Category: Nuclear Energy

Right after the Second World War, the steadfast attention of the scientific community has been involved in the idea of extreme cheapness and inexhaustibility of nuclear energy. As though in a counterbalance to horrors of new war which use of the nuclear weapon could cause, the future of nuclear energy was in every possible way embellished for creation of an image of the world, prosperity, and abundance that should win general applause.

The history of nuclear energy has not justified the hopes of its adherents. Almost half a century later, after the first electric lamp, the orders for nuclear reactors in the developed countries practically do not exist. In the USA since 1978, there was no order for the construction of the nuclear reactor, and the orders for their construction, made in the period from 1974 to 1978, have been canceled. Even in France, the bastion of nuclear engineering where on nuclear reactors it is made about four-fifth of all electricity, now recognizes that stations with natural gas with the combined cycle are more economical than nuclear reactors.

In 1986 on the example of Chernobyl, it was possible to see awful, having a greater area of scope, and, substantially, irreparable consequences of the serious failures of nuclear reactors. Each design of a civil nuclear reactor comprises the probability of such catastrophic failures though their probability, and also special mechanisms, of course, can differ from design to design and from country to country.

In spite of the fact that hopes of adherents of the use of atomic energy substantially were not justified, the majority of the governments of the countries of the world do not wish to refuse its use, apparently. This unwillingness represents the complex phenomenon, and discussion of this question is beyond the given work. Partially it can be the result of the sensations which have developed in many non-nuclear developing countries. The strong influence is made by the idea that nuclear energy is a symbol of modern “high” technologies.

After the idea about nuclear energy as “so cheap, that it will not be necessary to measure its price,” defenders of nuclear energy approve that it could become the basic factor in the business of reduction of emission in the atmosphere of polluting substances, in particular to the dioxide of carbon bringing the essential contribution to global warming was is killed by the severe validity, the nuclear industry for a logic substantiation of necessity of the existence has taken on arms the idea of protection of an environment and non-distribution. However, the ecological consequences of the extraction of uranium and radioactive waste, which are the integral components of technology, are ignored. It is necessary to note also that the problems connected with the use of mineral fuel and with atomic energy are simply non-comparable.

In the first years of the Cold War, many adherents of nuclear energy offered that manufacture of military plutonium was used for subsidizing power stations. After the end of the Cold War, the nuclear industry made applications that the atomic engineering can help “to reforge the swords” as superfluous plutonium from the dismantled nuclear warheads could be used for the manufacture of fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. However, the realization of such a program would lead to the creation of the financial and physical infrastructure for the transformation of plutonium into “commercial” goods with all consequences following from here, as that is the problem of non-distribution, questions of ecology and price.

For the decision of safety issues, the nuclear industry has begun and continues the promotion on the market of the second generation of commercial nuclear reactors, some of which even have been named by their supporters “with internally inherent safety.” The Safety issue, in general, is establishing as public skepticism in the occasion of applications of representatives of the nuclear industry has noticeably increased after failures on Three Mail Island and in Chernobyl.

However, irrespective of reliability of statements about security from failures with uncontrollable emission of radioactive waste in an atmosphere, statements in spirit “with internally inherent safety,” not being supported by weighty maintenance, have rhetorical value more likely. Though it is represented theoretically possible to create reactors that will differ a greater degree of safety in comparison with already existing, it is impossible to consider safety as the feature internally inherent in various technologies. All reactors offered till now possessed some potential for the most serious failures (Caldicott, 2007).

Now there are many of the best and safe sources of energy. Time has come to refuse nuclear energy. We are obliged to replace false propagation “atoms in the peace purposes” with the program “energy in the peace purposes,” which can make the well-being of the modern generation compatible with the protection of safety and an environment for a life of the future generations.

Meanwhile, two main directions precisely are outlined in the peace application of nuclear energy. The first direction is based on the use of an opportunity of creation of artificial radioactive atoms which on the chemical properties can be identical to atoms of the most widespread elements, as for example, carbon, phosphorus, etc. As is known, it is widely used in biology and chemistry where, applying so-called “marked,” the essence of the mechanism of some of the major biological and chemical processes is possible absolutely new to find out atoms by.

In spite of the fact that this work while is limited to cleanly scientific results, nevertheless their value for practice is very great, deeper understanding of existing processes always opens an opportunity to direct them in a correct way. It is necessary to remember that biological processes underlie agriculture, animal industries, medicine playing a paramount role in our culture.

Nuclear energy, good or bad? The argument about nuclear energy is difficult. Some people say it’s good for the environment, while others say it’s the worst. So, let’s dive deeper into this argument and try to understand what nuclear energy is, and if it’s good or bad. How does it work? Most of the reactors were built between 1970 and 1985 when the price of oil and gas became very expensive due to the conflicts in the middle east. This grabbed the attention of a lot of investors. But they still had to choose which reactor to build, since there were a lot of options. The candidate that won was the light water reactor, with its only advantage being that it wasn’t terribly expensive.

The basic principle is simple: a controlled chain reaction warms up water which can be used to make electricity. But it wasn’t the safest nor the most efficient though, which made it quite unpopular with scientists. So now there’s the choice, move away from nuclear energy or replace the aging reactors with more efficient, safer but more expensive reactors. Why it is terrible?

First, nuclear energy is intimately connected with nuclear weapons. It’s almost impossible to develop peaceful nuclear energy without accidentally contributing to weapon technology. In forty years, five countries have developed nuclear weapons with the help of peaceful reactor technology.

Secondly, we have nuclear waste and pollution. Spent nuclear fuel is not only radioactive but also poisonous due to elements like plutonium. It loses its harmfulness only very slowly over thousands of years. Though, nuclear waste can be reprocessed to make plutonium fuel. But this new fuel is hardly ever used for energy-making purposes, they rather use the fuel for the making of bombs.

