Saving the Future of Our Planet - Case Study Example

Saving the future of our planet Contents Contents 2 3 Introduction 3 History of energy 5 Pros of nuclear energy 7 Green House gas emissions 8 Radioactive wastes 11 Cost 14 Solution 15 Conclusion 16 References 18 Abstract Ways in which human beings use to meet their energy needs havedrastically evolved fromthe use of wind and water to coal and recently nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuel was believed to be environmental friendly compared to others but this turned out to be untrue. All theseforms of fuel release harmful gassesto the environment. These gasses are hazardous to people, animalsas well as aquaticlife. On the other hand, energy has improved the living standards of people by making work easier and more efficient. To ensure good co-existence on earth, the regimes need to implement effective measures to control all forms of pollution from the different types of power plants. Nuclear power plants emit dangerous radiations whereas coal releases carbon dioxide besides other obnoxious components to the environment. Natural gas as well if not combusted completely, will emit the harmful methane gas.The government has to implement methods of controlling human activities in the environment to protect the living organisms in it. This is possible through getting rid of the plant altogether or altering the type of raw materials used by the plant. Introduction Nuclear energy is a result of fission; this refers to the process where the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller nuclei. Fission of large atoms such as Uranium235 and plutonium 239 produces a lot of energy. If compared to coal, 1 gram of uranium produces as much energy compared to 1 ton of Coal (Juan, Douglas, David, Paul, and Darla, 2012). This has encouraged the use of uranium for electricity, creating atomic bonds, as well as propelling aircrafts. Nuclear power plants are responsible for generating electricity. For this to be possible, they need a sourceof fuel, which will boil the water to steam. The steam then turns the turbines and in the end, the turbine turns an electronic generator, which in turn generates electricity. Nuclear power plants generate electricity through burning nuclear reactants whereas fossil fuel plants use coil, oil, or gas. Uranium exists in two forms, 99.3%havea molecular mass of 238,and the other 0.7% has 235. Wheneveruranium 235 undergoes fission, it splits to generate two nuclei as well as approximately five neutrons. Both theproducts are hot and act as a source of fuel.U-235 is enriched to increase its content (Juan, Douglas, David, Paul, and Darla, 2012). Nuclear power plants however emit radioactive wastes and if they do not dispose the wastes well, radioactive emissions will causes harm to the environment. Furtherdisadvantages include decommissions of nuclear power stations which can be expensive just as the disposal of nuclear wastes and is time-consuming. Nuclear accidents can cause extensive disasters since there radiations spread producing particles over a wide area. This increases the surface area of the environment at risk. The accidents can be because of a fission that goes out of control, commonly referred to as meltdown. Effects of these accidentscan still be felt years later and may lead to genetic disorders. This is evident from the case of Chernobyl where there was an accident at the nuclear plant. The accident brought down the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killed 30 workers within three months and many other deaths followed (Balanov, 2011).The accident was a result of flawed reactor design that unqualified staff operated. Physicians confirmed acute radiation syndrome in 134 people who took part in the clean up and some of them continued to die. Doctors diagnosed a number of childhood thyroid cases and attributed it to the intake of radioactive iodine. Another case was that of Fukushima Daiichi where a catastrophic tsunami destroyed the power supply and cooling systems of three Fukushima reactors. The accident was number seven on the INES scale sincethe accident led to the release of many radioactive particles. Many people opposed nuclear power after this accident. Figure 1: Nuclear anti arguments. Retrieved from Nuclear power plants therefore pose a danger to the environment (Tateiwa 2014). To save the future of our planet, science must advance towards using liquid fluoride thorium in power plants rather than uranium. Liquid fluoride thorium is more environmental friendly compared to Uranium. History of energy The history of nuclear energy relates to the story of a centuries old dream becoming a reality. In the ancient periods before the industrial revolution, people met their energy needs using natural resources. The sun was the ultimate source of heat and when the weather was bad, they used wood, dried dung as well as straws. They used water and windtodrive machines that ground the grains and pumped water. For hard labour, their animals helped them to plough as well as carry heavy loads. They also took advantage of the wind to sailthem through as they travelled and there horsestransported people from place to place. Steam engines were developed andused until the 1700s when Thomas Newcomer and James Watt developed the modern steam engine opening up the many opportunities. A single steam engine could do the samework done by a stable full of houses. The steam engines were more convenient than wind and water and less expensive compared to stable of horses. Coal from the mines powered the steam engines; they began driving locomotives, which were initially driven on wood fuel. Factories and farm implements used steam engines as well. Coal also came in handy is meltingiron and steel as well as heating