Nuclear energy is a source of energy, generated during a nuclear reaction, by change in the nucleus of an atom. The source of nuclear energy is the mass of the nucleus and energy generated during a nuclear reaction is due to conversion of mass into energy.
There are two ways to obtain nuclear energy:
1. Nuclear fission
2. Nuclear fusion
Nuclear fission is when the nucleus of a heavy radioactive element like uranium or plutonium splits up into smaller nuclei, when bombarded by low energy neutrons. A huge amount of heat is generated in this process, which is used in nuclear power plants to generate electricity.
Nuclear fusion is when two light elements fuse together to form a heavier element and release uncontrollable energy. Thus it cannot be used to generate electricity, unlike the fission reaction. The sun's energy is also generated by nuclear fusion.
If our technology can reach the point to allow us to control nuclear fusion reactions then think of the amount of power we could generate. By being able to control nuclear fusion we could emulate the largest source of known power in our solar system. In 2006 world wide we averaged about 16 terawatts a day(1 terawatt = one trillion watts). So lets assume that we now use more power in 2013 than we did back in 2006. Lets say we now use 20 terawatts a day. The sun produces roughly 400 trillion watts a second, that is 400 terawatts . Though we are not able to replicate the exact type of energy the sun generates, we don't exactly need to. All we need to do is to replicate the fusion reactions that can generate massive amounts of energy that then could be distributed world wide.
Environmental benefits
Of all energy sources, nuclear energy has one of the lowest impact on the environment especially in relation to kilowatts produces because nuclear plants do not emit harmful gases, they require a smaller area than other energy plants, and effectively minimize or negate other impacts. Nuclear energy is the most "ecologically efficient" of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact.
Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source because it does not burn anything to produce electricity. It provides water quality and aquatic life because the water discharged from a nuclear power plant contains no harmful pollutants. Discharging all this water usually causes the area around the nuclear plant to become somewhat of a wetland providing nesting areas for wildlife to flourish.
Economic benefits
Nuclear power plants generally take up less space than conventional plants. This allows the rest of the land to be either preserved or used for housing or businesses. Having a smaller plot of land also lowers overall cost in the original construction of the plant.
Nuclear power plants have long periods of operation. They usually are designed to operate continuously for long periods of time, usually they can run 540 days before they need to be shut down for refueling. The longest run of a reactor is 894 days of non stop production. This was done by the Pickering 7 plant in Ontario, Canada. This particular plant can be refueled while in operation therefore eliminating any downtime.
The cost of producing nuclear energy has been steadily decreasing over time and with more research in a more efficient way to produce this type of energy prices would go even lower. In addition there are no unexpected costs for example there could be a coal shortage or oil shortages. Most nuclear power plants use an enriched form of uranium for fuel. Uranium is a relatively abundant element that occurs naturally in the earth's crust. Uranium oxide is about as common as tin. This would allow nuclear plats to have a stable cost of electricity because of the natural occurring Uranium. Unlike oil and coal Uranium does not take hundreds of thousands of years and immense heat and pressure to produce.
Negative aspects of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy at the moment has some downsides that can be disastrous if not dealt with correctly. Some of the big ones are radioactive waste, nuclear radiation, and national risk.
Radioactive waste is produced by nuclear power generation and other applications of nuclear fission or nuclear technology. The radioactivity diminishes over time, so waste is typically isolated and stored for a period of time until it is no longer poses a hazard. Right now the waste created from nuclear fission can last long periods of time with a slow half life. Having a slow half life means that the waste decays slower and needs to be stored for longer periods of time before it is safe to dispose of.
Nuclear radiation is emitted when the fission reactor generates energy it sometimes emits radiation. This can cause some health issues to the people that work at the plant, if they are not wearing the proper protection while working close to the reactor.
Then having a nuclear reactor is a national risk because if terrorists or some radical group decides to attack the plant, then it will not only cause a portion of the population to lose electricity but also can cause a meltdown of the plant depending on the kind of attack.
Solutions for the negative aspects
Investing more money into the research of nuclear energy can have prevent or even solve most of the negative aspects of nuclear energy.
Radioactive waste is much more of a problem in fission reactors than fusion reactors. In fusion reactors the waste has a very short half life, so it will decay much faster than the waste fission reactors create. The waste from the fusion reactors should only last 50 to 100 years until it is stable enough to dispose of. Then by 300 years the waste would be as radioactive as a piece of coal.
Nuclear radiation can be minimized or even eliminated through proper design of the nuclear plant. And for extra protection workers that work closely to the reactor can wear specially designed suits that protect them from forms of radiation.
Though eliminating the problem of a nuclear plant being a national risk is impossible There are many different things that can be done to help prevent such things from happening. For example if the U.S decided to make a nuclear plant positioning them in the center of the U.S would help protect them from attacks from overseas. Then having them in desolated areas with a low population would also help the security of the plant.
In idyllic hilltop setting in the Cadarache forest of Provence in the south of France 34 nations representing more than half the worlds population have joined forces in making the international nuclear fusion project. Over the next few years about a million individual components of the highly complex fusion reactor will arrive at the Cadarache site from around the world. Here they will put the parts together like a giant Lego model in a nearby building which has a volume equal to 91 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The design, development and construction of a machine that will attempt to emulate the nuclear fusion reactions of the Sun. If this works as planned around 2050's will be when the first commercial nuclear fusion power plants will be seen.
