Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power - Coursework Example

Is it Time to Revive Nuclear Power? Roll No: No: Submitted: Is it Time to Revive Nuclear Power? Introduction Power is a basic component of our life today. We are unable to survive in the modern world without power. Power plants are established to generate power from different sources. A basic power plant only employs law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed but it can be changed from one form to another. A thermal power plant generally converts thermal energy to mechanical energy and then electrical energy (Brugging and Van der Zwaan, 2002). A nuclear power plant is basically a thermal power plant that converts thermal energy into electrical energy but the main difference between a thermal power plant and a nuclear power plant is the use of fuel. The thermal energy is attained by burning fossil fuel in a thermal power plant but the nuclear power plant utilize some radioactive material mostly uranium to generate thermal energy (IEA, 2003). In a nuclear reactor, uranium undergoes a fission reaction. The chain reaction generates a large amount of thermal energy. The thermal energy is further utilized to generate power. The process to generate power from thermal energy is same for both thermal power station that generates power from firing fossil fuel and nuclear power plant. Aerodynamic energy in steam is changed to mechanical power (Holdren and Smith, 2000). Discussion The nuclear power generation system cannot be considered as a renewable power generation system because there is a need to change the uranium rods by the passage of time (Rhodes and Beller, 2000). The system uses uranium rods to fulfill the fuel requirements. The used uranium rods are of no use but they are still radioactive and can cause harm to the environment and its life so for the protection of the environment uranium rods are handled carefully. The used rods are considered as waste and are disposed of properly. It takes almost a month and a few days to maintain and to change the used rods with the new uranium rods (IEA, 2003). Secure methods are utilized to dispose the used uranium rods to fight the security issues. The other waste from a nuclear power generation system is heat as nuclear reactor is a heat engine and the disposal of unwanted thermal energy is a massive problem. To sort out the problem with the unwanted thermal energy, a lot of cooling techniques are utilized to sink the undesired heat from the reactor (Tehran and Saran, 2003). The thermal energy generated in a nuclear reactor is more than what is required and the production of thermal energy is so rapid that it is almost impossible to utilize all the thermal energy efficiently (Holdren and Smith, 2000). So, an effective cooling method is employed to reduce the risks of any accidents brought by the excessive thermal energy. To increase the cooling efficiency large cooling towers are employed to cool down the reactor. Cooling towers are built with high capital cost and has lower efficiency as other methods. Another way to increase the cooling efficiency of a nuclear reactor is to build it near running water, or pumping the water to the reactor to dispose the excessive thermal energy where running water acts as a cooling agent (IEA, 2003). The water cooling method is an efficient method. Carbon dioxide is also employed to lower the temperature of the reactor down to several Celsius or Fahrenheit. The use of carbon dioxide is regarded as easier way to control the temperature more efficiently. Other cooling techniques are utilized in risky situations such as rapid rise in temperature at an uncontrollable level. One technique is flooding the reactor with water. The cooling methods of flooding the nuclear reactor are only utilized in an uncontrollable situation (Brugging and Van der Zwaan, 2002). The method of flooding the reactor with water shuts the nuclear reactor completely and forever. Another method to deal the accidental risk is to flood the reactor with nitrogen. The cooling method depends on the location of the power plant and also on the invested capital cost. Making a nuclear power plant near water saves a lot of money but creates a risk to the marine life (Tehran and Saran, 2003). High pumping of water creates a vacuum and traps fish and other marine life, killing many fishes and other marine life. The cooling process makes the water hot, which can also hazardous to the marine life. Cooling towers are less efficient and generally, they need a high capital investment. Nuclear power generation system provides energy, which is free from carbon emission, or we can say that a nuclear reactor has no carbon emission (Rhodes and Beller, 2000). In this way, the nuclear power is a green power or a green power source. The problem arises in the mining process of radioactive material. The mining of uranium is a complicated process. The mining process involves the utilization of a large amount of energy, which is generated by burning fuel (Brugging and Van der Zwaan, 2002). The burning of fuel produces carbon emissions. Therefore, the cycle from the mining of uranium to the generation of nuclear power is not completely free from carbon emissions. The mining process of uranium involves mining of ore, filtration of ore and transportation (IEA, 2003). As compared to a thermal power generation system the waste produced by a nuclear power plant is less but the waste produced by a nuclear power generation system holds radioactive material that emits radiations which are extremely hazardous to our skin , eyes and other vital organs (Radezki, 2000). The radiations can cause cancer and creates a danger to the biological environment. The radioactive waste could create an immense problem, if the waste is not properly disposed off. The waste has a life of several years. The level of waste indicates its nature. High-level waste is the most dangerous waste produced by a nuclear reactor (Holdren and Smith, 2000). High-level waste may contain fission elements that are radioactive enough to be concerned as biological hazard (Tehran and Saran, 2003). Spent nuclear fuel and transuranic waste such as plutonium are constituents of high-level waste. High-level waste is produced by the core elements in the nuclear reactor. High-level waste may remain radioactive for millions of years (IEA, 2003). Comparing with both low-level waste and intermediate level waste, high-level waste is that part of nuclear waste, which