The nuclear energy debate is one that will continue across the world for

quite a while. Both sides of the argument have very valid points. Pro
nuclear keys in on the energy density of nuclear fuel and its reliability
(lack of in intermittency). Anti nuclear proponents may key in on the
environmental risks associated with nuclear energy, the fossil fuels
needed to construct and run nuclear plants, and ask why we need
nuclear power at all when we can boost our reliance on renewables. In
this discussion we are asked to pick a side, I am going with pro nuclear
but only in the short term. I think that nuclear is the best option that
we have at this time however I am hoping that technological
innovations will allow renewables to become a more viable option.
The first myth I would like to debunk is the negative environmental
affects associated with the construction of nuclear power plants. The
EPA Clean Energy website lists environmental impacts for the most
common energy generation technologies, there are the top two for
nuclear energy:
Environmental Impacts
Although power plants are regulated by federal and state laws to
protect human health and the environment, there is a wide
variation of environmental impacts associated with power
generation technologies.
The purpose of the following section is to give consumers a
better idea of the specific air, water, land, and radioactive waste
releases associated with nuclear power electricity generation.
Air Emissions
Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
or nitrogen oxides as part of the power generation process.
However, fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium
mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport
of the uranium fuel to and from the nuclear plant.
Water Resource Use
Nuclear power plants use large quantities of water for steam
production and for cooling. Some nuclear power plants remove
large quantities of water from a lake or river, which could affect
fish and other aquatic life.
First I would like to talk about the fossil fuel emissions associated with
the transportation of nuclear fuel vs that of say a 250 ft wind turbine.
The modern commercial wind turbine is a massive structure and is
often located in rural areas across the country. Transporting these
turbines is no small task and requires a convoy of vehicles. Each blade
requires its only specially equipped heavy hauler as well as chase
vehicles, there are 3 blades to each turbine. The monumental move is
best described here by Inbound Logistics:

The trucking industry's fragmented regulatory system further

complicated matters. Current rules allow individual states to
determine the routes oversized trailers must take, which often
means longer trips.
Scheduling the required highway patrol escorts was also an
issue. If moved by truck, each three-section towerconsisting of
base, middle, and top pieceswould need an escort. The
nacelles and blades would require additional trailers and escorts.
Coordinating drivers, escorts, permits, and specialized
equipment to move all the parts would be a monumental task.
Constructing a nuclear plant may mean quite a few truckloads of
material will be needed however the construction of renewable
resources is not exactly green either. Not to mention the energy
density of the power plants (wind vs nuclear). It takes just one 1154megawatt nuclear power plant will produce 9098136 megawatt hours
of electricity per year, It would take 2077 2-megawatt wind generators
to reach a similar output, under PEAK conditions!
Now this is just one reason why I chose nuclear over renewables for the
time being. I can go on with many more examples of why nuclear is a
much more viable option for clean energy at this time however I was
thinking about doing my research paper on this topic and I would hate
to use all my arguments right now.