Brief Back ground in Nuclear energy.

The desire of the atomic bomb was the orgin of the modern nuclear energy. Nuclear science
started in 1895 with the discovery of X-ray, a type of radiation. (WNA(outline of nuclear
energy)) . Since the discovery of radiations, information about nuclear properties are
accumulating among each country. However, the nuclear fully exposes itself during the year
1939 to 1945. As anyone would know, this is the time when weapon would come before
anything. Moreover, the initial attempt to use nuclear power was towards weapon. During World
War II, Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi fled to the United States and they was trying to inform
the American government about the development of the nuclear weapon. Soon after the word
has spread in the government, action was taken and known as the Manhattan Project. Upon the
first atomic testing in Alamogordo, New Mexico, the world was ready for the nuclear age.
(http://www.ushistory.org/us/51f.asp). Aside from the development of nuclear science, it is
important to acknowledge the two types of nuclear reaction. Fission is when heavier molecules
are broken down into lighter molecules. This degradation of molecule releases a huge amount of
energy. In addition, Fusion is the process that combines two molecule, and the combination
gives off a large amount of energy. In comparison, fusion and fission can be viewed as reverse
processes. However, people often wonder how does fusion make any logical sense? Since two
molecules are put together into one single unit, wouldnt fusion require energy to put together
two pieces of molecule? The answer proceed as follows, protons and neutrons are help together
in a very tight force, and if the nuclear reaction produces a molecule that is more tightly bonded
than the previous molecule, then the nuclear action will yield energy. Figure 1 shows the
tightness of the possible molecules. As in the graph, it shows that hydrogen being the least tight
in the nuclear
force, and the
tightest is Iron.
Moreover, fusion
uses two hydrogen
atoms to produce
a helium atom
which combines
together to a more
tighter atom than
the previous
hydrogen atoms.
The same
explanation is
used for fission.
When Uranium is
broken down into smaller pieces it becomes tighter. So, based on the graph, the nucleus becomes
tighter than before. As a result of this property of nuclear fusion and fission, energy can be
produce in very large qualities. Is this even important when energy isnt an issue right now? The
answer is that energy is the biggest issue right now. Energy source is what govern how our world
works today. Natural resources are bound to dry up as energy consumption goes up. Nuclear
fission and fusion is going to compensate for our environment and our energy demend.(
http://www.efda.org/faq/how-is-it-that-both-fission-and-fusion-produce-power-if-splitting-a-
large-atom-into-two-smaller-atoms-releases-energy-it-seems-that-combining-two-smaller-atoms-
into-one-larger-atom-would-require-ene/)
Safety towards nuclear power
Regardless how much we appreciate the energy that nuclear fission grants us, it is very
important to understand the danger to every method of producing energy. However, nuclear
fission is definitely safer and cleaner than other methods of energy production. First of all,
what does it mean to be safer and cleaner? Nuclear reaction is harmful to both the environment
and the human body. However, it is relative safe compare to some other methods such as burning
fossil fuel, coal, using solar energy. Based on Nuclear energy, Simon Rippon present a graph of
an estimation of the death per 1000 megawatts of electricity produced. On the graph, it compares
coal, oil and natural gas, and nuclear. For using coal to produce energy, there are three processes
that are part of the estimate that the graph is making. There are Extraction, transport, and
Generation. In addition,
electricity produced by coal
has a 2.5 death ratio for
every 1000 megawatts in the
United Kingdom. In
conctrase, nuclears ratio is
only 0.25 for every 1000
megawatt produced.
However, this is only the
death on producing
electricity; there are many
other side effects from
bruning coal and harvesting nuclear power for electricity, but the result in which one is better is
very similar. What could burning coal or fossil fuel contribute any harm? The common answer
is that it release a large qualities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere commonly known as one
of the greenhouse gases. Moreover, a power plant that burns coal emits 6,000,000 tons annually
of CO
2
(IAEA.org). In contrast, a nuclear power plant does not release noxious gases or other
pollutants; it only leaves about 30 tons of nuclear waste per year(IAEA.org). Clearly, nuclear is
cleaner than coal or oil in terms of global pollution. According to DNews, there are new ways of
handleing nuclear waste and it is called vitrification. This is a process where nuclear waste is
turned in to glass, so the nuclear waste storage will take up less space. However, the process is
extremely expensive, so scientist are working to make the process cheaper. Some test has already
let the process to become cheaper, but real result will take more time to make the process
flawless. There is scientists actively working on the nuclear waste problem; however, the coal
power plant are continue to release carbon dioxide and there is no active solution to the problem
that it causes. However it gets worse, carbon dioxide is not the only case that burning coal or
fossil fuel can be harmful. First, fossil fuel is refined in order to be burned, and the refine
processes is not 100% clean in terms of the toxic material that are present in the fuel itself.
Therefore, the amount of the toxic material release into our atmosphere is directly related to the
impurity level of the
fuel(http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devnine.html). By now, anyone
can see why the death ratio should be more than previously stated in the paragraph. All those
toxic is release into our air for which people breathe in. On IAEA.org, it states that natural gas
cleaner than oil and oil cleaner than coal. Why is coal so terrible in terms of pollution?