The timeline for this project:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html
(there is another video at this link, I wasn't able to get the source but it has more information on the fusion reactor they are building)
Future investment/My thoughts
Investing in the research of nuclear energy right now can pay off greatly down the line. Not only is it better for the environment than our current major energy producers at moment, but it is more efficient and produces much more energy than our current fossil fuel and coal plants. Most of the negative aspects of nuclear energy can be solved with more research into the field. More research can provide a better design of plants so instead of fission reactors we could be using fusion reactors, which generate much less waste and much more power. Radiation can be contained a lot better with a superior design and set up of the nuclear plant. And good security and positioning can help prevent any thing that would cause damage to the plant. I believe that investing in nuclear research can provide a better more efficient source of energy for the future, and can provide much more energy than our current source without many downsides.
Works cited
http://www.ianswer4u.com/2011/12/nuclear-energy-advantages-of-nuclear.html#axzz2RNlqP74V
http://www.fi.edu/guide/wester/benefits.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-nuclear-energy.htm#
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/21/myths-and-facts-about-natural-gas/184994
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
Negative aspects of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy at the moment has some downsides that can be disastrous if not dealt with correctly. Some of the big ones are radioactive waste, nuclear radiation, and national risk.
Radioactive waste is produced by nuclear power generation and other applications of nuclear fission or nuclear technology. The radioactivity diminishes over time, so waste is typically isolated and stored for a period of time until it is no longer poses a hazard. Right now the waste created from nuclear fission can last long periods of time with a slow half life. Having a slow half life means that the waste decays slower and needs to be stored for longer periods of time before it is safe to dispose of.
Nuclear radiation is emitted when the fission reactor generates energy it sometimes emits radiation. This can cause some health issues to the people that work at the plant, if they are not wearing the proper protection while working close to the reactor.
Then having a nuclear reactor is a national risk because if terrorists or some radical group decides to attack the plant, then it will not only cause a portion of the population to lose electricity but also can cause a meltdown of the plant depending on the kind of attack.
Solutions for the negative aspects
Investing more money into the research of nuclear energy can have prevent or even solve most of the negative aspects of nuclear energy.
Radioactive waste is much more of a problem in fission reactors than fusion reactors. In fusion reactors the waste has a very short half life, so it will decay much faster than the waste fission reactors create. The waste from the fusion reactors should only last 50 to 100 years until it is stable enough to dispose of. Then by 300 years the waste would be as radioactive as a piece of coal.
Nuclear radiation can be minimized or even eliminated through proper design of the nuclear plant. And for extra protection workers that work closely to the reactor can wear specially designed suits that protect them from forms of radiation.
Though eliminating the problem of a nuclear plant being a national risk is impossible There are many different things that can be done to help prevent such things from happening. For example if the U.S decided to make a nuclear plant positioning them in the center of the U.S would help protect them from attacks from overseas. Then having them in desolated areas with a low population would also help the security of the plant.
Fusion energy is feasible
In idyllic hilltop setting in the Cadarache forest of Provence in the south of France 34 nations representing more than half the worlds population have joined forces in making the international nuclear fusion project. Over the next few years about a million individual components of the highly complex fusion reactor will arrive at the Cadarache site from around the world. Here they will put the parts together like a giant Lego model in a nearby building which has a volume equal to 91 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The design, development and construction of a machine that will attempt to emulate the nuclear fusion reactions of the Sun. If this works as planned around 2050's will be when the first commercial nuclear fusion power plants will be seen.
The timeline for this project:
1929: Scientists use Einstein’s equation E=mc² to predict release of large amounts of energy by fusing atomic nuclei together.
1939: German-born physicist Hans Bethe, pictured, demonstrates that nuclear fusion powers stars.
1950: Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm in the USSR propose a “tokamak” fusion reactor.
1956: Tokamak programme begins in strict secrecy.
1969: Tokamak results declassified, astounding Western scientists.
1973: Design work begins on Joint European Torus (Jet), a tokamak-type reactor in Europe.
1983: Jet completed at Culham, Oxfordshire, on time and to budget.
1985: USSR proposes an international fusion-energy project.
1988: Design work begins for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, later known as simply Iter. 1992: Design phase begins for Iter.
1997: Jet produces 16 megawatts of fusion power, the current world record.
2005: Cadarache, France, chosen as Iter site.
2021-22: “First plasma” scheduled, when ionised gases will be injected into the Iter tokamak.
2027-28: Iter “goes nuclear” with injection of tritium.
2030s: First demonstration fusion reactor to produce electricity for grid.
2050s onwards: First commercial nuclear fusion power plants.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html
(there is another video at this link, I wasn't able to get the source but it has more information on the fusion reactor they are building)
Future investment/My thoughts
Investing in the research of nuclear energy right now can pay off greatly down the line. Not only is it better for the environment than our current major energy producers at moment, but it is more efficient and produces much more energy than our current fossil fuel and coal plants. Most of the negative aspects of nuclear energy can be solved with more research into the field. More research can provide a better design of plants so instead of fission reactors we could be using fusion reactors, which generate much less waste and much more power. Radiation can be contained a lot better with a superior design and set up of the nuclear plant. And good security and positioning can help prevent any thing that would cause damage to the plant. I believe that investing in nuclear research can provide a better more efficient source of energy for the future, and can provide much more energy than our current source without many downsides.
Works cited
http://www.ianswer4u.com/2011/12/nuclear-energy-advantages-of-nuclear.html#axzz2RNlqP74V
http://www.fi.edu/guide/wester/benefits.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-nuclear-energy.htm#
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/21/myths-and-facts-about-natural-gas/184994
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
