Are Nuclear Power Stations the answer to our energy problems

When the idea for nuclear power plants first came out, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) claimed that it would be a cheap way of generating electricity. Compared with fossil fuel power plants, nuclear power plants use very little fuel, so the cost is small, but it is made up for in other areas. The AEC was wrong. In fact, today, nuclear power plants cost just as much to build and run as coal plants do.

Nuclear Waste

During fission, very harmful radiation rays are released. The most harmful of which are gamma rays. When the human body is exposed to radiation, it can cause tumours and can do extreme damage to the reproductive organs. For this reason, problems associated with radioactivity can be passed on to the victim's children as well. That is why radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is so dangerous.

After about 18 months in a reactor, fission begins to slow down, and the uranium rods must be replaced. It takes about 2 months to remove the old rods and place in the new ones. The used-up uranium rods are stuck in containers which are placed in swimming-pool sized tanks of water. In these tanks, the old rods lose some of their radioactivity and begin to cool down. However, many nuclear power plants are now running into the problem of their water tanks getting full of the rods, and are in need of a permanent storage place.

Many scientists have argued about long term storage for our nuclear waste. Many think the waste should be placed in concrete containers and buried far beneath the Earth's surface. Others say that some of the waste should be loaded into rockets and shot at the sun. Some countries have already decided on their plans. Canada is currently looking at a plan to bury their radioactive waste underneath the Canadian Shield. The United States has a plan to bury their waste underground in Nevada where some nuclear experiments and tests have already been conducted. So far, continuing debates have prevented much of anything from being done about nuclear waste. Unfortunately, after buried underground, the nuclear waste can take millions of years to decay.

Other Kinds of Nuclear Power Plants

There are two other kinds of nuclear power plants; these two are a fission power plant that uses a breeder reactor, and a fusion power plant.

Breeder Reactors

Another kind of fission reactor is the breeder reactor. A breeder power plant runs the exact same way as a Light-Water power plant described above, except it uses plutonium, instead of uranium, as its fuel. After the plutonium has been taken from the core of the reactor, it can be reprocessed. The plutonium is sent to a reprocessing plant where it is reprocessed and recycled. After this, it is sent back to the nuclear power plant and can be used in the reactor again.

Each time the plutonium is reprocessed, more and more energy is drawn from it, and after many years it reaches a point where it can not be used anymore. Power plants which use plutonium as fuel would have a lower cost because of the small amount of fuel needed. Reprocessing also helps out with our problem of nuclear waste. The United States does not use breeder reactors. President Carter shut down the program because he was afraid that terrorists would get a hold of a sample of plutonium. Plutonium, unlike uranium, can be used in making atomic bombs.

Fusion Power Plants

Fusion is the exact opposite process of fission. In fusion, the nuclei of two atoms combine to form one atom, unlike fission where the nucleus of one atom is split into two. Fusion is the same process that takes place deep within the core of the sun. The one major plus of fusion plants is that they release absolutely no radiation. Very intense heat levels are needed for fusion to occur. That is why it is so hard to use. The energy it takes to run a fusion power plant is about the same as what is produced.

Problems

Although nuclear power plants have many advantages, they have some major problems. If anything were ever to go wrong inside the reactor, the results could be disastrous. One of the most dangerous difficulties is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown. This occurs when the core overheats in an uncontrolled manner-the core simply melts. Such an event would release amazing amounts of radioactivity. There are many emergency cooling systems and back-ups to prevent the reactor from getting to meltdown temperatures.

One problem that was not stopped was the incident at Chernobyl. The Chernobyl plant reached 150 times its normal power level. The pressure inside the water holding tubes there became so great that finally the plant just blew itself apart. Poor construction and operation of the power plant caused the disaster. The disaster killed 31 people and 20 square miles of land are now uninhabitable. Some people say that the Chernobyl accident is responsible for many cases of cancer all across Europe. The scientists and environmentalists fighting against nuclear power, use accidents like these as their argument.

The Ongoing Debate

Scientists all over the world are debating about nuclear power, and whether or not it is safe to be used. Over 100 nuclear power plants now produce 20% of the United States' electricity alone, but the industry has stopped growing. Nuclear generated electricity is losing its financial advantage over coal-powered electricity. Nuclear power plants still have the advantages of fuel costs and no air or water pollution.

In my opinion, the future of nuclear power is hard to predict. I am unsure what the correct answer is but I think you have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages. As I have already pointed out there are problems which comes along with Nuclear Power Stations because if something was to go wrong in the reactor the results would be very severe. Also very harmful radiation rays could be/ are released though it is believed that nuclear power is the only energy source that can meet a substantial electricity demand. However this could be the answer to our energy problems, though it could present subsequent obstacles.

This pie chart shows how nuclear power stations are distributed across the globe:

As you can tell, the majority of these stations are situated in the USA. Should we be thanking the Americans for supplying such large amounts of energy, or frowning on there large amounts of the worlds resources?

Bibliography

* www.bbc.co.uk

* www.telegraph.co.uk

* www.envocare.co.uk

* www.wikipedia.com

* www.bnfl.com

Chris Hartley