According to Nuclear power by Harry Henderson, he says that coal contains radioactive trace
elements,(Henderson 27) and even with a very powerful filter, coal power plant still introduces
more radioacrive material into the atmosphere than does a nuclear plant(Henderson 28). In
conjugation with IAEA, their statistics indicates that a coal power plant annually produces about
44,000 tonnes of sulphur oxides and 22,000 tonnes of nitrous oxides 320,000 tonnes of ash
containing 400 tonnes of heavy metals - arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, mercury, nickel and
vanadium.() In fact, these are the reasons why more than 2,500 people are killed every year in
severe [non-nuclear]energy related accidents How many death or accident has ever occurred
towards to nuclear energy production? In two biggest histories of nuclear meltdowns, Fukushima
had no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident and Chernobyl had no
deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident. The total casualties in two of the
biggest nuclear accidents still are outnumbered in death by burning coal. Nuclear power
production is definitely safer than the other type of mainstream power production, and the only
reason why nuclear is fear all over the world is because the meltdowns are broadcasted globally
so everyone will know about the incidents. If the death due to burning coal for energy was
reported daily, then no country or person would be supporting burning of coal for energy.
Nuclear energy is relative safe in terms energy production, but it is reasonable to know the
downside of nuclear production.
Besides the cleaner and safer nuclear energy that was discussed, Nuclear energy
production by fission produces large amount of energy than any other method of producing
energy; moreover, fission does not require huge amount of land usages compare to solar, fission
have a large amount of supple than coal or fossil fuel combined, and nuclear reactors have a long
active life span. First, 1 kg of firewood can produce about 1 kilowatt-hour (kW h) of
electricity(IAEA.org), and to put that in perspective, 1 kWh can power a PC desktop with a
15 flat screen LCD monitor for 8 hours( http://www.electricireland.ie/ei/business/contact-
us/what-does-a-kwh-do.jsp). However, coal and fossil fuel does much better at a rate of 3 and 4
kW h respectively(IAEA.org). in comparison, there has to be a huge amount of coal and fossil
fuel to be burn just in order to power a city. However, 1kg of uranium, the element for fission,
produce about 50,000 kW h. The comparison between the energy production should reveal to
most people that nuclear is the way for the future as energy demand rise every year. Second, the
land usage for nuclear reactors is so tiny compare to solar farms. Solar farms takes up a huge
amount of land in order to produce enough energy to supple the near by cities. On average, solar
farms use about 20 to 50km
2
compare to the 1 to 4 km
2
(IAEA,org). The large land use due to
solar will cause other issue as available land gets lower and lower. Since solar takes up so much
land for sun bath those lands become useless. Nuclear are still the one that produces the most
energy and cause the least amount of land. Next, uranium are present in the earth crust, and it is
mined throughout countries in the world. So the supple is quite large. According to Breeder
reactors: A renewable energy source by Bernard L. Cohen, he states it is frequently said that the
amount of uranium available can support the worlds energy needs for only about 1000 years.
However, this means that uranium is not a long lasting reliable energy resource. So where should
we get uramium once the supple on the land has run out? Based on Cohen, he states that
Seawater contains 3.310 (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium and there are a large sum of sea
water. The estimate uranium present in the sea came out to be enough to supple the world around
7 million years.(cohen) With the information presented by Cohen, it is very reasonable to
assume that nuclear fission will be the next generation of power source; however, it is just the
matter of time for the world to realize that coal and oil are not the way to produce energy. Lastly,
nuclear reactor have a long life span. One reactor can last from 20 years all the way up to 80
years (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-nuclear-reactors-last/). This
means that the reactor can supple power non-stop for more than 20 years. With all the facts about
nuclear power given, it is safe to assume it is just the matter of time before the whole world
switches to nuclear power. For nuclear takes up the least space compare to solar farms, it
produces the large sum of energy for the least amount of materials, uranium have a huge amount
of supple present in both ground and water, and the nuclear reactors have a long life span up to
20 years. Are you convinced yet? If not, I would agree with you, because if we take a look at the
time estimated for uranium to deplete; the time frame is not infinite. Although it gives us enough
time for now, but nuclear fission is definitely not the permanent solution for our energy demand
in the far future. So what will the solution be? There is a process even cleaner and better than
nuclear fission, and the process is called nuclear fusion.
Nuclear fusion will become the primary method of producing energy, and it will be both
environmental friendly and meeting the energy demand for the future world. The process of how
nuclear fusion produce energy is similar to nuclear fission, but rather than breaking down larger
element like uranium as fuel, it uses tiny elements such as hydrogen to fuse together into a bigger
element. Why has fusion when fissions estimated time is about 7 million years? The main
reason is there is actually waste produced from fission. However, fusion will only produce
helium as a by-product. Helium is a gas that is an inert, non-toxic gas(ITER.org), and Helium is
often used to make balloons flow. Fusion gives a clean way of producing energy while not
having to worry about the release of carbon dioxide and harmful by-products. When fission
outshines burning coal and oil, fusion is on top of the energy food chain in terms of clean energy.
Moreover, fusions fuel runs primary on heavy water. Instead of having hydrogen in the
chemical formula, H2O, heavy water have deuterium and tritium as their chemical formula.
Deuterium is found in sea water at a rate about every liter of seawater, for example, there are 33
milligrams of deuterium, but tritium is only present a tiny fraction of it in nature. However, there
are ways that tritium can be produced. It is very obvious for anyone if they had to choose
between water, uranium or oil/coal as fuel. For uranium outshine coal and oil, water will most
definitely replace uranium when the technology gets advance enough. So, if water is the fuel
for fusion then fusion will last longer than fission even with the 7 million year estimation(Ted on
fusion). Also, fusion is even safer compare to fission energy production, because the process can
be controlled, so any of the nuclear disaster and meltdowns will not happen on fusion. Lastly, the
energy from a fusion reaction is about four million times more energetic than a chemical reaction
such as the burning of coal, oil or gas(ITEA.org). In the future when coal/oil or nuclear fission
can no longer provide a sustainable energy source, people are going to start turning their focus
onto fusion. As anyone would agree, the potential that are hidden in nuclear fusion could one day
change the world forever as energy becomes unlimited through nuclear fusion.