the incidence of pneumonia among humans.

Several pollutants are produced by burning fossil fuels and contribute to the noxious fumes that cause smog; these include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and hydrocrabons. Hydrocarbons, emitted mostly by auto and truck exhaust, evaporation of gasoline and solvents, and petroleum refining, combine in the atmosphere to form tropospheric ozone that descends to surface levels and becomes a major component of smog.

“Human exposure to ozone can produce shortness of breath and, over time, permanent lung damage. Research shows that ozone may be harmful at levels even lower than the current federal air standard. In addition, it can reduce crop yields” (“The hidden” 2008).

Cars, buses, airplanes, industry, mining, and construction cause air pollution collectively. Dust from tractors plowing fields or construction earth-moving activity, and trucks and cars plying on dirt or gravel roads cause pollution, as does smoke from wood and crop fires. Our entire industrial activity, which is supposed to alleviate the human condition, is creating conditions that harm us as well. Sixteen million tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere every twenty-four hours by human use worldwide (Solar Energy International 2008). A breakdown of air pollutants and their sources are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Sources of Air Pollutants (Modified from “Air Pollution Soaring” 2008)

Pollutants	Sources
Carbon dioxide	Fossil fuel, deforestation
Sulfur dioxide	Volcanic eruptions; fossil fuels that containimpurities (e.g., low-grade coal that normallyhas high amounts of sulfur as impurities)
Nitrogen oxides	Automobiles
Carbon monoxide	Automobiles, incomplete burning of biomassfuels
Ground-level ozone	Industries, vehicles
Hazardous air pollutants	Chemical plants, automobiles
Volatile organic compounds	Vehicle emissions, solvents used for industrialand household usages
Microscopic particulates	Construction works, mining, fossil fuels,industrial processes, agricultural burning etc.

Exposure to carbon monoxide can cause oxygen deprivation, which in prolonged large doses can cause death, but in slow dosing causes cancer. Much as oxygen deprivation causes heart disease, sustained oxygen deprivation causes cancer, too. As smog and pollutants take up greater portions of the air, oxygen ratios are decreased. These decreased oxygen ratios in the atmosphere are sufficient to cause the stated health damage. In the late 1990s, almost half of all Americans and Europeans died of heart disease; by 2010, virtually all Americans dying naturally are predicted to die either of heart disease or cancer (“Statins and cancer” 2008).

Acid Rain

The phenomenon of acid rain occurs mostly in industrialized areas that emit nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides into the atmosphere. These gases—and smog—combine with water vapor in clouds to form sulfuric and nitric acids, which become part of rain. As the acids accumulate on the surface after acid rain, lakes and rivers become too acidic for plant and animal life (“The hidden” 2008). Further, carbon dioxide combines with water in the clouds to form carbonic acid. As a result, humanity is simply hurting itself.

Acid rain falls on a third of China’s territory and 70 percent of Chinese rivers and lakes are toxic, unfit for drinking. Moreover, the sulfur dioxide

(S O_{2})

produced in coal combustion, in addition to causing acid rain, causes about 400,000 premature deaths a year. “Most of these deaths are from lung and heart-related diseases as

S O_{2}

causes constriction of the finer air tubes of the lungs, thus making it difficult to breathe naturally” (“Air pollution soaring” 2008).

Ozone

Although

C O_{2}

is not a lung irritant, Jacobsen (2008) found that increased levels of

C O_{2}

serve to increase ground-level ozone. This increased ozone is an air pollutant and lung irritant. Increasing

C O_{2}

even in small amounts, such as through industrial processes, increases lung irritation. Over the last

150 years

, burning fossil fuels has resulted in a 25 percent increase in

C O_{2}

in our atmosphere (“The hidden” 2008). Cases of asthma have gone up from a rare case here and there a century ago to one in fifteen people in 2000; by 2020, there could be twenty-nine million Americans suffering from asthma (Pew 1998).

Further, ground-level ozone is the major source of air pollution in most cities. Ground-level ozone is created when engine and fuel gases already released into the air interact with sunlight. Ozone levels increase in cities when the air is still, the sun is bright, and the temperature is warm. Thus, areas in northern India, Kashmir, and southwestern Tibet create conditions most conducive to increases in ground-level ozone (United Nations 2006). Ground-level ozone should not be confused with the “good” ozone that is miles up in the atmosphere and that protects us from the sun’s harmful radiation (“The hidden” 2008)

Health Risks

Undoubtedly, air pollution can irritate eyes, nasal linings, and throat passages. Children are more quickly affected by air pollution and more easily develop bronchitis and earaches (“Outdoor” 2008). It is well known that the incidence of respiratory diseases is on the rise all around the world. People living with asthma or heart diseases are specially affected by air pollutants. In addition, air pollutants have been strongly linked to increased rates of cancer.

In one of the longest, largest studies on the effects of air pollution on lung cancer and heart diseases, 500,000 adults were surveyed in more than one hundred cities from 1982 to 1998. Pope et al. (2002) found air pollution as a convincing cause of increased lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases.

“More than 220 million Americans breathe air that is one hundred times more toxic than the goal set by Congress ten years ago, according to figures calculated by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). And for eleven million people, the cancer risk from their neighborhood air is more than one thousand times higher than Congress’s goal, the group says” (“Most Americans” 1999).

And,

“The District of Columbia, for example, shows a higher per-capita cancer risk in its air than any of the fifty states despite having virtually no major industrial facilities, says EDF. Car and truck traffic and the Ronald Reagan National Airport were its main sources of air toxins” (“Most Americans” 1999).

