Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011

AT: Nuke Power Solves

Space solar power solves better – cost-effective and safer - our evidence is comparative

Avoids disads of nuclear power – no meltdowns or disasters

Vaidyanathan 6/26 - Writer at Outlook Magazine [Lalitha, “Power from Space to Tackle Fukushima-like Incidents,” Outlook, http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?725954, DS]
With many world governments rejecting the few kinds of base load electrical power that is currently available in wake of the Fukushima accident and climate change, is it possible to re-examine the Space-based Solar Power (SSP) concept as an emergency power supply to a situation comparable to the one witnessed in Japan this year? The answer is "yes", according to space scientists who have been working on Space solar power for last two decades. Baseload power plants (using non-renewable fuels like nuclear and coal) typically run at all times through the year except in the case of scheduled maintenance or repairs and produce energy at a constant rate, usually at a low cost. Space Solar Power is a system of placing very large arrays of light solar panels in high Earth orbit, (in space) where sunlight is, "five to seven times as strong as solar power on the earth's surface and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week," said the founder of America's Space Development Steering Committee Howard Bloom. "Any equipment placed in space is totally immune to fires, earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, local wars and other forms of destruction on the ground," John K Strickland, who specialises in issues relating to access to space, planetary bases, space solar power and environment and is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Space Society (NSS) in the US told PTI. The power generated from sunlight in space can be converted to a wide beam of microwaves or a tight beam of laser light and sent down to the ground very efficiently. "The idea arose at one of our Space Development Steering Committee meeting recently, partly as a response to thinking about how the Japanese nuclear accident could have been prevented just by making emergency power available from space in a few hours," Strickland and Bloom said. Since no one has died as a result of Fukushima accident, the power is just as (or even more) valuable at any disaster scene where people are dying as a result of no power, Strickland said. Power at the nuclear plant at Fukushima was knocked out by tsunami, causing damage to power lines and the backup diesel generators, while the pumps themselves were apparently not damaged initially. All they needed was a source of electricity which could have come from SSP, he said. The equipment (about 5-20 tonnes), to provide about one Megawatt (or more) of power from such a laser power beam can be quickly moved to the site of an emergency or disaster, by a large helicopter in a single trip. The exact weight and volume of the solar panels would need to be determined by engineers, Strickland said. The emergency receiver equipment, consisting of thin sheets of solar panels, would be brought in from outside the disaster area, where it would be stored in a safe location. The idea is intended to provide emergency power to any disaster site or sites on Earth, and would only take three satellites to implement, he said. "A single satellite would cover most of Asia and I would assume that is where the first satellite would be placed. All that is needed at the site is a flat rooftop or area of ground about 50-100 feet wide to arrange the set of solar panels flat on the surface. The satellite, in the same orbit used by your TV signal satellite, would aim a laser beam also about 50-100 feet wide from 22,000 miles high down to the emergency site," he said. The beam would not be high power and therefore, could not be used as a weapon, Strickland said. At the same power level as the Sun at noon, the laser beam could provide as much as 300-400 watts per square metre of actual power, so 600 solar panels of four sq m each would provide about one MW of power. The panels would be light and could be stacked closed together on pallets. With the currently available technology, the power could be made available for 24 hours, seven days a week and could be delivered and set up in as little as six hours, depending on regional pre-positioning of equipment and organisational readiness, Strickland said. The system would be relatively automatic and would not require highly trained personnel to operate, he said. A larger array of such panels could have provided power to pumps at the Japanese nuclear site where almost all of the problems were caused by a lack of electricity, power needed just to pump water, ironically at a power generating plant, he added. "Since all the equipment would be brought to the site and set up after the disaster, it would be undamaged and ready to provide power," Strickland said. SSP is ultimately intended to provide a very large alternate supply of base load power to the whole Earth, but current very high launch costs have prevented using this system, Strickland said. "We believe that using a few specialised emergency satellites would provide a significant benefit to the Earth – covering emergencies - where power can save lives and property," he said. Only about three such satellites would be needed for the entire earth, two for Europe and Asia and one for the Americas, he said. "We believe that it will be possible to build and launch such as set of satellites within a decade using a new generation of cheaper rockets now being built," Strickland said adding that emergency power is much more valuable than base load power, so the launch costs would be affordable for the service provided. For example, a set of three 50 Megawatt satellites would be able to provide one megawatt of emergency power to 150 sites worldwide simultaneously. Alternately, 10 megawatts each could be provided to 15 sites, such as five in the Americas, five in Europe and five in Asia. The cost of building and launching these three satellites would be vastly cheaper than the damage and cleanup required after an accident similar to the current one, Strickland said. This project could also advance the science and development of space solar concept and allow it to be used as a replacement power source and an addition to other energy systems sooner than expected, he said. When asked whether military programme on the solar power will have some implementing problem affecting such a civil programme, Strickland said the US military has no lock on any technology unless it is a "black program" or unless they funded it. "This space solar emergency power supply is not 'black' by any means. Everything was openly published on the space solar base supply concept in 2007. I know of no secret programs to build such a system," he said. Currently there are no funded programmes supporting Space Solar by any US agency to our knowledge, he said. "Solar power in space is close to infinite," says Bloom, adding "the sooner we begin to tap it, the better off the world will be. And using space solar power for emergencies is an excellent start."