Nuclear waste also needs to be stored somewhere, where it will be safe for thousands of years. Lastly, there are accidents and disasters. In over 65 years of the use of nuclear energy, there have been 7 nuclear disasters. This makes it so large amounts of land are unfit for human inhabitation and thousands get cancer from the radiation.

Why it is wonderful. First, nuclear energy saves lives. It may be counterintuitive, but a big study by NASA has shown that nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million deaths between 1945 and 2015. It is ranked last in deaths per energy unit produced. This is because nuclear waste is stored somewhere, while gasses from oil or coal-burning plants just float around in the air. We just don’t know because catastrophic events are burned into our memory, while coal and oil kill silently. Next, nuclear energy reduces CO2 outputs. Since nothing burns inside a nuclear reactor, it does not produce any CO2 whatsoever. That’s of course a big factor since CO2 is the biggest player in global warming. Lastly, maybe there will be better reactors in the future, like the fusion reactor, which uses water to generate energy. There’s also the new thorium reactor. This reactor is not as radioactive (only for 100 years instead of 10.000), generates lots more energy, can’t be turned into nuclear weapons and thorium is more abundant than uranium. So, it may be nuclear energy is bad, but it might also be that it’s the energy of the future!

Throughout history, nuclear science has affected the US and Europe positively and negatively, some of the stuff that we use daily came from nuclear science. One of these things is nuclear energy, in which radioactive material is used to heat water into steam which is then used to spin turbines to create electricity. The nuclear process heat for industry is another thing we use today that have come from nuclear science. It works by taking heat from radioactive materials to heat things like tarred sand into oil. Another thing that nuclear science has done for us is in the field of nuclear medicine where they have the ability to use radiation to diagnose and cure different diseases like cancer. At this point in time let’s look closer into what each one of these three things has done for us in the modern world and what it will help us with in the future.

In Europe, there are about 128 Nuclear power reactors and in the US there are about 98 nuclear reactors all generating power in which about 20% of the US and 26% of Europe’s population use in their daily lives (Nuclear power in the European/US). Based on an organization that represents the global nuclear industry known as the World Nuclear Association who promotes a wide understanding of nuclear sciences among the world by giving information on nucular sciences. This modern form of energy generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium atoms to produce energy. The heat released by fission is used to create steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity which in turn is used by the US and Europe’s population for their electrical needs (History of nuclear energy, mission). But, this is only the beginning, nuclear energy in the future is said to be able to transmute long-lived radioisotopes in used nuclear fuel into shorter-lived fission products, such as Thorium. This will make nuclear energy more readily available since more energy can be produced from a smaller amount of material, revolutionizing how we make power and how much of it can be made (accelerator-driven). This might sound wonderful but there are still disadvantages. This one has the dangerous disadvantage of, nuclear meltdowns. The reactors that use nuclear ions to generate power get extremely hot, because of this the system has to be cooled, this usually happens by running cold water through it to collect heat. When the cooling system fails to cool the reactors a nuclear meltdown happens to cause the containment of radiation to be destroyed. In the long term, if the leak of radiation is big enough, it has the ability to cause health problems in the surrounding area (Raul, Nuclear energy). This can also cause explosions from the water in the tubes turning immediately into steam and expanding outwards (Hobbs).

The nuclear process heat for industry, used by industrial companies, is another thing that nuclear science has come up with. This is when they use the heat coming off of the fission of nuclear fuel to heat up substances along the lines of tarred sand, and saltwater to produce things like oil, water, and bio-based ethanol. This use of nuclear energy is good for mass production. For example, nuclear heat for the industry has the ability to turn saltwater into regular water by heating it up and removing the salt from the water, this water can then be bottled, allowing for mass production of water for the places that do not have potable water in large amounts. The steam from the heated water can also be used to make energy for the people as well. This process produces temperatures of up to 900°C with different temperatures different things have the ability to be produced. Scientists at this point in time are trying to find a way to make it so that the nuclear reactors have the ability to reach 950°C for the production of Hydrogen gas which is used in lots of industrial goods such as tech (Nuclear process-heat, Hydrogen basics). All in all, it is a wonderful process that allows people to harvest resources from other things by heating it. This is a great way to make industrial oils from tared sands, water from saltwater and in the future hydrogen for the industry. It still has a disadvantage though and that is this process uses heat from radioactive materials and that radiation has the ability to leach into the oil and water and contaminate lots of people making them very sick and eventually they will die from the radiation they have absorbed (Nuclear Desalination).

Another thing nuclear science has brought to the modern world is how we use nuclear materials in the medical field. Nuclear medicine is a particular field of medicine that uses radioactive tracers to diagnose and treat disease or to assess a patient’s various bodily functions. Radioactive tracers are a set of carrier molecules that are tightly bound to a radioactive atom. In each case, the radioactive tracer is administered to the patient and then tracked carefully with specifically designed cameras. Radioactive tracers have helped in much of our current understanding and knowledge of metabolic and physiological processes in the body and mind. Today, there are over 100 nuclear medicine imaging tactics, and every organ can be imaged. These techniques allow for the treatment and diagnosis of diseases such as cancer. The future of Nuclear medicine is bleak but a few things that have been going on are to understand the relationship between brain chemistry and behavior, such as eating disorders. In addition, nuclear medicine could be very useful in deepening our understanding of the metabolism and pharmacology of new drugs and lastly, the emerging field of ‘personalized medicine.’ If we use targeted radionuclide therapies to personalize treatment, we have the ability to accelerate the process of advancing patient care (The future of Nuclear medicine). Nuclear medicine just like the other two also has a disadvantage. This disadvantage is the word radiation and how people think that it will harm them, when, in fact, the radiation they are exposed to is the same amount of radiation that a patient is exposed to of other diagnostic scans, and even in a patient’s day today, they are always exposed to certain small amounts of radiation. However, a woman should always tell their doctor if they are pregnant or breastfeeding so that the doctor has the ability to determine whether or not a certain nuclear medicine test is safe for the baby (McFarland).

