In the wake of the recent disaster in the Pacific, should we be pursuing nuclear power as a major alternative energy source?
As Chancellor Angela Merkel attests, the Fukushima incident seems to necessitate a “measured exit” out of nuclear energy dependence inGermany. Others, however, may find reasons to stay committed to this powerful yet controversial energy source.
A nuclear power plant generally functions like a conventional power plant: the energy source heats water into steam, which powers a generator turbine to produce electricity. However, the nuclear plant is based off atomic-level interactions, specifically nuclear fission, setting it above coal-burning plants which rely on chemical combustion. One uranium-235 atom produces 215 MeV=3.44×10-11J of energy; fission of one pound of enriched uranium is equivalent to burning a million gallons of gasoline.
The process involved is:
1) Enriched uranium containing a high proportion (~3%) of uranium-235 are arranged in bundles or rods and heated via submersion in water.
2) A neutron is introduced, transmuting it to uranium-236:
3) This unstable product undergoes fission in a variety of reactions including:
4) The resultant neutrons can initiate a chain reaction via the process in (2).
As seen in the panic following the Fukushima incident, nuclear power comes with some major hazards. The fission process releases gamma radiation (high-energy photons); the resultant products may also release high energy electrons in beta decay. This radiation can ionize cellular material and damage DNA, disrupting biological processes and resulting in radiation sickness and cancer. High-level radioactive waste from these plants still emit radiation, necessitating sturdy containers to limit the contamination risk; the storage of this waste poses another problem especially given the slow rate of decay for such substances.
Nuclear power plants thus have to include various safety mechanisms: control rods to absorb neutrons and limit chain reactions; cool water to remove excess heat; steel lining to contain the radiation. However, a major societal concern is that these measures are not disaster-proof. In the case of Fukushima, a tsunami destroyed generators powering water coolant pumps, preventing the removal of excess heat resulting from fission. The rising heat and water pressure of the reactor, combined with the increased release of volatile substances, contributed to explosions which breached the steel containment lining, releasing dangerous levels of radiation.
However, there are also several substantial long-term benefits of nuclear power. Clearly, nuclear power has an energy advantage over conventional coal-based power. Additionally, nuclear plants do not release air pollutants such as SO2 and CO2. Since they do not depend on fossil fuels, pricing will not be as affected by fluctuating oil and gas prices. Nuclear power seems ideal given our increasing concerns over fossil fuel availability and global warming. The stigma of fear associated with nuclear power generation is understandable. However, in comparison to the alternative fuel options such as wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal power generation, nuclear power generation still remains the most viable alternative for reliable energy. The availability of nuclear plants also increases the availability of medical isotopes for diagnostics and imaging; desperately needed by medical facilities around the world.
By Isaac L, Justine Z and Kevin Z
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
References
“A Comeback for Nuclear Power? – NYTimes.com.” Room for Debate – NYTimes.com. Web. 06 June
2011. <http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/a-comeback-for-nuclear-power/>.
——————–
“BBC News – Japan Crisis: Germanyto Speed up Nuclear Energy Exit.” BBC – Homepage. Web. 03 June
2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12769810>.
——————–
“Nuclear Fuel Cycle.” World Nuclear Association | Nuclear Power – a Sustainable Energy Resource. Web. 06 June
2011. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html>.
——————–
“Uranium-235 Chain Reaction.” Test Page for Apache Installation. Web. 03 June 2011. <http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/u235chn.html>.
This blog submission has excellently demonstrated the use of nuclear power and how true the process of nuclear fission is when a neutron collides with it fissile isotope and these fragments created merge with the fuel that is already sealed and the kinetic energy made will start behaving as thermal energy, it needs to be noted that there will be leftover fragments left which will trigger chain reaction . due to such a process it has become possible for our world today to harness such powerful energy. what this blog also demonstrates is that with great power comes with a lot of disadvantages such as various radiation sickness which i why that the tile of the blog ” The Nuclear Gamble: is a perfect title because nuclear energy has it advantages and of course disadvantages.
This blog submission has excellently demonstrated the use of nuclear power and how true the process of nuclear fission is when a neutron collides with it fissile isotope and these fragments created merge with the fuel that is already sealed and the kinetic energy made will start behaving as thermal energy, it needs to be noted that there will be leftover fragments left which will trigger chain reaction. Due to such a process it has become possible for our world today to harness such powerful energy. What this blog also demonstrates is that with great power comes with a lot of disadvantages such as various radiation sicknesses which is why the title of the blog” The Nuclear Gamble: is a perfect title because nuclear energy has it advantages and of course disadvantages.
Based on the physics knowledge learned and applied to in-class, it is very fair to say that all of the information in terms of the decay is accurate. In addition, the use of current events in terms of applications of nuclear fission was impressive and a good idea in order to engage the reader.
In regards to the concept in itself, personally the whole concept of a “nuclear gamble” is pretty much close to the truth of actually being a gamble. Nuclear fission has the unfortunate product of radioactive waste, and if disposed incorrectly, could pose a risk to society. Is the energy REALLY worth the risk of possible deformities in the next generations due to radiation sickness from waste products of nuclear fission? There are many alternative ways that could fulfill the same purpose of generating energy, though harder, proves to be much healthier for both the people of society and for the environment. Examples would be wind, water, or solar energy. Though there might not always be the proper conditions in order for it to work, these means of generating energy for society still seems to be more environmentally-friendly for the environment, as welll as prevent things like birth defects from happening due to radiation sickness.
I feel that the drawbacks of nuclear waste disposal must be accounted before an active and impromptu decision is made to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. The byproducts of the fissioning of uranium-235 remains radioactive for thousands of years. This requires the safe disposal away from society until their radiation value decreases. Although many underground sites have been constructed, these sites are filled within months. In this way, storage sites and facilities are not sufficient to store the world’s nuclear waste, limiting the amount of nuclear fuel that can be used per year. Until a long-term solution is developed, nuclear energy cannot be considered as a serious, all-replacing, and conclusive alternative to fossil fuel energy.
Description of how a nuclear reactor works is very precise and straightforward, concepts have been explained clearly and to an impressive degree of accuracy. Examples were precise such as fission of uranium in comparison to burning of fossil fuels. Negative effects of nuclear radiation were also clearly stated, and an clear explanation of the negative effects of nuclear radiation on biotic cells. Real life examples such as the Fukushima power plant was introduced to achieve better understanding of nuclear power for readers. A fault that we found in “The Nuclear Gamble” by islacian is that the group stated that nuclear energy does not release air pollutants into the environment. However, this is false due to the fact that nuclear power releases radioactive isotopes known as tritium into the air. This isotope of hydrogen is known to cause cancer and even birth defects. Levels of allowable tritium are 10x higher in Canada than the US and 100x higher in Canada compared to Europe. Group failed to mention that although splitting of single uranium atom does release immense heat and gamma radiation, so do the particles that it is split into. During the fission uranium 235 breaks down into barium 142 and krypton 91, these particles further go beta decay which themselves have their own gamma decay.