In addition, carbon emissions from air pollutions have been linked to human mortality (“Carbon dioxide” 2008). Further,

“The data confirm that emissions from cars, trucks, and non-road engines contribute to the cancer risk from air toxins, particularly in urban areas. For more than one hundred million Americans, toxic emissions from mobile sources alone are responsible for an added lifetime cancer risk that is more than ten times the accepted standard.
. . . A 2000 study by state and local air quality administrators estimates that soot from diesel engines is responsible for more than 125,000 additional cancers in the United States over a lifetime of exposure” (Environmental News Service 2002).

Global Effect of Air Pollution

The air quality in China and India are particularly bad. Levels of particulate matter consisting of sulfur and nitrous oxides (known as

{PM}_{10}

) are the highest and second highest in Delhi and Beijing, respectively (United Nations 2006; Molina and Molina 2004). A report last year identified China as the worst air polluter in the world; 656,000 Chinese per year die from diseases caused by air pollution alone. The corresponding numbers for India are 527,000 deaths per year (Platt 2007). We also know that air pollution from China is traveling across the Pacific. NASA satellite data have confirmed that nearly 10 billion pounds of aerosol pollution reached North America from East Asia (NASA 2008), the largest contributor of which was China. Cliff (2006) reports that we are already breathing Chinese pollution in North America. Hong Kong has changed dramatically in only the past two years: pollution blowing in from neighboring Guangzhou Province makes it difficult to see the sky anymore. In Beijing and New Delhi a mix of dust and pollution obscures the sun during the day and the stars at night. This should be alarming to all humans. It has been reported that U.S. pollution reaches Europe (“Air pollution the environmental imperative” 2008), as does pollution from oil fires from Persian Gulf states. Thus, in this era of globalization, we are sharing not only information technology and trade, but also our pollution.

Kyoto Agreement

In a nutshell, the Kyoto Agreement accepts that global warming is a result of burning fossil fuels, which we have shown is possibly false. The Kyoto Agreement goes a step further in their false premise and requires that gaseous emissions (they identified methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) be cut to specific levels—the goal being to see, by 2012, participants collectively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below the emission levels of 1990 (Bloch 2008). This is a lot like saying that since smoking results in lung problems, a smoker should cut down on smoking from ten packs a day to 9.48. At best, the effect of the Kyoto Agreement would be a reduction in global temperature by one-twentieth of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050 (“Global warming” 2003). This is, of course, minimal and ineffective. Thus, even in its own argument, the Kyoto Agreement doesn’t go far enough. Already the damage to our environment from a health perspective is tremendous, and nothing short of a reversal is meaningful. Moreover, the Kyoto Agreement allows China and India to continue burning fossil fuels for electric power because they are “developing countries.” Consequently, the U.S. government was logically consistent in not signing the Kyoto Agreement, although their reasons were totally different and untenable.

An international agreement that recognizes the problem for what it is and takes corresponding measures is needed rather than an agreement that is politically driven and doesn’t have the best of humanity at heart. Alcoholics are not advised by physicians to cut down from drinking a bottle of whisky a day to drinking only three-quarters of a bottle; they are advised to chuck the habit altogether. In the case of the Kyoto Agreement, a deeper and bolder agreement is needed, one that has real teeth, like eliminating coal generation by 2050.

So, What Is the Solution?

If we accept the premise that humans will not forego their electricity usage and modes of transportation, and will thus resist reverting to the Middle and Dark Ages, what is the solution if we don’t want to damage our health? It is evident that we must target energy production, industrial processes, and transportation (cars, automobiles, aircraft, and ships) to stem the tide of environmental degradation. Of these, two areas stand out as the most prominent: energy production and transportation (automobile, aircraft, and ship) fuel.

Technologists propose renewable energies such as solar, wind, and geothermal. However, as any energy engineer will tell you, the electricity that can be potentially harnessed from these sources is not more than 25 percent of our needs. What’s more, hydroelectricity causes severe ecological damages of its own. Many novel sources of energy, such as tidal and wave power, are still being researched for safe and reliable implementation, since hostile ocean conditions pose challenges for wave structures (“Wave and tidal” 2000; “Wave power” 2008). Ocean thermal energy conversion is a new possibility for renewable energy, but one that lacks a track record for generating electricity in (gigawatt) quantities (“Ocean thermal energy” 2008; “Ocean thermal energy conversion” 2008; U.S. Department of Energy 2008). The cost of limited generation can be around

15 cents per KwH

, which is good where electricity is more expensive (Krock 2008), but will not be economically attractive for the United States, Europe, India, or China where conventional technologies can produce electricity in gigawatts for

5 - 6 cents per

kilowatthour (kWh). So what’s next if we want to steer away from fossil fuel energy but still want a decent standard of life?

Background of Energy Production

Let’s analyze this closely: the aim now is to produce clean energy, in large quantities, with no environmental effects. The key words here are “clean,” “large quantities,” and “environmental effects.”

The total electric installed capacity in the United States was 1,000 gigawatts (GW) in 2005 (“Industry” 2008; American Energy Association 2008). The distribution was approximately as follows:

Coal, 49 percent;

Natural gas 18.7 percent;

Fuel oil 3.0 percent;

Biomass 1.6 percent;

Nuclear energy 19.3 percent;

Hydropower 6.5 percent;

Wind 1.2 percent; and

Geothermal and solar 0.6 percent.

Thus, 73 percent of the electricity was generated by burning fuels that emit pollutants into the air (coal, natural gas, fuel oil, and biomass). The United States alone consumes

12,000 kWh

of electricity per person per year. This is twice the amount that Germany produces, and nine times the world average (“Solar/Wind” 2008 based on 1997 data). The United States has just 5 percent of the world’s population but consumes 23 percent of its energy (“Population” 2008).