is more difficult to dispose off. Intermediate level waste is less hazardous as compared to high-level waste but still dangerous for the environment and more hazardous than low-level waste (Holdren and Smith, 2000). Low-level waste is the least dangerous between high-level waste and intermediate level waste but it can be hazardous too. Mostly 80% of the waste produced by a nuclear power plant is low-level waste (Rhodes and Beller, 2000). Low-level waste lasts for several months. Low-level waste is stored at the nuclear plant where the low-level waste decomposes by the passage of time and becomes less dangerous. The disposal of high-level waste is much expensive as compared to other types of nuclear waste. The expense of the disposal of high-level waste gives rise to the unit cost of generated power (Radezki, 2000). The disposal of high-level waste is always an issue. The nuclear power is considered costly as compared to other renewable resources. The cost of building and processing the waste of a nuclear power plant is more than that of wind power plant, solar power plant and other renewable (Tehran and Saran, 2003). High capital cost is needed to establish a nuclear power generation system and the operational cost of a nuclear power plant is also higher than a thermal power plant that is using coal firing to generate power. Tidal power costs much lesser than a nuclear power. If the reliability of the nuclear power is concerned, the nuclear power is more reliable and it utilizes less time and space as compared to that of a wind or solar power. The power generated by renewable resources other than hydropower is uncontrolled but nuclear power is considered as controllable (Rhodes and Beller, 2000). If needed the nuclear power plant generates a continuous base load. The risk factors associated to a nuclear power are so high that a reactor had to shut down at any critical situation (Radezki, 2000). Shutting down a nuclear reactor and then restarting it reduces its efficiency. The shutting down of a nuclear reactor is an expensive process and restarting is expensive too. The nuclear power plant has to reduce its operation in hot climate (Holdren and Smith, 2000). Some power plants are even shut down in hot weather. Nuclear power plants are heat engines and it is more difficult to cool them in a hot climate (Rhodes and Beller, 2000). The disposal of heat becomes a big concern at high ambient temperatures. The discharge of high temperature water used to cool down the power plant killed a significant number of fish and marine life in the past. In 2006, European heat wave caused many nuclear power plants to reduce their operations and even shut down to reduce the risk at operation. The power consumption of the world is almost fifteen 15tera watts and sustainable resources have a potential of much larger than what is required. Solar energy has a potential of 86,000tera watts that is many times more than our power consumption (Brugging and Van der Zwaan, 2002). Wind power has a potential of almost 870tera watts, which is also a renewable source that has a potential of many time that our need are. Geothermal has a potential of 32tera watts that is twice our consumption (Brugging and Van der Zwaan, 2002). Therefore, only one of the above mentioned power system is able to fulfill our requirements of energy. There is no need to pollute the environment to satisfy our energy requirements. Nuclear power is an energy source that is free from green house gases but can harm the climate in some other ways (Brugging and Van der Zwaan, 2002). It can be dangerous to the climate and hazardous to the environment. The problem with the waste from a nuclear power plant is an immense problem and is a massive issue that is discussed in parliaments to satisfy the people (Tehran and Saran, 2003). Other technologies to generate power such as solar power, wind power, geothermal and other sources of sustainable power are safer, cheaper and more reliable than nuclear power. Comparing the unit cost of the power generated by a nuclear reactor, per unit cost is much greater than per unit cost of any of the other renewable resources. Nuclear power is better than that of coal-fired power only in case that coal-fired power is not free from green house gases and the operational cost of a coal-fired power plant is greater than that of a nuclear power plant (Radezki, 2000). The capital cost of a thermal power plant is low. The other renewable resources have much lesser capital costs. Nevertheless, the total per mega watt cost of a nuclear power is larger than that of a coal fired power (Rhodes and Beller, 2000). The rise in cost is due to the maintenance, regularity and decommissioning of power plant and waste cost. The decommissioning of the power plant and waste cost affects the total cost. For a sustainable environment, there is no need of nuclear power. Conclusion Nuclear power is not for the sustainable world. The dirty nature of waste produced by the nuclear power makes nuclear power an issue. The problems with the waste can never be solved. The hazardous effects of nuclear power on the marine life make the nuclear power less environment friendly. If only positive aspects of nuclear power are concerned, sustainable world would be incomplete without it. Nevertheless, the negative aspects of nuclear power create it inappropriate for the sustainable world. Today technology has brought us such sources which have no negative aspects and can generate power more than what is required. Solar energy has the largest potential and wind power has got potential too. Only one of these two sources can fulfill our energy requirements. References Brugging, J.J.C. and van der Zwaan, B.C.C. (2002). The Role of Nuclear Energy in Establishing Sustainable Energy Paths. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 18, 151– 180. Holdren, J.P. and Smith, K.R. (2000). Energy, the Environment, and Health. WEA (World Environmental Association), pp. 61– 110. IEA (International Energy Agency). (2003). Energy to 2050: Scenarios for a Sustainable Future. Paris, France: International Energy Agency, IEA/OECD. Radetzki, M. (2000). Coal and nuclear in new power stations: the political economy of an undesirable but necessary choice. The Energy Journal 21, 135– 147. Rhodes, R. and Beller, D. (2000). The Need for Nuclear Power. Foreign Affairs 79, 30– 44. Tehran, N.K. and Saran, R. (2003). Nuclear Power Revival. Nuclear Science Symposium Record 2003 IEEE, 3630-3633. Read More