up buildings during construction. In 1880, the first coal driven steam engine attachedto the first electric generator came into existence. A year after Edison’s hydroelectric plant successfully generated electricity, the firstflowing rivers that were previously use to grind cereals begun generating electricity.Towards the end of 1880, there was the introduction of petroleum fuel, which became a valuable commodity of lighting. With the use of low cost electricity thatwas,spreading rapidly even to the remoter areas, more power plantsdeveloped and they grew fast leading to development of hydroelectric dams and coal mining stations.Cars thatwere developed were cheap to operate. The World War II came accompanied by the development of nuclear power. The government sought to find a positive use for the nuclear reactants and they decided to use it for electricity production. This led to planning of two hundred nuclear power plants across US. Constructors built houses with electric heating systems using heat from nuclear reactants that was too cheap. The graph below shows how energy consumption has risen over years. Figure 2: Per capita energy consumption. Pros of nuclear energy Nuclear power plants represent 10 % of installed generating capacity but accounts for 20%0f US generating capacity. Nuclear plan also has 90% capacity factor, which is generally higher than other electricity sources (Juan, Douglas, David, Paul, and Darla, 2012). The high capacity is a result of the efficiencies in creation and maintenances well. Nuclear power also has low fuel demands hence its prevalence. Around the world, there are 440 nuclear reactants in commercial circulation in 31 countries and they account for 4% of the world’s electricity. US generates the largest amount of electricity from nuclear plants in the world followed by France whose capacity is half that of US. France relies on nuclear power, which contributes to 80% of electricity used. There are also 60 undergoing constructions of nuclear power plants in 15 more countries. It is quite advantageous that nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide directly and they do not require a lot of space, they are reliable since they do not depend on weather and they emit a small volume of waste. In addition, Uranium is readily a cheaply available and nuclear fuel is easily stored. The chart shows how the constructions are distributed globally. Retrieved from Green House gas emissions Greenhouse emissions refer to gasses released to the environment and most often, they are harmful and contribute to global warming. Each type of power plant releases these hazardous gases to the environment. Coal power plants release harmful CO2 gas to the environment. They are largestcontributors of fabricated CO2 therefore posing the largest threat to the environment and climate too. Coal generates 40% of the nation’s total power and releases a third of all harmful CO2 in the environment. Just one 150-megawatt coal-fired power plant, can produce a million tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year (Tremblay, 2011). This equates to the amount of emissions 200,000 cars produce (Tremblay, 2011). Coalfired power plants also release mercury emissions to the environment yet it isdangerous to wildlife, aquatic life,and humankind too.Fish thereforehave a lot of mercury in their systemsdue to bioaccumulationsthuspassed to respectivepredators. Mercury affects learning and neurodevelopment abilities in children. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are major greenhouse gasses emitted from coal-powered power plants (Tremblay, 2011). In the atmosphere, sodium dioxide converts to sulphuricacid and mixeswith rain to create acidic rain. Acid rain has effects onthe environment since it pollutes water, soils and environment at large. Natural gas plants use fossil fuels such as layers of buried plants and animals to generate heat. They also emit gases that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Such gasses include nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide. If natural gas does not burn completely, it ends upemittingmethane gas, which is a component of natural gas. This power plants release methane gas through leakages during transportation. Methane is the second most prevalent gas emission caused by human activities (Tremblay, 2011). Nuclear plants also contribute to greenhouse emissions through the emission of radiations and particulate matter. Particulate matter tends to contaminate the water and atmosphere with radioactive properties that may cause diseases as well as long-term genetic disorders. Nuclear power plants also contribute to the carbon footprint, they conduct many activities such as construction of the plant, mining, processing, and transporting of uranium. The wastes have to be stored and disposed well and the plant has to be decommissioned, such factors release carbon to the environment and carbon contributes to global warming. The mining processes of uranium cause pollution to water bodies dueto radioactiveemissions (Tremblay, 2011). This will destroy the bio system of the water bodies leading to the death of aquatic plants and animals. There is nosafe way to mine, process, store and transport these nuclear emissions. They still leak to the environment through accidental exposure. Exposure of radioactive elements is dangerous and this evident from many deaths that have occurred in the past. Thereare cases of cancer, infertility and many other health problems. Nuclear plants also use lot of water from rivers and lakes to produce stream and for cooling, this may lead to over utilization of the natural resources affecting the ecology of the environment. The action of reprocessing of used fuel leads to the creation of nuclear weapons. If