The World Energy Outlook of the International Energy Agency (2006) says that “the current pattern of energy supply carries the threat of severe and irreversible environmental damage—including changes in global climate.” Therefore, it is imperative to reverse the trend of energy production in the world.

Moreover, the world is fast running out of oil, which will bring fossil fuel electricity generation and transportation closer to a standstill. Some other form of energy generation will have to be substituted. World demand is quickly depleting oil reserves. The oil company Royal Dutch Shell estimates that “. . . after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand” (“Shell” 2008). The same article consequently concludes that there will be a need for nuclear power and alternate sources.

It is possible to produce a maximum of 20 percent of the United States’ energy needs through wind power (Solar Energy International 2008), another 5 percent by solar power, and about 7 percent by hydroelectric power. However, these will not replace or close down existing fossil fuel power plants, unless repealed by legislation, which is definitely recommended. The total world installed capacity for solar power is a mere

0.8 GW

(“Solar/Wind” 2008). Although I can think of legislative methods to force increases in solar power consumption by leaps and bounds, such as requiring all public and residential buildings to have solar panels, it is estimated that the total energy contribution will still be limited. Solar power for consumption on a mass scale is currently impeded by technical difficulties in storing energy during cloudy and partially cloudy periods. The technology is simply undeveloped for a reliable, continuous supply of electric power using solar energy alone. One paper claims solar-thermal-electric technology can supply 90 percent of the United States’ grid electricity. While this would be a welcome development, the technology proposed is unproven. The proposal is to use solar energy for heating water to run turbines. However, the amount of land they need for their solar cells equals

9,600 square miles

, or approximately the size of Vermont (Madrigal 2008). It is difficult to imagine how that much land can be made available in the United States, even in the deserts of Nevada. The feasibility of this technique is not established, thus, we have to think of “clean” alternates other than solar energy to meet world energy demands.

Hydroelectric energy has potential, but damming rivers irreversibly damages the local ecology. Though hydroelectricity does not produce greenhouse gases, per se, dams have depleted fish and local fauna, and affected migratory patterns of birds, often impacting endangered species even further. Large-scale hydroelectric dams involve massive relocation of populations, such as is evident with China’s Three Gorges Dam, Clyde Dam in New Zealand, and Ilisu Dam in Turkey (Hydroelectricity 2008). China produces the most hydroelectricity in the world (

145 GW

installed capacity); many of the dams are small scale, but China forces this method on poor villagers in remote areas, compelling them to relocate. Besides generating electricity, hydroelectricity also generates resentment in the local populace because of the dislocation (Jing 1999; Mphanda 2008), something that would be impossible in the West. In Mphanda, the dam has taken away the livelihood of the local populace, as well as their food supply of river fish species (Mphanda 2008). Surely, there must be a better way to generate electricity. Luckily, there is.

Nuclear Power

Of the known methods for generating electricity, fossil fuels and biomass are air polluters, and hydroelectricity damages local environments and upsets the livelihoods of the local populace. Wind and solar are weak sources of energy unable to meet demand. What then, can give us what we want—clean, environmentally friendly electricity, in large quantities at reasonable costs? The only logical and available answer is nuclear power, at least for the foreseeable future or until some other technology proves to be effective.

Production Capability and Trends

One ton of nuclear fuel delivers as much energy as

20,000 tons

of coal. Consequently, there are myriads of advantages in the logistic management of uranium compared to coal. No more long train cars and large storage sheds by railway yards, and no more surface mining of coal that creates its own environmental degradation in large quantities.

Of the relatively large countries, France’s electricity comes 70 percent from nuclear energy, while the United States produces 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear fuel. China and Russia are extremely busy cornering the world’s nuclear fuel market and India is also on the path of nuclear renaissance. The United States has two applications pending for construction of new nuclear plants, with a possible thirty-four to be constructed by 2050. The United States is planning a nuclear revival, if possible.

There are 442 nuclear power plants in the world, of which 104 are in the United States. These plants use 180 million pounds of uranium each year, of which only 110 million pounds are available in the world market (Henderson 2008). This has resulted in some uranium reactors being shut down or having their hours of operation greatly reduced, which recently happened in India. Nuclear reactors in Sweden are scheduled to go offline, starting 2010, as they reach the end of their service life (“Nuclear comeback” 2007). Owing to the uranium shortage, China continues to acquire uranium from around the world. In 2006, China signed major uranium export contracts for supplies from Australia (“China to buy” 2006).

Twenty-four new plants are under construction worldwide. United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Italy, and China have signed reactor construction contracts with Areva of France, the largest uranium company in the world. Belarus, Bulgaria, and Switzerland aim to construct nuclear power plants (World Nuclear News 2008b). India is in discussions with the United States for supplies of nuclear fuel and construction of nuclear plants. Worldwide, thirty-four reactors are under construction, and 280 are proposed. China has broken ground on five nuclear plants (Lustgarten 2008), and Russia has a plan to build up to forty-two new plants by 2020 (World Nuclear News 2008a). China has announced plans to increase its target for installed nuclear power capacity to

60 GW

by 2020 and to

120 - 160 GW

by 2030. The country currently has eleven nuclear reactors in operation generating

8.6 GW

; 116 new reactors are planned or proposed (“Uranium” 2006a,b; Freeman 2005). General Electric, the world’s largest utility company, plans to enter into partnerships for nuclear construction around the world (“General” 2007; “New nuclear” 2005). These statistics illustrate that the world is moving head-on toward nuclear power.