In conclusion, Nuclear science has opened up a door of possibilities in the modern world in how people use radioactive material to create power by heating water, turning it to steam so it can then turn turbines, or how the heat has been used by industrial companies to create oil from tarred sand and create drinkable water from the salty seawater. It has even allowed doctors to diagnose and cure diseases through the use of radioactive tracers. Nuclear science has done many things for us, and in the future, it is predicted that it will do much more. There are still disadvantages to it though, with the majority of it in the form of radiation ether leaking into something or leaking out of something. But even with this the pros way out the cons.

The demand for energy is anticipated to increase in the future because of the population growth and development of emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia. By 2050, electricity consumption is expected to double due to the shift from fossil energy (Poinssot et al., 2014). Again, anthropogenic activities such as energy production are contributing extensively to greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. Currently, 80% of energy emanates from fossils fuels; thus, the world will continue to face the challenges of meeting the increasing energy demand and curbing GHG emissions. This essay paper argues for the adoption of nuclear energy as the solution to the present energy crisis.

Nuclear energy is safer than most of the other sources of energy. Notably, the world wants to cut down the level of GHG emissions by at least 80% by 2050 to mitigate severe climate change (Pfenninger, & Keirstead, 2015). Nuclear energy has lower GHG emissions than fossil fuels; thus, its adoption will cut GHG emissions significantly across the world. In a different vein, nuclear energy has a lower fatality rate than other sources of energy.

According to Brook et al. (2014), “the global average values of the mortality rate per billion kWh due to all causes as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), are 100 for coal, 36 for oil, 24 for biofuel/biomass, 4 for natural gas, 1.4 for hydro, 0.44 for solar, 0.15 for wind and 0.04 for nuclear” (p. 11). Thus, nuclear energy is viable and safe in meeting the current and future demand for energy across the world.

Nuclear power is economical and reliable. According to Poinssot et al. (2014), nuclear energy can generate base-load electricity at a predictable, stable, and low cost because the technology relies on uranium price. Besides, natural uranium resources are widely distributed across the world than fossil fuels which are found in certain regions (Brook et al., 2014). The wide distribution of uranium across the world makes its mining unlikely to yield significant international crisis and tension as the case of gas or oil (Poinssot et al., 2014). In this regard, nuclear energy is economically viable in providing low cost and stable energy.

Nuclear energy has significant implications for the environment and population health in case of an accident in nuclear plants. Notably, the feasibility of nuclear power is currently based on negative public opinions following the Fukushima accident. Poinssot et al. (2014) point out that, “the public strongly believes that the [Fukushima] accident has important consequences for population health and the environment” (p. 199).

The handling of Fukushima has created mistrust about the capacity of private developers and governments for controlling nuclear reactors in intense situations such as Tsunami and earthquakes. In this regard, the Fukushima accident demonstrates that dealing with nuclear power is beyond technical aspects as it relates directly to societal, environmental, and economical implications.

In conclusion, nuclear energy is viable for the present energy crises because it is safe, economical, and reliable. Notably, nuclear energy is safe due to its lower GHG emission levels than fossil fuels. Again, nuclear energy is economical and reliable due to the low, predictable, and stable price of its main input – uranium. In contrast, nuclear energy has significant impacts on the environment and population health in the case of an accident. However, it should be noted that accidents in nuclear plants are isolated cases, and thus proper mechanisms to curb severe situations such as alternative nuclear waste storage should be put in place.

Waste disposal is the sensational topic these days. However, it is only the Nuclear power that takes full responsibility for all its waste and costs into this product.

The wastes that is generated from the thermal industries has to be managed with extra care as it should not have any hazardous impact on the environment and mankind as much of the waste is radioactive in nature.

During the nuclear fuel cycle, all parts of the process do emit waste and there have been proven technologies to dispose these radioactive wastes safely. Radioactivity arises naturally from the decay of particular forms of elements known as isotopes. There are three kinds of radiation that are considered, the Alpha, Beta and Gamma. The strength of these radiations are based on their half-lives. The alpha and beta have long half-lives, which makes it easier to be handled, whereas the gamma has a shorter half-live, which has to be dealt carefully. The longer the half-life, the less hazardous the waste becomes.

There are many kinds of radioactive wastes, mainly classified as Low-level waste, medium level waste and High-level waste.

Low Level Waste:

These are the wastes that are being disposed from hospitals, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. The materials from these sources contains very less amounts of short lived radioactivity and hence not very dangerous. It could be buried. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted before disposal.

Medium-Level Waste:

These wastes contain a higher amount of radioactivity and would require some shielding. It basically comprises resins and chemical sludge’s as well as contaminated materials from the nuclear decommissioning. For disposal, the smaller items could be solidified into concrete or bitumen.

High-Level Waste:

These wastes arise from a nuclear reactor by the burning of uranium. This is highly radioactive and very hot. And therefore requires cooling and shielding. These wastes have both long lived and short lived components and the disposal depends on the time it takes for the decrease in the radioactivity and considered not hazardous for mankind. There are mainly two kinds of HLW, the used waste and the separated waste from the reprocessed used waste. People who handle the HLW and used wastes have to be very careful and shielded from radiation.

The final disposal of the HLW would be delayed for about 40-50 years, as the waste accumulates gradually only and this is then stored as canisters of vitrified waste and the stored underwater in special ponds, or dry concrete structures. Longer the HLW is kept, the lesser the radioactive power retained. These canisters are then buried deep in the ground which is about 500 m deep.

To ensure that there would not be any leakage of these radioactive substances over a period of time, a multiple barrier concept is followed. One could immobilize waste in an insoluble matrix, surround containers with bentonite clay, so that groundwater does not get contaminated, seal the waste inside a corrosion resistant container, like stainless steel are some of the ways.

