The Case (Still) for Nuclear Power
The devastating earthquake that rocked Japan on March 11 was one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded. Damage from the quake alone is estimated in the billions and the death toll is still rising daily. On top of the earthquake, northern Japan was hit by a massive tsunami, furthering the damage to the country. But the major concern of the world was not about the safety of Japan’s populace, but on the safety and reliability of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power plant. Immediately following the earthquake, the plant shut down and ceased production of energy. The backup systems ran smoothly until the tsunami hit. This caused the backup diesel generators to flood and stop working, shutting down the cooling pumps that keep the fuel rods from overheating. When fuel rods are not cooled, they can heat up to astronomical temperatures and explode.
Fortunately, the fuel rods did not meltdown at Fukushima. Modern nuclear power plants are equipped with multiple levels of security measures designed to prevent a nuclear disaster from occurring. Because of all the safety measures, nuclear power is the safest power source available to the world today. In the entire history of nuclear power plants, only three accidents have occurred. Today, the world is searching for more sustainable and green sources of energy as demand for energy explodes due to new industrializing nations in Asia and Africa. Eventually, the demand will exceed supply and a severe energy crisis will occur unless action is taken to prevent it. Coal, solar, wind, and natural gas are not sustainable enough to supply the world with power for the foreseeable future. If the world wants sustainable, eco-friendly electricity, then the only alternative is nuclear energy.
Many people have a fear of anything that has the world “nuclear” attached to it. They automatically associate “nuclear” with nuclear bombs. This is an unfair association since it the way someone uses something determines if it is virtuous of malignant. To eliminate any prejudices that exist about nuclear power, I will explain the history of nuclear power and how it works. “Research into nuclear fission began in the 1930s, when Austrian-born Swedish physicist Lise Meitner and German chemist Otto Hahn first showed that uranium atoms could be made to break apart (fission) when struck by a neutron to release a large amount of energy”(Galenet). This energy could be harnessed to either produce electricity or make a very powerful bomb. The first time nuclear power was used was with the Manhattan Project when a fission chain reaction was successfully completed under the football field of the University of Chicago. This process was implemented into the atomic bombs that were developed henceforth. After World War II, the major powers of the world decided that nuclear power should be used only for peaceful purposes such as generating electricity. In 1954, the Soviet Union became the first nation to have a fully operational reactor producing electricity. Great Britain and the United States soon followed suit. “Since then, the use of nuclear power has continued to grow worldwide, in spite of highly publicized accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and in Japan”(Galenet). Nuclear energy has had a resurgence of popularity in recent years. Funding was set aside under the Bush Administration to build a nuclear waste storage site in Yucca Mountain. It was scheduled to be built in 2008, but the project was abandoned. In Europe, Germany is moving to shut down their nuclear energy program while France is now producing nearly 80% of its energy from nuclear power.
The process of generating electricity from nuclear fission is a surprisingly simple process. In the process of building the atomic bomb, nuclear physicists wondered if the chain reaction they created could be controlled and harnessed to produce energy. There are two ways to generate energy from a nuclear reaction: “fission and fusion. Nuclear fission occurs when the nucleus of an atom is split apart into two smaller nuclei. In the process, a small amount of the mass of the nucleus is converted into a great amount of energy. Nuclear power plants harness this process in a controlled chain reaction, releasing energy in continuous and manageable amounts”(Galenet). This reaction produces very large amounts of heat, which is channeled into pipes boil water to produce steam that then turns a turbine. The turbine drives a generator that produces electricity. On the other hand, “in nuclear fusion, the nuclei of hydrogen atoms fuse together to produce larger nuclei, releasing energy in the process”(Galenet) Nuclear fusion is not used for generating electricity because the reaction is very difficult to contain once it starts.
The benefit of producing electricity with nuclear power is the miniscule amount of waste and risk that is produced in the process. First of all, no carbon dioxide is released in the process. No fossil fuels are being burned so no carbon is released into the atmosphere, therefore creating cleaner air. Second, nuclear power produces only a very small amount of radioactive waste for the amount of energy that is produced. The amount of waste generated by a family of four for twenty years would fit inside of a shoebox. There is very little waste to actually store. Most of this waste is also eligible to be recycled and turned back into usable fuel. The “recycling process, they argue, will not isolate pure plutonium, making it more difficult to convert the leftovers into a bomb. Specifically, the process calls for dissolving spent fuel in nitric acid to chemically extract the nastiest 1 percent-the highly radioactive elements plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium, also known as actinides-as well as depleted uranium. The uranium is then re-enriched, recombined with the actinides, and compressed into fuel pellets for state-of-the-art reactors”(Popular Science). This method of recycling nuclear waste protects the waste from falling into terrorists hands because less plutonium is produced. Recycling the waste also provides a sustainable method of obtaining nuclear fuel.