One of the main bottlenecks with nuclear energy is the shortage of nuclear fuel, since 110 million pounds per year are being produced in comparison to the demand of 180 million pounds. Currently, Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan are the world’s largest producers of uranium, while the United States has only 4 percent of the world’s known uranium reserves (Spencer and Loris 2008). The current price of uranium fuel is $71 per pound, down from $155 last year, but up from $8 per pound, eight years ago. It takes ten years to develop a uranium mine, so if the world wishes to take advantage of nuclear fuel, it has to get serious about it many years in advance. Kazakhstan plans to quintuple its uranium production between now and 2015. The number of applications to mine uranium has increased 200 percent in Colorado and Utah since 2003 (Lustgarten 2008).

However, there is no shortage of uranium on Earth. Uranium can even be extracted from sea water. There are about 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium available in the world’s oceans (“Uranium from seawater” 2006a,b). This is enough to last humankind approximately 36,000 years—compared to

130 to 300 years

from coal reserves—for electricity production (World Coal Institute 2008; Elert 2005).

In December 2007, the U.S. Congress passed an energy appropriations bill funding key nuclear energy programs totaling more than $970 million and implementing a clean-energy loan guarantee program for new plants. The latter provides $18.5 billion for new nuclear power plants (World Nuclear News 2008a). As many as twenty-nine new reactors may receive licenses for construction in the United States (Biello 2007).

In an MIT study that aimed to expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold by the year 2050, it was found that 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon emissions would be saved annually (MIT 2003). This much is equal to about one-third of the total current carbon emissions. Nuclear energy production is not “carbon-free,” but it does minimize carbon emissions in its process cycle (Nuclear comeback 2007). The world has no choice but to resort to the only electricity generating technique that can deliver the goods, once fossil fuels are depleted, which is expected to start around 2012 (Shell 2008).

Needless to say, the period between 2015 and 2020 will be tumultuous for the world owing to energy shortages. For one, fossil fuel costs are expected to skyrocket and gasoline supplies are expected to dwindle, which will further affect food distribution, probably causing widespread famines around the world (Edwards 2000). The disruption to society from mining to manufacturing to transportation, and the effect on jobs and economies and electioneering will be tremendous. Should the recommendations made in this article be implemented, we may be able to avoid such worst-case scenarios.

Nuclear Waste

That nuclear waste has a disposal problem is a myth from the days of old technology when conventional thermal reactors operated in a “once-through” mode. Today, it is possible to recycle spent nuclear waste from thermal reactors by reprocessing in a “closed” fuel cycle, or from fast reactors by reprocessing in a balanced “closed” fuel cycle (MIT 2003). One of the above two techniques was supposedly developed by Indian nuclear scientists of the Bhabha Atomic Energy Commission, who were working on ways to recycle scarce nuclear fuel denied to them owing to international sanctions on nuclear supply. U.S. scientists had long suspected that such recycling was possible (Perkovich 2001).

Robinson and colleagues (2007) report that the problem of nuclear waste has been politically created by U.S. government-imposed barriers to American fuel breeding and reprocessing. They affirm that spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into new nuclear fuel and does not need to be stored in repositories, such as the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. Much of this problem—this myth—is suspected to come from environmental lobbyists and representatives of coal and other power generation industries who would stand to be in competition with nuclear power.

Moreover, if there was any nuclear waste, the storage problems are miniscule, because large underground reservoirs can be constructed with thick concrete to last thousands of years, in which time the radioactive decay has completed its cycle and the fuel is not dangerous or harmful anymore. The permeability rate of water in concrete can be made as low as

1 inch

in

854 years

with appropriate state-of-the-art concretes (Kosmatka et al. 2002).

Even the matter of radioactive decay has been mitigated. A European patent claims to reduce radioactivity by bombarding samples with photons (World Intellectual Property Organization 2008). A few years ago, I heard an MIT professor appear on a television interview where he claimed that they had been able to develop methods that could reduce the radioactive decay to one hundred years (from the common

3,000 years

). Hence, there are multiple techniques to mitigate radioactive hazards that make nuclear energy attractive as an alternate fuel.

Safety of Nuclear Power

The safety of nuclear power plants centers on two main issues: (1) maintaining public safety in the event of radioactivity leaks, and (2) eliminating damage through malfunctions or accidents.

Radioactivity leakage has been a concern for many decades. The atomic power plant in Kota, Rajasthan, was shut down due to malfunctions and reports of leaks so large that grass had stopped growing within miles of the station (Karan et al. 1986; “Nuclear chronology” 2008). Citizens living around the power plant in Pickering, Ontario, Canada, are constantly on the alert for radioactivity leaks; many citizens reported that radioactivity leaks exceed standards, but for years the Canadian government had been in denial (Nuclear Awareness Project 1997). However, in 2000, four of the eight reactors were finally shut down as a result of tritium leaks; tritium is a cancer causing substance (Sierra Club 2001). In addition to various other reports of elevated levels of radioactive substances found in the vicinity of nuclear plants, the Oyster Creek Plant in New Jersey was reported to have elevated levels of cesium-137 in leaf and soil samples near the plant. Cesium-137 is another carcinogenic substance (Cacchioli and Larsen 2006). In Japan, an inexperienced worker accidentally triggered an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction at the Tokai Uranium Reprocessing Plant, exposing some workers to extremely high levels of radiation (“Radiation leak” 2008). There are many more such stories around the world. Thus, when citizens are concerned about radioactivity leaks from nuclear power plants, it is not altogether without reason (“Leak forces” 2000).

The Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania) accident was contained without immediate harm to anyone, and the world can be confident that a Chernobyl type of poor design will never be repeated again, though human errors cannot be ruled out. In over 12,700 cumulative reactor years of commercial operation in thirty-two countries, there has never once been a death outside of Chernobyl. Three Mile Island occurred when the world had 2,000 cumulative years of reactor experience, while Chernobyl, in 1987, occurred when the world had about 4,000 cumulative years of reactor experience. However, current reactor design emphasis has shifted in the last eight years from reliance on containment structures to safety through improved design of the reactor plant itself (“History of nuclear” 2008).

After Chernobyl, nuclear safety was taken very seriously around the world. In the briefing paper Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (“Safety” 2007) it is reported that

“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in $10,000 - year$ core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. U.S. utility requirements are 1 in $100,000 years$ , the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million, and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million.”

Advanced nuclear reactors, known as next-generation reactors, such as the ones going up in Japan (the first of which was constructed in 1996), contain numerous safety improvements based on operational experience. Beyond the safety engineering already standard in Western reactors, they have passive safety systems, which require no operator intervention in the event of a major malfunction. All modern reactors are designed to automatically shut down in the event of earthquakes. Safety systems account for about one-fourth of the capital costs of modern reactors (“Safety” 2007). Additional technicalities of modern reactor safety systems, post-Chernobyl, are described in “Safety” (2007). “Safe” (2004) reports that Generation-IV reactors, which will be in service by 2030, will provide dramatic improvements in reactor design. Generation-III+ reactors are already markedly improved over the Generation-I reactor first constructed in 1996. These assure that radioactivity leakage will be minimized below harmful levels.

Pilferage and Proliferation of Nuclear Power

There has been general concern that a multitude of nuclear power plants in the world will make them more susceptible to pilferage of nuclear material for terrorist operations. There are many hurdles that can be erected to prevent this from happening:

1.

All new nuclear power plants must be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. This ensures daily monitoring of raw materials and operations; any time used or unused fuel is found missing, IAEA monitors are tasked to flash a warning sign that can lead to closing nuclear operations.

2.

Enhanced security, much of which is already in place at nuclear plants around the world, will further offset the chance that nuclear material will be stolen.

3.

Nuclear material used for power generation is purified to 5 percent. Weapons-grade plutonium and uranium require purification up to 80 percent levels. Thus, any nuclear pilferage will need to acquire ore-refinement equipment, which is not easy to obtain without detection at some point.

4.

Generation-IV reactors are designed to be more resistant to attempts to divert material for illegal weapons manufacturing (Safe 2004).

Safety from Terrorism

In various studies done since September 11, 2001, it has been found that current reactor designs are safe against a Boeing 767 slamming into a reactor. The studies show that nuclear reactors would, in fact, be safer against terrorist threats than conventional industrial facilities such as ore refining or coal generation plants (“Safety” 2007). With a Boeing 767 hitting head on at

560 kilometers per hour

(km/h), there would be no penetration of the containment. In another test by Sandia laboratories, they demonstrated that an F4 Phantom jet hitting a

3.7 - meter

concrete slab at

765 km ∕ h

would have 90 percent of the kinetic energy of the airplane used in destroying the plane itself. Penetration of the concrete in this case would be only 6 centimeters (“Safety” 2007).

Because the containment structures are massive, even a terrorist attack inside a plant (which are heavily defended in themselves), causing loss of cooling, core melting, and breach of containment, would not result in significant radioactive releases (“Safety” 2007).

Safety Comparison with Coal and Other Sources

How safe is nuclear energy compared to its rivals coal and fossil fuels? For the period 1970–1992, immediate fatalities were as follows: coal, 6,400 workers; natural gas, 1,200 workers and public; hydroelectricity, 4,000 public; nuclear, 31 workers (all in Chernobyl). These data are self-explanatory, the number of fatalities from coal and natural gas is much higher despite the talk of nuclear catastrophe.

Because all deep-earth minerals contain radioisotopes, coal being among them, they generate radioactivity when burning (McBride et al. 1978). An interesting study by Aubrecht (2003) reported that coal has uranium and thorium radioisotopes ranging representatively from 1 ppm to 2 ppm. Their conclusion was “that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses, particularly bone doses, than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.” The Environmental Protection Agency actually found higher values of coal generated radioactivity of 1.3 and

3.2 ppm

. Moreover, “clean coal” is a classic oxymoron, as if dirt can ever be clean. Combined with the carbon and

{PM}_{10}

emissions, coal and fossil fuels come out as far more dangerous from a health perspective than nuclear energy.

Gabbard (2008) found that American releases from each typical

1 - GW

coal plant in 1982 were 4.7 metric tons of uranium and

11.6 metric tons

of thorium, for a total national release of

727 metric tons

of uranium and 1,788 metric tons of thorium. And, Francis (2001) discovered that “[a] coal plant releases about 74 pounds of uranium-235 each year, enough for two or more nuclear bombs.” If nuclear power plants released so much uranium-235, there would be wide public protests. It is only a matter of time before rogue nations begin to tap into the uranium from coal plants to use in atomic weapons. Consequently, coal power plants are more dangerous for the world from this perspective than are nuclear plants because coal plants are less stringently monitored.

Costs of Nuclear Power

Various studies have shown that it is cheaper to produce nuclear energy than energy from coal—gas being the most expensive of the three—while other studies find nuclear energy comparable or slightly more expensive than coal. Table 3 gives a summary of some of the cost studies undertaken between 2003 and 2007. This table reveals that nuclear electricity is cheaper in some countries and regions but coal is cheaper elsewhere. Overall, nuclear power is competitive with coal from a cost perspective. A report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) further stated that nuclear power was cheaper than fossil fuels, among 80 percent of the countries in the sample (countries such as Finland, Slovakia, Romania, and Canada) (Nuclear Energy Agency 2005). Korea and the United States were the only countries where the projections for nuclear costs were higher than coal. The price for wind energy was given in the study as a uniform

8 cents ∕ kWh

for all nations. Data were projected to the year 2010. Table 4 shows the details.

