On these days of ecological and environmental concerns, everyone starts to understand that it is the next massive world wide global challenge for the generations to come – Including ours.

A lot of political members decided, in their program for future elections and development plan for their country, to try to reduce the impact of the human beings on the environment.

We all agree and are thankful for that.

Everyone is putting their effort in common to achieve this massive challenge by international cooperation like the recent COP21.

I am highly surprised that in all the papers I can read, no one – no one – mentions the cleanest energy actually existing or to be developed – The nuclear energy.

Reducing the nuclear electricity production to more inefficient/hazardous technologies to produce energy, it will unlikely help our planet out. It will just slow the process that everyone tries to achieve as it deviates funding and research resources. So far, the nuclear energy has proven its efficiency, low or nill impact on the environment and its stability. The nuclear wastes are an issue, I will not deny it. But try to look at it on a larger scale. If we finance the nuclear research, we will find a way to get rid of them. But you have to try to not look at it on a human-life scale. We, hopefully, will be still here for thousands or millions of years. We might not find a way to use the wastes or recycle them in the next 50 years, but maybe in 200 years. We have more to gain to continue to use the nuclear facility than to loose. I will develop it later.

You have to be aware that Renewable energies were never created to be clean. It was a different way to produce energy (for those afraid of the nuclear), which is amazing. Amazing – When you cannot have access to nuclear energy production.

So if you are afraid of the nuclear and would like to switch to renewable energies, this is perfectly fine. But, please, do not say it is to save the planet, because it is unlikely to be viable.

Transforming energy from the sun or the wind into electricity, it is not magic. And I will not talk about the massive issue of the energy storage as batteries are one of the most non-environmental friendly electrical devices.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made a list in 2014 on the global warming potential of selected electricity sources (arranged by decreasing median (gCO2eq/kWh) values) [1] :

1. Coal – Coal burner – Pulverised Coal (820)

2. Biomass – cofiring with coal (740)

3. Gas – Combined Cycle (490)

4. Biomass – dedicated (230)

Oh, that becomes interesting…

5. Solar photovoltaic – Utility scale (48)

6. Solar photovoltaic – Rooftop (41)

7. Geothermal (38)

8. Concentrated solar power (27)

9. Hydropower (24)

10. Wind offshore (12)

11. Wind onshore (11)

12. Nuclear (12)

I intentionally switched the nuclear with the wind onshore as to produce the same quantity of electricity that one nuclear power plant can produce, you will need over than 880 turbines (if you take the actual figures) [2]. And other main issue, where to build them?

You might not be aware of the best way to produce almost unlimited energy, with unlimited fuel supplies with no nuclear wastes – The nuclear fusion energy.

“Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels.

Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100.” (Complete article).

It is basically, the whole opposite process than the Fission nuclear technology.

I know that for most of non-professionals person, the “nuclear” word is scary. Maybe they associate the “nuclear” word with nuclear weapon? But you do not need a nuclear power industry for building them.

Afraid about the accidents? The technology has evolved, and feedbacks have been taken in account. And for all accidents cases, except Fukushima, it was a human fault so obviously now corrected. And speaking about Fukushima, the tsunami and earthquake did more damages than the actual radiological accident on itself. And figures prove that moving a high dense population from an area might be more likely causing death.

It is not what you are used to hear, I understand, but the figures prove it. You are more likely to be exposed to radiological radiations via flight transport, double glazing, than nuclear power plants.

Plus, most of the population are ignoring the principal good impact of the nuclear in our life: the nuclear medicine. All the X-ray and cancer treatments. I would be very curious to have some figures on how many lives it saves per annum. My guess would be hundreds of thousands. Why is it ignored? It is made with radioactive materials though.

Everyone complains about the “nuclear lobby”, but what about the lobby that consists of playing with the basic fear of the population even if all experts prove it is non-sense? I understand that it is unlikely to win a national election if you support the research and nuclear program, as no one makes an effort to inform the population. But what is the final cost? Winning an election based on lies, is it worth it?

Just….. Why?

Sources :

Header Picture : http://1920x1080hdwallpapers.com/.

Article picture : DEMO Fusion nuclear reactor (More details).

UKAEA Talk – The Hazards of Energy – David Wards (UKAEA).

[1] Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources.

[2] Fact Check: Comparing wind and nuclear power.

More details about Fusion Energy : Culham Centre for Fusion Energy – European Consortium for the Development of Fusion Energy – ITER .