Unless all the safety measures are breeched, there is no way that these wastes would cause harm to mankind , as this is the only waste that has been and will be treated carefully and responsibly.

After attending the workshop, I decided on the following topic for my essay: Nuclear Energy

Ever since the first industrial revolution, humanity has delved into different ways of power generation. Rapid technology advancements in the past century have indicated an increasing demand for energy reserves and an urge for more effective ways to generate electricity. To date, different methods of power generation have been explored, ranging from coal burning to the use of solar energy. This has soon raised an ongoing debate on which method is the best for generating power, with nuclear energy being the leading candidate. This essay will discuss the impact that nuclear energy has had on the energy sector, the wars that made it successful, and the expandable development of nuclear energy.

The invention of nuclear energy has permanently changed the energy sector for its enhanced cleanliness and sustainability over the traditionally used fossil fuel. Unlike nuclear energy, generating energy via the combustion of fossil fuels such as crude oil, coal, and natural gas creates carbon dioxide as a by-product (nei.org, 2019). Whilst 65% of greenhouse gas consists of carbon dioxide, most of it was a direct product of the burning of fossil fuels. On the contrary, nuclear energy generates 8000 times more energy than fossil fuel (Parker, 2019) by effectively utilizing the energy from uranium undergoing a chain reaction to convert water into steam and turning the turbine (Brain,2018). Nuclear energy also has better longevity than fossil fuels. It is estimated that humans only have 115 years of oil reserve (Ritchie, 2017) but a stock of uranium could last for 230 years. Not to mention the unidentified uranium embedded in the ocean that could likely provide a 60,000-year supply (Fetter, 2019). For the aforementioned reasons, nuclear energy not only resolved the pollution problem but also provided a seemingly limitless energy supply for the development of humanity in the foreseeable future.

The invention of nuclear energy owes its success to the war arms race and the urgency to comfort public fear. In view of the two World Wars, different countries actively participated in the invention of the newest and strongest armament to fight against opposite states and protect their sovereignty. The eventual discovery of neutrons by James Chadwick in 1932 (phy.org, 2012) led to research on the potential of nuclear radioactivity. Hence, the self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction (Esposite, 2008) that could lead to an enormous release of energy was discovered. Between 1939 and 1945, developments were aimed at weaponizing nuclear technology, which led to the birth of the atomic bomb. In 1945, the US detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of approximately 200,000 civilians and military personnel (atomicarchive.com, n.d.), and putting WWII to an end. The fatality of atomic bombs soon raised public concerns, forcing the government to neutralize the polarizing opinions towards the use of nuclear technology. In 1953, a speech named “Atoms for Peace” was then delivered by US President Eisenhower in an attempt to enlighten the American public on the risks and hopes of a nuclear future (Atoms for Peace, n.d.). Commercializing nuclear energy that serves the public demonstrates the positive use of nuclear technology. Since then, the arms race and public fear have curated a condition for nuclear energy to thrive.

Nuclear energy has a major edge over other renewable energy resources due to its longer lifespan and more expandable usage. Typical nuclear energy facilities have a lifespan of 30-40 years (Speights, 2019), with repairs and upgrades, that number extends to around 60 years. Since other energy sources such as wind power, biomass heat, and solar water heat could only last for about 10 to 30 years (nrel.org, n.d.), nuclear energy is undoubtedly the better contender in the power generation industry. Besides, the nuclear energy sector could further expand. Currently, 10.3% of electricity is generated by nuclear power (IEA, 2019), with non-renewable power still dominating the market. In fact, only 30 countries in the world are equipped with nuclear energy (Wang, 2019). More extensive usage of clean and sustainable nuclear energy is largely viable. As seen, the long lifespan and highly expandable potential of nuclear energy offer a revolutionary change to the high-energy-demanding civilization.

All in all, nuclear energy is a game-changer in the power generation industry. From the atomic bomb to commercialized nuclear plants, history has helped shape the development of this crucial invention. It brings new possibilities to the energy sector by eliminating air pollution while multiplying the energy output. Apprehension about the energy crisis in the coming decades would also be relieved. Meanwhile, the long lifespan and expandable usage of nuclear energy will continue to contribute to the world, improving the lives of mankind one step at a time.

List of References:

1. EPA (2017). Global greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
2. Steve Fetter (26 January 2019). How long will the world’s uranium supplies last? Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
3. Hannah Ritchie (8 August 2017). Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/how-long-before-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels
4. Nei.org (2019). What is nuclear energy? Retrieved from https://www.nei.org/fundamentals
5. Marshall Brain (2018) How does nuclear power work? Retrieved from https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
6. William Parker (2019). Nuclear Power. Retrieved from https://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/env/prize/file_52570.pdf
7. Phys.org (15 June 2012). 80 years since the discovery of the neutron. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2012-06-years-discovery-neutron.html
8. S. Esposito and O. Pisanti (2008) A Nuclear Pile: The Retrieval Of Novel Documents. Page 1
9. atomicarchive.com. (n.d) The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Retrieved from http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml
10. Atom for Peace. (n.d) Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace
11. Trevor Speights (28 February 2019) How Nuclear Reactors Work and Lifespan. Retrieved from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/speights1/
12. Nrel.gov (n.d) Energy analysis, Useful Life. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-footprint.html
13. IEA (2019). Distribution of electricity generation worldwide in 2017, by energy source. Key World Energy Statistics 2019, page 30.
14. T. Wang (Jun 26, 2019) Number of operable nuclear reactor plants by country 2019

Background

The need to cut carbon emissions has become a global priority to mitigate climate change effects. Unstable global oil prices, unreliable supply due to political instability in oil-exporting countries, and more importantly, the growing fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint are the factors driving the shift to renewable energy (Said and Omri 2). As a result, concerted efforts to promote innovation and technology development in low-carbon emission systems (wind, solar, and nuclear power) have increased to meet global carbon targets. For example, OECD nations in Europe have committed to cut carbon emissions to 20% and 80-95% by 2020 and 2050, respectively (Said and Omri 2). The goal is to create a resilient energy future that will help escape adverse climate change effects. For this reason, nations are advised to lower CO2 emissions to 9.5 gigatons by 2050 to reverse the greenhouse effect (Jin and Kim 468). To attain this de-carbonization level, renewable energy, including nuclear solutions, should be adopted in electricity, transportation, and industrial systems.