Table 3. Relative Costs of Generating Electricity in U.S. Cents per Kilowatt-Hour Based on Currency Conversions in June 2007 (Modified from “The Economics of Nuclear Power” 2007)

	France2003	UK2004	MIT study2003	EU2007	ChicagoUniv 2004	Canada2004
Gas	5.8, 10.1	5.9, 9.8	5.8	4.6–6.1	5.5–7.0	7.2
Coal		5.2	4.2	4.7–6.1	3.5–4.1	4.5
Nuclear	3.7	4.6	4.2	5.4–7.4	4.2–4.6	5.0

Table 4. Costs of Generating Electricity by Nation; Cost Projections for 2010 Based on 5 Percent Discount Rate in U.S. Cents per Kilowatt-Hour, 2003 Dollars (Modified from “Projected Costs” 2005)

	Nuclear	Coal	Gas	Nuclear cheaper than coal (%)
Czech Republic	2.30	2.94	4.97	$- 21.77$
France	2.54	3.33	3.92	$- 23.72$
Canada	2.60	3.11	4.00	$- 16.40$
Germany	2.86	3.52	4.90	$- 18.75$
Finland	2.76	3.64	—	$- 24.18$
Switzerland	2.88	—	4.36
Romania	3.06	4.55	—	$- 32.75$
Slovakia	3.13	4.78	5.59	$- 34.52$
Netherlands	3.58	—	6.04
Japan	4.80	4.95	5.21	$- 3.03$
Korea	2.34	2.16	4.65	$+ 8.33$
United States	3.01	2.71	4.67	$+ 11.07$

However, the World Nuclear Association (WNA 2006) claims that the OECD (2005) report underestimates the nuclear advantage and so claims that the generating costs for the year 2010, projected at a 5 percent discount rate, are 2.1 to 3.1 cents/kWh for nuclear energy; 2.5 to 5.0 cents/kWh for coal; and

3.7 to 6.0 cents ∕ kWh

for natural gas. Additionally, nuclear energy production costs in the United States have dropped from a total of 2.47 cents/kWh in 1981 to 1.72 cents/kWh in 2003, showing a gradual improvement through all those years. It is worth mentioning that the production costs must have taken a hike last year because of the rapid rise of the cost of uranium fuel. Nevertheless, the costs for coal also went up last year, much as all commodity costs have risen through 2007 and the first half of 2008. Coal prices rose by an aggregated 42 percent, from $16.78 per short metric ton in 2000 to $23.78 in 2006 (“U.S. price” 2008), far outstripping the consumer price index. Further, operating costs of nuclear plants in the United States dropped by 44 percent between 1990 and 2003, and by 9.2 percent between 1981 and 2003 (WNA 2006).

Construction Costs of Nuclear Plants: Analysis

In another OECD study of 2005, nuclear power construction costs were believed to be in the order of $2.3 billion for a

1.2 - GW

nuclear plant (“Projected costs” 2005). Add to this the economies of scale that can bring about an added 15 percent in savings (Marshall and Navarro 1991). In an outdated article that falsely predicted three more Chernobyl-type accidents between 1997 and 2000, the authors reported that construction costs could be anywhere from $3 to 5 billion (“Some” 1997). Holt and Behrens (2003) report that costs range anywhere on average from $3 to 6 billion. It is not clear what size the plants are in these two latter reports. Many nuclear plants are constructed with two and three reactors together; for example, the CANDU reactor in Pickering, Canada, had eight reactors. In this regard, the final OECD cost data as verified in Robinson et al. (2007) are taken as representative. Given that the data are a few years old, and adding inflation, where the producer price index has increased by 12.15 percent from January 2005 to December 2008 (U.S. Department of Labor 2008), the current estimated cost of constructing a

1.2 - GW

plant is $2.6 billion. However, it takes four years to construct a nuclear plant, so add inflation of 4 percent per year for another two years, which brings the total estimated construction cost to $2.8 billion.

Using the electricity data distribution provided earlier in this article, where 20 percent of the United States’ current electricity needs of

1,000 GW

comes from nuclear energy, and also assuming that there will be an expansion of alternate “clean” energy methods in the order of 20 percent—mainly with solar and wind power—it remains that

600 GW

of “dirty” electricity (from coal, natural gas, etc.) needs to be replaced. To construct

600 GW

of nuclear electricity would come at a 2010 cost of $1.4 trillion.

Also consider that over the next forty-two years, the growing U.S. population will need 66 percent more electricity, since it could grow from 300 million now to 500 million in 2050 (U.S. Bureau of Census 1996). If the rate of consumption does not change (i.e.,

12,100 kWh ∕ person ∕ year

), the United States will need to construct an additional $1.55 trillion worth of nuclear plants at 2010 dollars, bringing the total to $2.95 trillion. Spread over

42 years

—a rough economic estimate—brings the total annual investment to $92 billion, which is easily financed in the current economic environment of the United States.