these weapons are used, natural resources are destroyed as well as humans, plants and animals. Water will be polluted and the atmosphere as well. The population will face the effects for many years and genetic disorders may be visible in children. Radioactive wastes A radioactive is an unstable element that decays continuously by releasing radioactive emissions. Radiations contain high-energy rays that penetrate any object they meet. All heavy elements of mass 83 and above are radioactive. Managing and disposing the radioactive wastes is costly but the burden passes to the consumer through electricity bills. There are different types of radioactive wastes and they includedifferent levels ofwastes. Low-level wastes comprises of papers, rags, and tools. It makes up 90%of total volume of wastes but only 1% of radioactivity (Keen & Linda, 2014). Intermediate level wastes include hugeenergywastesand requires shielding, they include resins, chemicals sludge’s, as well as contaminated materials fromreactorsdecommissioning. They add to the volume by 7% and they are responsible for 4% of the radioactivity (Keen & Linda, 2014).High waste level is fromburning fuel in nuclearreactants.It is radioactive and hot hence requires cooling and shielding. It contains products of fission as well elements from the reactant’s core. These wastes accounts for 95% of the radioactive in the nuclear wastes (Keen & Linda, 2014). It can be from the fuel itself or products of reprocessing. These wastes have different components; some are long livedwhilesomeare short lived. This refers to the time the take to forradio nucleotides to reduce their radioactivity levels so that they will no longer be hazardous. If there was a way of separating these components, it could be an easier way of managing the wastes. An ideal reactor generates 27 tonnes of spentfuel (Keen & Linda, 2014). Storage is mostlydone in ponds situated at thereactorssites or at the central sites occasionally. It isnecessary to reprocess becausethe used fuel stillcontains relativehigh radioactivity, which will generate a lot of heat and will demand cooling. There is some reluctance in disposing used fuel waste because theycontainvaluableamounts of uranium and plutonium.The ponds needed for storage, are 7-12 metres deep to allow circulation of water, which will in turn, cools and shield the fuel (Arnseth, 2013). These ponds are constricted with thick reinforced concrete with steel liners. The ponds at theirreactor sites have a design that holds the used fuel for the lifetime of the reactor. Toensure that the wastes don’t get exposed to the environment through leakage, multiplebarriers areimplemented, the waste is first immobilised into an insoluble matrix such as synthetic rock, it is then sealed into a corrosion-resistant contained such as such steel, it is then located underground in a stable rock structure (Arnseth, 2013). Finally, it is essential to surround the containers with an imperial backfill. Figure 3: This image displays the disposal technique. Retrieved from https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrk3Wz7f03HYWPdrRPWqeSvnXzaUZR6xNOhZAV3acUfBagf5Cc Some low level liquid wastes are disposed into the sea. The plants however control and regulate such wastes before discharge (Arnseth, 2013). They however contain radio nucleotides and they affect aquatic life. The fishes living in the sea will use this water hence accumulating the radio nucleotides in their bodies; the plants will also absorb the harmful elements. They will develop diseases and they may die. Human beings, who depend on these sea animals for food, will intake the same chemicals and it will lead to diseases and even cancer. Terrorism US nuclear reactants act as a vulnerable spot to terrorists. Shipment of nuclear casks seemed to provide a target avenue for terrorism. This led to the evaluation of the possibility of such a scenario occurring (Stone, 2011).The study proved that laws of nature as well engineering skills make this damage far from possibility. Extensive analysis also reveals that, no big harm that can result from a terrorist attack on the casks. Before transportation, the fuel elements have been stored for long, long storage causes decay of heat and the radioactivity property of the elements decreases with time (Stone, 2011). This reduces their possibilities of explosion, and there is minimal risk of leakage because liquid radioactive elements are not present during transportation. Reprocessing involves separating uranium from the wastes. Reprocessing decreases the radioactive nature of an element. When in a less reactive state, they are easily stolen and used to make weapons. An element like plutonium easily goes unnoticed if stolen from the plant. This is because plutonium is converted to a liquid or powdered form hence it is difficult to notice a stolen volume (Stone, 2011). A reprocessing plant generates 10 tons of plutonium mixtures annually and this is enough to make 1000 crude weapons (Stone, 2011). It will be much safer if plutonium remains in the spent fuel and is disposed well rather than in a form of extracted plutonium from waste fuel, converted to fresh fuel and shipped to other nuclear reactors around the country. The saleof nuclear power plants by-products is booming in the black-market. Smugglers may steal the by-products of uranium and plutonium or the staff can steal through an inside job. These productssell well and are essential in making crude weapons. Cost Major costs incurred in a nuclear power plant range from fuel costs, operation cost, waste disposal, as well as life cycle costs(Juan, Douglas, David, Paul, and Darla, 2012). Nuclear power plants account for fuel costs during the purchase of uranium, its conversion, and enrichment. Storage and shipment of Uranium