Nuclear energy can help address the climate change effects because its carbon emission is almost negligible. Its net CO2 emission over a lifecycle is about 15g per kilowatt-hour (Said and Omri 3). Thus, it is low-emission renewable energy for combating the effects of climate change. Nuclear power is the main source of low-emission electricity in developed countries, accounting for 18% of all energy produced (Jin and Kim 470). However, its share of the electricity supply worldwide has been decreasing since the 1970s due to aging nuclear reactors, high capital costs, radiation accidents, and limited capacity. Better technologies have been developed to address these challenges and meet nonelectric energy needs. This report discusses advanced nuclear energy options and their implementation in existing systems. A proposal based on the review is provided for the public or policymakers in countries adopting low-cost and safe non-emitting energy sources considering moral or ethical concerns.

The Fast Reactor Concept

Most advanced nuclear energy solutions are classified as fast-neutron reactors or FNRs. They differ from the conventional light-water reactors in many ways that confer their specific advantages, though they have some drawbacks. Thermal nuclear reactors (TNRs) that are in use in various sites globally utilize a moderator to decelerate neutrons during a nuclear chain reaction (Howarth 174). TNRs require enriched Uranium-25 as the fuel to sustain a fission reaction. An enrichment level of 5% and moderating materials, such as light or heavy water and graphite, are needed (Ford et al. 195). In contrast, the FNR technology does not utilize moderators but requires highly concentrated U-35 or fissile plutonium. FNRs lack a neutron-moderating effect and diverse coolants, including liquefied metals, are used to achieve this objective.

FNRs can be designed as breeders or burners that generate less fissile material than the fuel added. Breeder FNRs have a high neutron-capture efficiency, which makes them more effective than TNRs. Additionally, they can utilize diverse isotopes; thus, FNRs can theoretically operate using spent fuel indefinitely (Ford et al. 195). The designs involve a closed fuel cycle, not an open one, hypothesized to increase FNRs’ lifespan. A major challenge is that a closed-fuel system separates plutonium from nuclear waste, a raw material for developing nuclear weapons.

Advanced Nuclear Reactors

Diverse nuclear energy technologies are under development, with commercial operation expected in the next decade. Several American companies operate programs expected to deliver power to the national grid in a few years. The advanced reactors under development differ in design and technology type used. They all aim to improve on existing commercial plants in “cost, safety, security, waste management, and versatility” (Morgan et al. 7186). As a result, they include advanced technical designs that enhance their performance and flexibility. Some of the additional features incorporated into these reactors are safety components, modular designs, improved physical-chemical stability, and a fast-neutron spectrum to increase yield (Ford et al. 198). Advanced nuclear energy technologies fall into three main classes: water-cooled, non-water-cooled, and fusion reactors.

Advanced Water-cooled Reactors

These technologies improve boiling water reactors (BWRs) in critical areas, including simplified design, reduced size, and greater efficiency. They include the small modular light water (SMLWR) and supercritical water-cooled (SCWR) reactors. SMLWRs have a maximum electricity-generating capacity of 300 megawatts (MW), lower than the 1,000 MW output by conventional plants (Hokenson 242). They are designed based on light water reactor (LWR) technology, but the components are miniaturized to fit in one pressure vessel. SMLWRs can be built in the factory before being shipped to a plant for installation, resulting in lower capital costs and shorter payback periods than larger LWRs (Hokenson 243). Additionally, mass production of SMLWRs is possible, which leads to economies of scale advantages.

SMLWRs under development are designed to cater to the specific energy needs of a plant. An American company, NuScale Power, has developed a 60-megawatt module reactor that can be assembled in a factory before being transported to a site for installation (Morgan et al. 7182). A public-private partnership was the funding mechanism used in developing this technology. Other American companies currently developing SMLWRs include Holtec and GE.

SCWRs are a high-temperature version of the LWR technology used in nuclear reactors. Supercritical water in a critical pressure and temperature point where liquid and gaseous phases cannot be distinguished is used in SCWRs (Mignacca and Locatelli 2). The aim is to enhance the efficiency of conventional BWRs. Efficiency levels of 44% have been achieved in SCWRs, compared to 34% in BWRs (Mignacca and Locatelli 2). In its design, supercritical water from a reactor core turns into vapor, driving a turbine generator to produce electric power. SCWR designs depend on the neutron spectrum type used in the reactor.

Advanced Non-water-cooled Reactors

These modules are fission reactors that utilize different substances for cooling but not water. The materials used include molten metals, such as lead and gases, for example, helium (Mignacca and Locatelli 4). Liquefied salts are also utilized as coolants in these reactors. High-temperature gas reactors (HTGRs) use this technology to produce heat for industrial purposes and electricity generation. Various HTGR variants are under development, with some being adopted for commercial use.

Very High-Temperature Reactors

These HTGRs are helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors that are the most mature among nuclear energy technologies. They can reach outlet temperatures of up to 1,000°C, compared to 300°C for SMLWRs (Ford et al. 196). The heat generated supports the cogeneration of electric power and hydrogen and iron smelting industries. More research attention has turned to produce modest outlet temperatures due to the associated commercial viability in recent years. HTGRs involve two main designs that differ in the type of graphite moderator used. The first module involves a graphite-based core with detachable components that contain fuel particles (Ford et al. 196). In contrast, the second design includes small graphite balls (pebbles) with particulate fuels stacked into the core.