How much do coal-fired plants cost to construct? More than 130 new coal-fired plants have been proposed over the next ten to twenty years. However, Odell (2008) reports, “The costs of constructing and operating these plants are highly uncertain due to multiple factors in the industry, and the owners will face significant financial, economic, and environmental risks.” Given that coal plants might simply be shut down due to air pollution concerns, implies that investors will be unable to recover their invested sums. This is making bankers and lenders balk. In May 2008, the federal government held up the licenses, at least temporarily, of new coal plants because of concerns about global warming (though we know that coal plants cause air pollution hazards, and maybe no global warming at all). In October 2008, the Hawaii state government signed an agreement that stated no coal plants could be constructed in the state. Nevertheless, coal plants are typically cheaper than nuclear plants. A

1 - GW

coal plant can be expected to cost between $1.3 to 1.4 billion depending on whether it is a traditional plant, an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, or a fluidized bed plant (“What is a coal fired plant” 2008; Energy Information Administration 2008).

Parametric estimates of coal power are expressed by Wald (2007), where an

800 - megawatt unit

in 2005 in North Carolina was slated to cost $1.83 billion, amounting to $2.28 billion per

1 GW

. Add inflation of 4 percent to this as well, and we arrive at $2.77 billion for a

1 - GW

coal plant. (Wald [2007] releases a graph from the Electric Power Research Institute that reveals that prices of plants and equipment have increased 31 percent from 1998 to 2007. This represents a compounded year-over-year increase of 3 percent for the period.) So, coal plants could be half as expensive to construct, or else nearly as expensive as nuclear plants, but definitely more expensive to operate. It does not appear that there is a shortage of cash for investment in nuclear energy. The final decision may well be one that is driven by regulation and policy rather than cost.

Favorable/Unfavorable Opinion of Nuclear Power

In the eyes of the public and numerous bureaucrats and legislators, nuclear power is still a dirty word. The damage to the good effects of nuclear power was considerable after the Three Mile Island episode. Hawaii had already prohibited nuclear plants in the state in 1978 during a constitutional convention. As of late, Virginia bureaucrats continue to block uranium mining, despite the fact that southern Virginia has the nation’s largest uranium reserve valued at $10 billion. In fact, the bureaucrats have even prohibited a feasibility study of uranium mining there. This is ironic given that Virginia has had strong supporters of nuclear power and still gets much of its electricity from nuclear sources (Spencer and Loris 2008).

In other parts of the United States, however, public opinion is becoming more favorable toward nuclear power. In a survey, Bisconti (2007) discovered that “using a mix of low-carbon sources, including nuclear energy and renewables, makes sense to the public for producing the electricity we need while limiting greenhouse gases. There is near consensus (85 percent) on this concept, and this consensus encompasses the range of demographic groups” of all political inclinations across the length and breadth of mainland United States. Fifty-six percent of the public would “definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future,” while “72 percent agree that we should keep the option to build more nuclear power plants in the future.” Overall, about 63 percent favor nuclear energy, while 31 percent oppose it. Thus, there is an approximate 2:1 ratio between those who favor nuclear energy and those who oppose it. It can thus be interpreted that there is a more than good chance that nuclear energy will come to be a reality in the United States in the next few years, perhaps starting as soon as the next administration in 2009.

Which Type of Transportation?

We generally conclude, so far, that nuclear electricity generation will be free of carbon and other harmful emissions, will serve the environment, and is reasonable in cost compared to coal power plants. However, solving the matter of electricity generation is only one side of the air pollution problem. The other side is automobile and heavy equipment exhaust emissions.

The types of fuel for cars, ships, and airplanes are generally: gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, electricity, air, and nuclear. Of these, gasoline combustion is strictly prohibitive. Hydrogen fuel appears attractive for the main reason that it’s only by-product is water vapor. The trouble is that water vapor is the most prominent greenhouse gas. I cannot say how much more water vapor the atmosphere can tolerate because I could not find any models for this. Nevertheless, if global warming is a serious concern, humankind must steer away from any automobile that produces greenhouse gases.

Air-powered and nuclear-powered cars are still in the realm of science fiction. However, it is possible to use nuclear generation for ships, to start with, since submarines and aircraft carriers have been safely using nuclear power for half a century. Nevertheless, regulation and terrorism issues will need to be addressed for the 30,936 large merchant ships (

⩾ 1,000

gross register tons) in the world (Wikipedia, Ship Transport 2008e). This is not going to be easy, since piracy exists in the world today.

Ethanol Cars

By elimination, this leaves electric and ethanol-powered cars. The main objections to ethanol powered cars are (1) that they actually produce more greenhouse gases through the energy they consume than they would save by eliminating car emissions, and (2) that it is immoral to use food for powering automobiles, raising the price of corn for communities that have corn as their staple diet. Argument 1 is rendered moot once nuclear generation is adopted. Argument 2 carries some moral merit that cannot be discussed within the scope of this paper.

Electric Cars

Finally, it is well known that electric cars produce miniscule greenhouse or pollutant gases during use. However, they do produce greenhouse and pollutant gases during manufacture. This is due to their very large batteries. A study at Sekei University, Japan, determined that whereas electric cars generate more pollutant and greenhouse gases during manufacture than do gasoline cars or hybrid cars, their overall life cycle emission was one-half that of hybrid cars and one-fourth that of gasoline cars when hydroelectricity or a similar clean energy method, such as nuclear energy, is used to generate electricity (“Automobiles” 2001). Thus, with nuclear energy being used to produce electricity, electric cars are the best alternative for automobiles, since it is doubtful if the world can do without automobiles altogether.

The electric car concept was made famous by the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car. In 1999, General Electric produced 457 of the world’s first electric cars. Known as the EV, the electric car was priced on the higher side in the car market. While EV could perform as well as gasoline cars, except for a speed limitation of

80 miles per hour

, their main drawback was their maximum range of

80 - 100 miles

per charge, compared to

500 miles

for economy gasoline cars (Wikipedia, Who Killed 2008f). Recharging took a full eight hours, although 80 percent recharge could be obtained in two to three hours. General Motors also claimed that the expected breakthrough in battery technology did not take place and that there were drawbacks with the nickel metal hydride batteries (Wikipedia, General Motors 2008b). Where lithium batteries are used, there is an immense world shortage of lithium (“The coming lithium shortage” 2005). However, new fuel cell technologies hold immense promise for the future (Vanston and Elliott 2003), although they are still in research and development. Nevertheless, nickel metal hydride cars were used in the EV, which ran very well.