also adds up to this costs. It is fortunate that they refill within 8-24 months. They therefore do not face the fluctuation of prices other companies face. Operation costs involve expenses used in processing, maintenance, and administration of the firm. They also include expenses on labour and supplies. Production expenses generalise the fuel and operation costs. Waste management also brings along additional expenses that will be used in disposition methods as well as decommissioning of the business. Life cycle costs include the total costs verses the electricity output over the lifetime of the plant. Total costs refer to those costs of operation, fuel, decommissioning, and construction. In the case of a nuclear accident, many additional costs will be incurred because the whole plant may fall down and the operators will be injured. It will also lead to harmful effects on the surrounding populace (Juan, Douglas, David, Paul, and Darla, 2012).Insurance policies are necessary for such plants to protect themselves against unforeseen circumstances. The workers also need insurance policies against risks. The machinery used can also be damaged hence adding to the total costs. Construction of a power plant is costlyand if the government plans to establish one, they will increase taxes, to get enough revenue for kick off. Solution Liquid fluoride thorium based reactors provide energy in a liquid form unlike the usual solid fuel. These reactors act as coolants as they remain in liquid form under atmospheric pressure. It is better than uranium because of its liquid and atmospheric property; this solves the problem of safe waste disposal methods (Cooper, Minakata, & Begovic, 2011). Liquidfluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a molten salt reactor and since it exists as molten fuel, it consumes all the fuel leaving only the short-term wastes. Short-term wastes cause less harm to the environment and can be easily disposed. It is also important to note that liquid fluoride thorium is much safer compared to uranium .They have no high pressure within them hence cannot generate any combustible or explosive materials (Cooper, Minakata, &Begovic, 2011). LRTR does not melt under normal or urgency situations, if they get into contact with any harm or destructive force; they radioactive particles stay intact (Cooper, Minakata, &Begovic, 2011). In addition, they can cool without water hence avoiding accidents caused by lack of cooling elements.It is different from uranium, which depends on continuous supply of water for cooling. LFTRs are much more economical compared to Uranium, this is evident form the fact that they do not need enhancement with pressure pipes; this makes them cheaper and easier to construct (Cooper, Minakata, &Begovic, 2011). They also consume less fuel save since Lithium is cheap and the operations costs are minimal since it does not involve any form safety measures to be undertaken. To add on their economic nature, they did no need any enrichment or fabrications like in the case of U-235(Cooper, Minakata, &Begovic, 2011).Not only does it produce minimal wastes, it also consumes some of wastes. It only uses 2% of the fuel and the rest is wastes. It produces moreenergy and the waste is stored for 350years The LFTR high operating temperature of approximately 700degrees operates a thermal efficiency of 45% (Cooper, Minakata, &Begovic, 2011). There are no traces of uranium or plutonium in the wastes from LFTRs since they are left in the reactor to decay into short-term waste or to fission. It therefore stands out as the best fuel to protect our future planet since, it is cheap, terrorists cannot use them to make crude weapons, it does not produce hazardous wastes, and most importantly, they cannot undergo meltdowns hence nuclear accidents are avoided (Cooper, Minakata, & Begovic, 2011). Table 1: Cost of uranium. Retrieved from Uranium Enrichment Fuel fabrications US$880 US$240 LFTRs No enrichment No fuel fabrications Conclusion Preventing our future planet is necessary for sustainable development. If use of coal, uranium as well as other fuels contributing to GHGs’ emissions are not curbed severe effects will occur. Greenhouse gases cause global warming which contributes to diseases and death of living organisms through destruction of the bio systems. These gases also destroy the ozone layer allowing UV rays to come into direct contact with the earth. UV rays are harmful and they can cause cancers in humans. Green industries need to be developed to ensure that the wastes are biodegradable hence protecting our environment fromnon-renewable wastes that degrade it. References Tateiwa, K. Jan 2014. Decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi NPS. Government’s Decision on Addressing the Contaminated Water Issue at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi NPS.Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site. Balanov, M. 2011. Health Effects due to Radiation from the Chernobyl Accident.Unscear 2008 Report review, vol. II, annex D. Juan, S., Douglas, J., David, G., Paul, V., Darla, J. 2012.Fundamentals of nuclear power.State Utility Forecasting group. Cooper, N., Minakata, D., &Begovic, M. (2011). Should We Consider Using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors for Power Generation? Environmental Science & Technology, 45(15), 6237-6238. Keen, Linda.Our radioactive reality.Corporate Knights Magazine.2014, 13(1), p72-75. 4p. Stone, D. (2011). Flirting with disaster.Newsweek, 157(2/3), 38-39. Tremblay, A. (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions-- fluxes and processes: Hydroelectric reservoirs and natural environments.Berlin: Springer. Print review. Arnseth, R. W. (2013). Nuclear waste disposal.Salem Press EncyclopediaOf Science. Read More