Nuclear power isn’t inevitable – Japan’s led to global backlash

Scheer and Moss 6/24 - Environmental writers at Scientific American [Roddy and Doug, 6/24/2011, Scientific American, “As the World Reconsiders Nuclear Energy, the U.S. Remains Committed to Its Expansion,” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=re-thinking-nuclear-energy. DS]
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, countries around the world that were growing more bullish on nuclear power are now reconsidering their future energy investments. Germany has shut down seven of its oldest nuclear reactors and is conducting safety studies on the remaining facilities; those that don’t make the grade could be closed permanently. Meanwhile, in earthquake-prone Chile some 2,000 demonstrators marched through the capital to protest their government’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. And China, the world’s fastest growing nuclear energy developer, has suspended the approval process on 50 nuclear power plants already on the drawing board, and begun inspections on 13 existing plants.

Nuclear power’s too expensive – can’t solve and just hurts the economy

Trounson, ‘6 – writer at The Australian [Andrew, 5/31/2006, The Australian, Lexis, DS]
Energy THE nuclear debate will remain purely academic for decades in the absence of any commitment by government to putting a cost on carbon emissions, according to the electricity industry. While industry planning has moved to include nuclear power as an option for the first time, in the event of a carbon tax or emissions trading, at twice the installed cost of coal or gas generation it remains too expensive. ''If there is no constraint on building coal and gas power generation, nuclear still isn't competitive, even by 2030,'' said John Boshier, chief executive of the National Generators Forum, whose members account for 90 per cent of Australia's electricity market. Even with a ''serious'' government policy on restricting or penalising emissions, the power industry would not expect nuclear power to be in the frame until 2020 at the earliest, Mr Boshier said. ''No forum member company has any plans too build nuclear power. There isn't even any active investigation going on,'' Mr Boshier said. While Prime Minister John Howard is pushing for a fresh assessment of the potential for a nuclear industry in Australia, and while nuclear power is being discussed more in the corridors of utilities, industry insiders say it remains largely a theoretical issue. According to a power industry insider, at least one board of a government utility is believed to have had a briefing on nuclear power, but dismissed it as too expensive. ''You aren't going to do engineering studies on a what if,'' said the insider. ''At the moment it is just a conversation.'' But with nuclear power being increasingly touted as an answer to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the forum has plugged it into its new scenario modelling, the results of which are expected to be available from the end of July. ''We are examining the impacts of low emission targets on us -- what the industry would look like -- and we are including nuclear power as one of the options,'' Mr Boshier said. But at twice the installation cost of coal and gas-fired generation, nuclear faced a major hurdle in becoming economic, Mr Boshier said. The Generators Forum has estimated the installed cost of nuclear power, in real terms, in 2010 at $US2000/kilowatt, compared with $US1000/kw for coal and combined cycle gas turbines. By 2020 the real cost falls to $US1700/kw but is still higher than the real cost of coal-fired generation, which even after including the cost of carbon capture technology and underground sequestration techniques comes in at $US1300/kw. By 2030 installed nuclear costs fall to $US1500/kw, compared with $US1200 for coal combined with carbon capture and sequestration. So far, the federal Government has ruled out imposing a carbon tax or emissions trading. But the states and territories are working on proposals to bypass the federal Government and introduce emissions trading.

Limited resources force a tradeoff – and cost and threats make nuke power comparatively worse

Kohler, ‘9 - Director of Wisconsin Environment, nonprofit environmental research group – [Dan, 12/23/2009, The Cap Times, “Dan Kohler: Nuclear power can't solve global warming,” http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_888970d5-23cd-54f7-b325-a71162cc891a.html#ixzz1SIWsiZ26, DS]
The damaging impacts of climate change -- from the acidification of the world’s oceans to melting glaciers and rising sea levels -- are happening even faster than the most eye-opening predictions made by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just two years ago. However, with immediate, swift and decisive action at all levels of government -- local to international -- we still have a chance to avoid many of the most catastrophic impacts of global warming. Given the scale of the threat, we should put every possible solution on the table, except for the status quo. We should carefully consider all sources of carbon-free energy -- even nuclear power -- to make sure that we choose the approach most likely to deliver success. On the surface, the case for nuclear power looks reasonable. Nuclear power is capable of producing large amounts of electricity while emitting little to none of the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming. However, in a recent study, Wisconsin Environment found that far from being a solution to global warming, nuclear power would actually set us back in the fight to solve it. To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years. Since no new reactors are now under construction in the U.S. and building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer, it is quite possible that nuclear power could deliver no progress in the critical next decade. Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power would reduce U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent -- far too little and too late. Fortunately, in contrast to nuclear power, energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass can provide immediate and affordable solutions. Combined with enhancements to our electricity grid, these technologies can also make our energy supply more reliable. Energy efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1 percent to 2 percent annually in leading states. The U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year. And America has vast potential to do more. One might ask: Shouldn’t we use clean energy and nuclear power to address the problem? In a world of unlimited resources, such a plan would be conceivable. But in the real world of limited resources we need to make choices. In this context, we must recognize that investing in new nuclear reactors would actually delay needed progress and divert critical investment dollars away from better solutions. In addition, there are still the unresolved problems of how to safely dispose of nuclear waste, the environmental impacts of mining and processing uranium, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, and the potential consequences of an accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant. The bottom line: We can spend $600 billion on nuclear power and fail to solve global warming. Or we can spend the same money on clean energy and achieve twice the carbon reductions at a much faster pace. When you factor in ongoing operation costs, clean energy will deliver five times more pollution reduction than nuclear power. To address global warming, state and federal policymakers should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating electricity from clean sources that never run out such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.74 Mb.

Share with your friends: