Renewable vs. Nuclear or Renewable plus Nuclear

Hello Readers,

For years now, I've been reading articles, blog posts, and op-ed pieces debating the merits of nuclear and renewable technologies and the use of them in the development of a low-carbon energy grid. Without feeling a need to reference any specific examples, both sides of the debate (which are both arguably environmentalist in nature) seem to universally agree that fossil-fuel power plants are 'evil'; however, neither side can agree on the best alternative.

Both sides of the argument tend to be concerned about the environment in some capacity and agree that reducing carbon emissions and other pollutants is a good idea. Renewable energy proponents (nuclear opponents) tend to disapprove of the radioactive waste and international security issues associated with nuclear. Whereas, nuclear proponents (renewable energy opponents) tend to site the disruption of the landscape/habitats caused by covering vast areas of land (or waterways) with solar or wind (or hydro) technologies. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel proponents (the champions of the status quo) will point to the weaknesses in either argument and completely deny climate change issues to ensure that their investments (either capital or lifestyle investments) are safe.

As a physicist in undergrad (with a basic understanding of radiation and nuclear technologies) and a climate change scientist in postgrad, I have never fully settled on either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate. I have come to acknowledge nuclear power plants -if run responsibly- can be a relatively clean source of power. However, careful geopolitical considerations should be accounted for in the development of any new nuclear power plant (i.e. While I understand the reasoning behind sanctioning Iran, it is hypocritical of the USA to discourage other countries from developing nuclear facilities while simultaneously attempting to reinvigorate its domestic nuclear industry.). On the other hand, massive deployments of renewable generators (on the scale necessary to power even half of the current US demand) will require the disruption of not-insignificant portions of natural landscapes and will require huge infrastructural projects on the electric grids (i.e. the incorporation of energy storage and/or reinforced transmission lines).

Of course, either case -if implemented and managed responsibly- will only have a marginal environmental impact compared to the current reliance on fossil-fuels. So it begs the question: how can the renewable vs. nuclear debate turn into what it should be a fossil-fuel vs. non-fossil-fuel debate?

While reading an article about the impacts of climate change on nuclear power plants, a thought occurred to me. Why not attempt to combine the two technologies? Specifically, the article referenced the weakness of many nuclear power plants is the need to use adjacent rivers for cooling. However, this means that the heated water cannot exceed 90 degrees F, which is generally not an issue except on especially hot days (such as those experienced in the USA this past summer). Otherwise, the expelled water would start cooking the wildlife in the river.

Thus, my thought was all new nuclear plants should be coupled with concentrated solar power (CSP) plants to maximize efficiency. The CSP plant, which would need to operate at temperatures of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, could use the expelled cooling water from the nuclear plant as a preheater. This would simultaneously allow CSP plants to produce more energy with fewer/smaller collectors and allow for more significant levels of cooling for the nuclear plant on hot days. Also, This will allow for more energy to be created for every gallon of water used (e.g. up to 800 gal/MWh for CSP), and in a worst case scenario the CSP mirrors could be turned away from the sun to allow the system to act as a massive radiator for the attached nuclear plant.

Such a solution may not fully alleviate the concerns of either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate, but it may help to bring the how to 'solve' climate change debate back into perspective. Ultimately, as both sides of the debate continue to batter each others' weaknesses rather than search for solutions, a stalemate only supports the status quo.

Thanks for reading! Please leave your comments or objections down below.

Sean Diamond