Another major benefit to nuclear power is an increased ability to produce hydrogen through the power plant itself. Hydrogen is a fuel that can be used to power cars. Honda’s Clarity is a fully functioning, long range zero emissions vehicle that runs on hydrogen. When hydrogen reacts with oxygen, it produces water, so the only emission the car produces is water. Hydrogen can be produced through a nuclear power plant by using electrolysis, a process that uses a direct electric current to cause a spontaneous reaction. This process, when applied to water, breaks the bonds that hold the one hydrogen atom to the two oxygen atoms, producing pure hydrogen. This is the most efficient way of producing hydrogen. Masao Hori, a longtime contributer to 21st Century Science Technology and advocate of nuclear and hydrogen power, states in a report that “The merits of using nuclear energy for hydrogen production are that there is no CO2emission, a sustainable bulk supply capability, and a high energy density, facilitating energy security”(21stcenturysciencetech.com). The world is quickly running out of oil to power internal combustion engines. Hydrogen is a viable alternative to oil once more nuclear power plants are built. Nuclear power can produce electricity and fuel for personal transportation at the same time.
To realize the significance of nuclear power, other alternatives must be examined in order to compare the relative costs and benefits. One of the most commonly proposed solutions to the energy crisis is solar power. While solar power appears to be a very clean resource, the carbon emissions that are produced during production of solar cells far exceeds the carbon emissions that would be saved by generating solar power instead using traditional fossil fuels. Solar panels do not last very long and need to be replaced every 8-10 years. Efficiency is also problematic, since the output from solar panels is very small. Wall Street Journal contributor William Tucker, states “that solar electricity (currently) can light one 100-watt bulb for every card table. Covering every square foot of every building in the country with solar panels would be enough to provide our indoor lighting—about 4 percent of our total electrical consumption—during the daytime.” Galenet). The most efficient solar panel only produces only 14% of the energy it takes in. Solar energy thus, is inefficient. The total cost of producing enough solar panels to produce twenty five percent of America’s energy needs would be tremendous. If someone buys a Tesla Roadster and wants to charge it up using only the solar panels on his roof, it would take more than a week to fully charge up the battery, considering the sun is shining twenty four hours a day. Thus, solar power is a weak alternative to fossil fuels.
Another very bad alternative to fossil fuels is more fossil fuel. So called “Clean Coal” is a myth manufactured by coal companies to persuade the public that coal is indeed safe and non malignant to the environment so that they can stay in business longer. When coal is mined, the surrounding environment is polluted with soot and ash. Areas around coal power plants are constantly smothered by the thick black smoke produced in burning coal. When coal is burned, radioactive byproducts result such a chromium and uranium. These radioactive particles are then released into the atmosphere. People who live around these power plants have a significantly higher rate of asthma and other respiratory problems. What is worrying is the rate at which new coal power plants are being built in America. “According to a 2006 report from the US Energy Information Administration, US power consumption from coal is expected to rise 1.9 percent per year through 2030,”(Galenet). Coal is simply not a reasonable power source to use and is never clean source of energy.
While coal is very dirty and damaging to the environment, wind power is a clean alternative to burning fossil fuels. The only problem with wind power is that they produce relatively insignificant amounts of energy. It would take a field the size of Kansas to be able to sustain the United States. Nathan Myhrvold, a Ph. D in theoretical physics and former chief technology director stated in a Newsweek article that “There’s a limit to how much you can deploy renewables, like wind or solar. People will talk about getting up to 30 percent of America’s power from renewables, but you can’t get to 100 percent because of their unreliability”(Newsweek).If the wind does not blow, then there is no power being produced from the wind turbines. Similarly, if the sun does not shine, solar panels do not produce electricity. When Myhrvold was asked if he thought any alternative energy source existed, he said “One thing you can do is fund advanced nuclear…Nuclear energy is a baseload—meaning it’s power that you can run any time you want, day or night—and carbon-free”(Newsweek). It then seems inevitable that the world will eventually rely on nuclear power to supply the world’s massive energy demands. But still, other alternatives exist.
While nuclear power is the most efficient and abundant power source currently available, it is not powerful enough or energy efficient to completely rely on nuclear power. What is a more viable solution is a combination of other low emission alternatives with nuclear power. Hydroelectric power plants are very efficient and produce no carbon dioxide minus the initial carbon released in the construction process. Though wind power produces only very small amounts of power, it is still a resource that can be used. Active solar water heaters can reduce the amount of natural gas burned for heating. More research needs to go into solar panels and photovoltaic solar power to make the production of it more energy efficient. All of these resources combined with nuclear power is the answer to solving the energy and environmental crisis.
There is yet one more aspect to the energy problem. While nuclear power combined with other renewable sources of energy is a treatment of the problem, it does not address the root of the problem. The world is increasingly wasting electricity. All of the appliances that continually display a clock or light are draining energy when not in use. New televisions remain in a constant stand-by mode, consuming power even when turned off. Abandoned office building’s lights are left on constantly, during the day and during the night. People must realize that they themselves are the cause of the energy crisis. People need to stop relying on their cars for transportation. They need to take the initiative to vote for more funding for public transportation. Lights in rooms that are not occupied should always be turned off to avoid wasting energy. Basically, people need to be more energy efficient while producing energy in an environmentally friendly way. If energy consumption habits do not change, then energy supplied, will cease to meet energy demanded.
No comments:
Post a Comment