The fuel comprises small-sized particles enclosed in silicon carbide – a thermo-resistant coating. Thus, experimental results have shown that the reactor and the fuel can tolerate high temperatures that can cause a meltdown and harmful radioactive emissions (Mignacca and Locatelli 6). HTGRs are the most well-developed advanced nuclear energy solutions that have gained commercial adoption in several nations, including the US, UK, Japan, and China.

Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GFRs)

GFRs are a technology that differs from HTGRs in that it operates in a fast spectrum, not in the thermal one. They are high-temperature, enclosed fuel-cycle fast reactors whose main coolant is helium (Ford et al. 197). GFRs do not need the graphite moderator used in HTGRs to decelerate the neutrons. A basic GFR design involves an enclosed U-Pu fuel cycle that recycles the fuel source when set up as a breeder (Krall and Macfarlane 327). The fuel can be plutonium or uranium, and higher temperatures (850°C) can be achieved in HTGRs than in LWRs; hence, they have potential use in industries and electricity generation.

The main drawback with HTGRs is that the coolant (helium) used has a lower heat-removal capacity than molten metal agents in case of a meltdown. Some European countries, including Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, are constructing a GFR reactor (ALLEGRO) that uses a French design (Krall and Macfarlane 327). Further, an American firm, General Atomics, is building a GFR design based on the gas-cooled fast reactor concepts.

Lead-cooled Fast Reactors (LFRs)

LFRs comprise an enclosed fuel cycle that uses liquefied lead or lead-bismuth alloy as a proposed coolant. They have many advantages over other reactors that enhance their commercial viability. LFRs, like sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs), use molten metal coolant that supports low-pressure systems and passive cooling in case of a meltdown (Nguyen et al. 256). However, unlike the sodium used in SFRs, lead is mainly inactive; hence, safer. Another advantage is that lead can retain byproducts of fission, and thus, they can prevent harmful radioactive emissions from reaching the environment during an accident. Additionally, LFRs can be built to burn actinides in spent fuel, reducing their half-life significantly.

LFRs present some design challenges that must be addressed to ensure their viability. For example, liquid lead-related corrosion of the steel structure of nuclear reactors is a major problem. Thus, further technological advances are needed to develop corrosion-resistant steel. Additionally, lead is very dense and opaque, making it difficult to monitor the reactor’s core (Nguyen et al. 272). Another design challenge relates to this metal’s high melting point – maintaining it in a liquid state under lower temperatures for easy circulation is difficult. The countries developing LFR facilities are Russia, the US, and Japan.

Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs)

This unconventional nuclear technology is currently at an advanced stage of development. SFRs involve a fast reactor circuit with molten sodium as the coolant (Hokenson 242). The liquid metal enables the system to operate at low pressure close to atmospheric levels. Another advantage of SFRs is that the heat-transfer character of molten sodium makes it possible to perform passive cooling. The outlet temperature is modest, ranging between 500°C and 550°C (Lou and Gandy 2834). This thermal level (lower than that achieved by HTGRs) means that they can utilize materials that cannot be used in other reactors. SFRs involve two designs that differ in the heat exchange systems implemented. The first one is the loop-type concept, where both the core and heat exchanger are embedded in a pool of liquid sodium (Lou and Gandy 2834).). The second design is the loop-type reactor, where the heat exchange component is contained in a distinct vessel.

Modular SFRs that are assembled in the factory before being shipped for installation on site are possible. However, the sodium used in SFRs is highly reactive to oxygen and water and can cause fires. Therefore, the coolant system must include an intermediary cooling component to remove this metal from vapor to avoid its release during accidents (Howarth 175). As a result, SFRs have additional costs associated with maintenance and safety. They include an enclosed fuel cycle that can utilize spent fuel but refueling may be necessary after a few decades. Like LFRs, SFRs also destroy actinides, reducing the half-life of radioactive waste. Given the safety and cost concerns, only a few SFR plants occur globally in Russia, China, and India.

Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)

The coolant for these reactors is liquefied salts used to cool the core. The MSR design is similar to that of the HTGR but utilizes salt blocks to cool the circuit. An MSR variant is the salt-fueled MSRs in which molten fuel is combined with the salt coolant (Mignacca and Locatelli 3). They can operate in the fast or thermal spectrum, and the actinide burn-up potential of fast-MSR reactors is high; hence, useful in reducing radioactive emissions during accidents. Another advantage is that a high outlet temperature (700-1000°C) can be achieved using MSRs (Mignacca and Locatelli 7). However, attaining this thermal level is difficult, and further technological research is needed. A distinctive feature of salt-fueled MSRs is the freeze plug, a passive safety component useful during an accident. American and Chinese firms are currently developing MSR reactors.

Fusion Reactors

These advanced nuclear designs generate power by fusing light atomic nuclei. Research and development (R&D) of this concept has attracted significant investment to build a testing facility. Fusion energy generation uses light atoms (hydrogen) subjected to high temperatures to produce a plasma with free electrons (Howarth 174). Keeping the plasma intact during heating to fuse the nuclei is a design problem. A proposed experimental project in the United States plans to use a magnetic field to achieve high temperatures needed by fusion reactions. The advantage of fusion reactors is that it produces no harmful emission or radioactive waste. Additionally, their design and energy source (hydrogen) reduce the risk of a meltdown.

A Public Policy Proposal

From the discussion above, advanced nuclear technology could address safety issues, high capital cost, hazardous spent fuel, and nuclear arms development that seem to hamper its widespread adoption in electricity generation, transportation, and industries. Given these concerns, the diversity of designs with different benefits and drawbacks, and the rising demand for non-emitting sources of energy, a central regulatory agency is proposed. This publicly-funded body will coordinate R&D efforts and mitigate safety and other risks to the environment and the public using a multi-pronged approach.

Environmental groups oppose advanced reactor development based on waste management and radioactive emission to the atmosphere. Current LWRs pose spent fuel disposal challenges, but advanced reactors such as LFRs and SFRs yield less radioactive waste by destroying actinides (Krall and Macfarlane 326). The agency will evaluate the new designs to determine the extent to which waste management and air emission challenges have been minimized. This approach will help alleviate environmental and health concerns inhibiting the commercialization of advanced reactor technology. Federal support for versatile reactors through this agency will enhance industrial use. The advanced reactors, including small modular reactors (SMRs), allow for modular installation in different sites due to their small size (Hokenson 244). Funding R&D for high-temperature micro-reactors can reduce capital costs and scale up their development for industrial processes requiring heat.

A major concern with nuclear energy projects is the weapon proliferation risk. Non-state actors can use fuels (enriched uranium) to build nuclear arms, posing a threat to national and global security. However, proponents note that advanced reactors include sealed designs that make it difficult to reach the core (Howarth 176). Additionally, they use fissile materials in small quantities, and some (LFRs and SFRs) produce non-radioactive waste that may not be useful in weapon development. Thus, the agency would support fast-reactor designs that use highly enriched fuel – not useful for building nuclear arms.

The operational safety of the reactors is another public concern that this body will need to address. The chemical properties of components used in advanced reactors (cooling agents, fuels, and moderators) pose unknown risks. Therefore, testing facilities are needed to ascertain their safety before commercial use. Additionally, advocates suggest that SMRs may be safer because of the small amount of fuel needed (Hokenson 248). Siting the advanced reactors underground couple with remote monitoring can also reduce the safety risk to people and the environment.

Introduction

Energy is an invaluable resource that satisfies people’s basic needs and brings convenience and comfort in life. Unfortunately, its consumption has strained natural resources, consequently causing an energy crisis. The world needs to scale up cleaner energy resources to reduce harmful emissions, and nuclear energy provides the solution to this problem. However, it is crucial to weigh nuclear energy benefits against its harms to ascertain its viability as an energy resource. This paper analyzes nuclear energy as a potential source of energy and its advantages and drawbacks. Nuclear energy is the ultimate solution to the current energy crisis.

Fossil Fuels and Their Environmental Impacts

Nuclear energy is set to replace fossil fuels as an energy source. Fossil fuels are formed from organisms that existed a long time ago through natural processes such as decomposition. They are reasonably located near the earth’s surface, thus can be easily extracted as an energy source. Although fossil fuels play a significant role in producing energy to facilitate people’s day-to-day livelihood, it has several negative environmental impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Burning fossil fuels depletes natural resources and increases carbon emissions, which, in turn, triggers climate change and global temperature rise. Every year, the world emits carbon levels of over 22 billion tons from burning fossil fuels alone (Coyle and Simmons, 2014, p.32). It is important to note that the natural processes responsible for breaking down carbon emissions can only absorb half of their emitted carbon emissions. Simply put, there is a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide because the radiated emissions surpass the earth’s ability to absorb the gases. GHGs are the primary cause of global warming and climate change.

Air Pollution

The primary pollutants caused by fossil fuel combustion include carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These emissions reduce air quality and affect human health, including causing respiratory problems (Shindell and Smith, 2019). According to Shindell and Smith (2019), energy conversion devices’ combustion of fossil fuels causes atmospheric pollution. Air pollution occurs when unburned hydrocarbons escape into the air when passed through the energy conversion devices. For example, carbon monoxide is formed by incomplete fossil fuel combustion.

Nuclear Energy: A Promising Energy Source

Seminal questions facing today’s scientists are whether the developed clean energy technologies can offset the spiked carbon footprint. According to Coyle and Simmons (2014), one ton of Uranium can produce up to 44 million kWh of electricity than coal that would require 20,000 tons to generate the same amount of electricity. By the end of 2018, there were 449 operable nuclear reactors compared to 39 in the previous year (Rising, 2019). The United Arab Emirates Nuclear Energy Program installed a nuclear plant (Barakah Plant) that is expected to produce at least 25% of its electricity needs (Turak, 2020). The state recently attained 1400MW clean electricity with Barakah unit 1 attaining one-hundred percent power (“About us,” n.d.). The unit, operated and managed by Nahaw Energy Company, is currently UAE’s single most substantial power generator (World Nuclear News, 2020). In March 2020, Unit 2’s operating license was granted by the country’s regulatory authority (Saadi and Critchlow, 2021). Furthermore, on 6 April 2021, in a public statement, the FANR announced the Barakah-1 nuclear power unit’s commercial operation’s commencement; this marks a significant milestone in developing and consuming nuclear energy (Saadi and Critchlow, 2021). Scientists believe nuclear fusion energy will be inexhaustible and infinite for all practical reasons.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) government officially publicized its interest in exploring nuclear energy as a supplemental energy source to address the nation’s surge in energy demand. The Nuclear Policy, also distinguished as the Policy of the UAE on the Evaluation and Potential Development of Peaceful Nuclear Energy, deduced that nuclear power is a proven commercially competitive and environmentally promising energy source (“Policy of the United Arab Emirates,” no date). The policy also underscores the development of an effective, vigilant, and independent regulatory body to oversee the implementation of a secure, safe, credible, and stable nuclear program. Created on 24 September 2009, per the Federal Law by Decree No. 6 of 2009, the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) oversees UAE’s peaceful nuclear energy utilization (“Policy of the United Arab Emirates,” no date). Nuclear power is currently perceived as a reliable baseload for electricity; it will be instrumental in meeting the world’s electrical needs.

Nuclear Energy Production

Fission

Nuclear fission refers to the breaking down or splitting of atoms into smaller atoms. Neutrons are present in all atomic nuclei except in the hydrogen atom. Typically, the fuel used in nuclear power plants is Uranium, which has a high fission probability (Haider, 2019). The Uranium breaks down into smaller parts when it absorbs the neutrons releasing energy in the form of heat. Each time the uranium atom splits, it releases more atoms creating a self-sustaining chain that generates large amounts of heat used to heat water. The water in the nuclear plants is used for two purposes: moderating uranium movement and generating high-pressure steam used by turbines to produce electricity.