General Electric is working again on an electric car, this time to be known as the Chevrolet Volt. The Volt, which will recharge from a

110 - volt

line, is actually a hybrid that will compete with Toyota’s Prius (see Wikipedia, Chevrolet 2008a). Many other companies have produced models of electric cars. A company in Bangalore, India, released its model version of REVA in 2002. Since then, it has teamed up with British consortiums to export 250,000 cars to Europe, and received export requests from China, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and the United States (“Sweet” 2002; “REVA Electric” 2002). More REVA cars have been produced than any other electric car, but the cars are only qualified as neighborhood vehicles because their range is only

50 miles

. They are also substantially unsafe in crash tests (Wikipedia, REVA 2008d). It is expected that making the REVA robust in crash tests will be an easy achievement once demand for electric vehicles picks up, since this is a matter of economics not high technology.

Summary and Conclusions

Coal and oil still contribute up to 50 percent of the world’s electricity, but we don’t have time on our side to continue using them. It can be argued that

C O_{2}

is not currently a major greenhouse gas, nor a major pollutant; however, the accompanying gases and particulate matter that go into the air through burning coal and fossils fuels are major air pollutants that have serious health risks for world citizens and animal life. In addition,

C O_{2}

does cause surface ozone to form, which is a lung irritant. It is appropriate to ask what type of air we are bequeathing to future generations. The unwanted gases we have been emitting have become much too much. From an engineering and medical perspective, we have to reverse direction now, not just set meager standards for lessening the pollution coming from cars and power plants. In this respect, the Kyoto Agreement was much too mild.

Nuclear energy is an available alternative to the hazards of burning coal, biomass, and fossil fuels for electricity. I argue that neither radioactive waste, nor the safety of nuclear plants, nor the threats of terrorism are significant concerns in relation to nuclear energy. In fact, all spent fuel can be recycled. Moreover, nuclear plants emit less radioactivity than coal plants, since all deep-earth materials, such as coal, have some uranium and thorium. More ominously, however, uranium-235 can be extracted from coal emissions. Sooner or later, every country in the world, rogue or not, will be able to do so.

I have discussed the costs of constructing and operating nuclear plants and shown that the operating costs of nuclear plants are on the decline (costs less than coal plants in 80 percent of countries in the sample considered). While the capital costs for coal plants to install

1 to 1.2 GW

of electricity range from half the cost of nuclear plants to equal the cost, the increasing health hazards of coal plants are beginning to make coal plants a risky venture that is turning away financiers. Operation costs of coal plants are significantly higher than nuclear plants, not to mention the enormous logistics of transporting huge quantities of coal from coal extraction factories to coal power plants.

The public opinion of nuclear energy has turned favorable by a 2:1 ratio, making it very likely that the future of energy in the United States and the world will be nuclear energy in the years to come—at least until 2050.

While fossil fuel plants emit greenhouse gases and air pollutants, so do automobiles and heavy equipment, ships, and airplanes. For automobiles, the technology is on the horizon to produce electric cars that emit virtually no pollutants during operation. Though the emission of pollutants during manufacturing of electric cars is higher than for gasoline cars, the life cycle emissions are one-fourth as much. Thus, with nuclear energy and electric cars we can save our planet, though we will have to turn our attention quite soon to ship and airplane transport fuels as well. I can postulate that the end of air travel, as we know it, will adversely affect world economies unless new and safe air transport systems are developed.

It takes four years to construct a 1-GW nuclear plant, and ten years to develop uranium mines. Thus, if we are serious about maintaining our quality of life, and breathing clean air, and if we love Mother Earth, we must make a conscious policy agreement now to switch to nuclear energy and electric cars. In addition, if we want to be spared the uncertainties of oil from the Middle East and Russia that is poised to run out sooner than later, we have no alternative. The world has no other sensible alternative left. As humans, we might be enjoying our life on Earth, but we are slowly and surely hurting ourselves if we remain bent on pursuing our current path. Like fish will die if we pollute the medium of their existence, water, humans stand to suffer if we pollute our medium, the air we breathe. The future of energy is staring us in the face and the technology is sitting there for us to adopt.

References

“Air pollution soaring high.” (2008). ⟨http://www.shamskm.com/env/air-pollution-soaring-high.html⟩.

Abstract

Which Greenhouse Gases?

So, What’s the Problem? Air Pollution

Health Effects of Air Pollution

Fog and Smog

Acid Rain

Ozone

Health Risks

Global Effect of Air Pollution

Kyoto Agreement

So, What Is the Solution?

Background of Energy Production

Nuclear Power

Production Capability and Trends

Nuclear Waste

Safety of Nuclear Power

Pilferage and Proliferation of Nuclear Power

Safety from Terrorism

Safety Comparison with Coal and Other Sources

Costs of Nuclear Power

Construction Costs of Nuclear Plants: Analysis

Favorable/Unfavorable Opinion of Nuclear Power

Which Type of Transportation?

Ethanol Cars

Electric Cars

Summary and Conclusions

References

Biographies

Information

Published In

Copyright

History

Permissions

Authors

Affiliations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

Cited by

Figures

Other

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Share

Request Username

Create a new account

Change Password

Password Changed Successfully

Verify Phone

Congrats!