Is nuclear the answer?

I found this article and think that it is worth sharing through my blog:

"Many environmentalists would like to consign nuclear power to the dustbin of history, but it seems that it's an energy source that just won't go away.

Opposition to nuclear power was at the heart of the green movement of the 1960's and 70's. However the role of carbon emissions in climate change has switched the focus of not just campaigners, but politicians and large sections of the business community, against fossil fuels. Nuclear power has been highlighted by its supporters as a very low carbon emitter, which has given the industry a boost and could hail its renaissance.

The hazardous legacy of nuclear waste and the difficulty of disposing it, added to the catastrophe at Chernobyl meant that many countries lost their appetite for nuclear power. Germany has pledged to phase out all of its nuclear facilities by 2021 because of the potential safety risks, replacing them with renewable power sources

For developing countries nuclear power plants haven't gone out of fashion - China plans to spend $60 billion on new nuclear power plants by the end of the next decade - while France still generates around 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy.

As governments look to how they will fuel the future, nuclear power has been trying to clean up its image. There are innovative plans on how to dispose of the highly hazardous waste. A report by the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said that a portion of nuclear waste could be used as a power source, suggesting the building of a $2 billion fuel processing plant could turn the UK's 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste into reactor fuel to provide 60 percent of the country's electricity until 2060.

While the plan had the support of the UK government's chief scientist, Sir David King, many environmental groups raised concerns that it would create a "plutonium economy" in the UK and lead to huge quantities of nuclear fuel transported to and across the country.
Nuclear back on the agenda

The UK government has recently given formal backing to plans for a new generation of commercial nuclear power stations, a move that has dismayed many supporters of renewable energies and environmentalists.

While it is agreed that many of the UK's nuclear facilities will need to be replaced by 2018, opinion is divided as to whether new power stations will contribute to filling the predicted energy gap.

One thing that can be agreed is that the public, governments and energy companies across the world are having the face up to the same energy problems. According to the World Energy Council, global energy supplies must double from their 2007 level by 2050 to meet worldwide household energy needs, while reductions in carbon emissions have to be met to stave off the effects of climate change.

Critics of nuclear power have traditionally focussed on the hazards and costly nature of the industry, as well as the catastrophic effects of a nuclear accident and the threat of nuclear proliferation. However as the debate over energy sources become more sophisticated, anti-nuclear activists also point to its other flaws.

"There are two [other] reasons why new nuclear will play no part in ensuring our energy and climate security: cost and time. Nuclear costs too much, the costs are too uncertain and the reactors cannot be available in time," energy expert Tom Burke CBE, said in an address to the Law Society in 2007.

Building a nuclear power station is an expensive and long process. In the U.S. and UK projected costs of nuclear power stations have been dwarfed by the final total. The Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland is currently under construction but has been beset by problems; costs have spiralled from $3.6 billion to $5.8 billion. Doubts persist that the number of nuclear power stations in the UK that would be needed to plug the perceived energy gap could be built in time, with average construction time taking around 5 years and lengthy consultation and approval times potentially doubling the build schedule.

Reducing CO2 emissions?
It has been argued that building more nuclear power stations would not lead to the necessary reduction in greenhouse gases as nuclear power only provides around 16 percent of the world's electricity. A report by the Sustainable Development Commission in the UK established that even if the UK doubles its nuclear facilities there would only be an 8 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2035.

Critics of nuclear power also suggest that the carbon dioxide produced by nuclear power is not as low as many in the industry claim. If mining the uranium and decommissioning the power plants is taken into account, Greenpeace contend that nuclear power stations produce around 50 percent more greenhouse emissions than wind power.

Nevertheless there are many that believe nuclear power has an important role to play in reducing carbon emissions and plugging a potential energy gap.

Malcolm Grimston, Association Fellow of Chatham House, believes that nuclear power is the best way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and in the UK's case, providing sustained and reliable baseload energy.

"Baseload requirement for electricity is somewhere around 20,000 megawatts, 24 hour. That has to be coming reliably, and you just can't be sure when the wind is blowing or the sun is going to be out. In terms of baseload energy, it's not about nuclear vs. renewables, they aren't appropriate because of their intermittency. It's nuclear vs. gas or coal," says Grimston.
Supporters of nuclear power point to the advances made in the industry in the last 30 years. Modern reactors are safer than they were in the 1970s, with safety shut-downs far less frequent.

While the capital costs of nuclear power are much larger proportion than other energy sources, supporters of nuclear power point out that the costs of the fuel, uranium, are relatively stable, and not subject to the same market fluctuations.

"Nuclear had its economic problems, but it has a track record that proves it can deliver, and some of the renewables don't have that. At current fossil fuel prices it's very clear that nuclear is the most economically attractive option. There isn't a single snappy solution to providing energy in the future," says Grimston."

I strongly think that Nuclear power is the best way to curb rising cost of Oil. If the Oil prices go above 150 $, the world economies will crash and there would be a world war.

Think about it.