Fusion

In nuclear fusion, two or more lighter nuclei merge under high pressure and temperature to form one heavy nucleus. The merging process releases large amounts of nuclear energy. Nuclear fusion provides a virtually inexhaustible energy source with fewer environmental concerns than fission energy (Haider, 2019). Unlike fission reactors that use Uranium as fuel, nuclear fusion reactors use hydrogen or helium. The reactors need to provide sufficiently high temperatures for the particles to generate the required reaction.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

Nuclear energy has shown the potential to bring a harmonious balance between humans’ insatiable demand for energy and limited energy resources. As mentioned earlier, nuclear fusion energy will be inexhaustible for all practical reasons. For instance, a ton of Uranium can produce up to 44 million kWh of electricity than coal that would require 20,000 tons to generate the same amount of electricity (Coyle and Simmons, 2014, p.43). This data implies that nuclear energy can generate 20,000 more energy than coal. This statement is supported by another study conducted by Brook et al. (2014), which demonstrated that atomic fission energy could generate enormous energy volumes that will run modern and future societies safely, economically, and sustainably. Sustainable implies that the energy resource can produce power over a long period without depriving future generations of nuclear energy. Given that the human population is anticipated to increase in futurity, nuclear energy should be considered the next-generation energy source.

The second advantage of nuclear energy is that it significantly lowers carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy is CO2-free at the generation point and only emits 20 grams of CO2 per KWh of produced electricity. According to Coyle and Simmons (2014), nuclear power plants will offset seven to eight million tons of CO2 each year if it replaces fossil fuels. It is estimated that nuclear power will eliminate 600 million tons of carbon every year if it replaces coal (Coyle and Simmons, 2014, p.45). It will also offset sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and particulates, significantly improving air quality. Brook et al. (2014) argue that using nuclear energy is similar to removing one-third of all vehicles worldwide. Lowering the net greenhouse gas emissions will significantly reverse the impact of energy resource use on the environment.

Disadvantages

The safety of using nuclear energy as the definitive energy source is still contentious. Although nuclear energy production does not emit GHG, it produces radioactive wastes, which causes a range of life-threatening conditions, including cancer and congenital disabilities. Unless appropriately handled and stored, the radioactive wastes may end up in the environment and cause significant effects on human life. Another nuclear energy disadvantage is linked to nuclear weapons’ safety concerns and nuclear power plants’ operations. Some believe that nuclear energy is a misbegotten child of nuclear weapons that threatens world peace. Others have concerns about fusion safety devices that control the plasma fusion reactions. Any accidents and mishandling can cause severe consequences to the environment and human life and health.

Conclusion

There is currently an energy crisis, and the world needs clean, carbon-free, and sustainable energy resources. Nuclear energy is the ultimate solution to the current energy crisis. It is a carbon-free energy resource, inexhaustible, cost-efficient, and sustainable. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy will significantly reduce GHG emissions and reverse climate change effects. This innovation has been linked with lowers carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases and it is inexhaustible.

Introduction

Nuclear energy is magnetizing renewed interest of society and politics due to its impending role in long-term agendas claiming to decrease the danger of global warming and, in a more universal, to achieve sustainable policies. Nevertheless, any project of nuclear origin gets the concerns up about the dangers connected with the discharge of radioactivity for the duration of accident circumstances, radioactive squander discarding, and nuclear bludgeons production. Then in the context of the probability for an innovative nuclear plan in Mexico, it is essential to create a policy to progress the social reception of nuclear power. This anxiety is restricting from an environmental and financial standpoint.

Public Acceptance

It is obvious that nuclear energy and renewable resources are the assures to aim to decrease the danger of worldwide climate change. Nevertheless, most types of renewable resources are not bloodthirsty when their prices are evaluated in comparison with accepted energy sources presently obtainable, and the charge at which those prices will be decreased in the future is doubtful. Nuclear energy can be a benefit in the medium and long term perspective, but the communal and public awareness of nuclear energy breeds anxieties about nuclear technology that must be directed to attain the public taking. Some researches have been conducted in the OECD states that reveals the necessity for better public partaking methodical and technical conclusion making, so the contacts with and within society on dangers and advantages of nuclear energy is a central matter for enhancing consensual conclusion making process in nuclear energy alternatives. (Blackburn, 1987)

Realizing risk discernment, contacting the civil community on the matters at the chance, and connecting the society with decision making in an effective way is significant for the future of nuclear energy. The Nuclear Development Committee consequently involved research on those issues in its 2001-2002 program of work with the point of presenting policy creators with essential discoveries and proposals on the approach for a better realization of community and nuclear energy.

The shortage of understanding and accord between the civil community and authorities on matters connected with nuclear energy may cause conflicting circumstances in some cases and will ultimately outline energy principles and supply mix alternatives that are not optimized from the perspective of the community as a whole. Enhanced communication between stakeholders exchanging and arguing vigorous data would endorse harmony building and generally agreed on choices. (Matthew, 2002)

Conclusion

In general, nuclear energy has been confirmed to be most helpful to our community. Consequently, of this practice, the USA has diminished its reliance on foreign-imported energy resources. The fact is that the United States and other nuclear states save about 70 billion dollars each year by means of decreasing oil-importing from other states. Nuclear energy has also been confirmed to be a defender of the atmosphere as CO2, greenhouse gasses, and other gases are not emitting. There are some key disadvantages to retorting to nuclear energy. These downsides involve the definite security of applying nuclear energy, the squander it creates, and the nuclear weapon that nuclear energy offers. Overall, however, it is believed that the exploitation of nuclear energy seriously overshadows any other source of energy. (Yager, 2001)