The Nuclear Debate

We can see from the last article that Nuclear power has proven to be an attractive path to take in order to counteract the issues presented by the depletion of non-renewables. I was intending to present the cons of Nuclear power in this article, however I recently attended a three day conference in Buxton during which a debate was held discussing the positives and negatives of nuclear power and I felt this would be a perfect article to place to tie between the pros and cons, therefore the cons article would shortly follow this. The debate was lead by two very knowledgable, highly trained individuals holding very high positions in the nuclear industry.  This was Mr.P.Wilkinson and Prof.G.Butler, below is an overview of both their contributions to the nuclear and environmental industry:


Supporting Nuclear Power:
 

Gregg Butler

Deputy Chief Executive, BNFL

Leader of a change management programme at the UK nuclear fuel manufacture Springfields site

Negotiated a complex £4Bn fixed price deal with Scottish Nuclear, now part of British Energy

Developed and patented, on behalf of BNFL, a method of density control for uranium oxide nuclear fuel, still in worldwide use. 

Director, UK Nirex

Member of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC)

Managing Director, Pangea Resources Australia Pty Ltd

Chairman, Westlakes Scientific Consulting



Opposing Nuclear Power:


Peter Wilkinson

Co-founder of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK

Campaigns Director Greenpeace UK

Member of the original Board of Greenpeace International

Antarctic expedition leader over six years

Member of the Sizewell Site Stakeholder Group, reviewing and providing informed challenges to the operations on and plans for the Sizewell site.

 Member of the HSE Transition Advisory Group

We were able to ask several questions, however I have condensed the main issues covered and summarised the answers, the discussion was highly informative and very entertaining at times, especially when certain people got a bit carried away and were practically told to ‘shut up’.

The first issue addressed was the suitability of nuclear energy as an actual solution for the UK’s looming energy crisis. According to Peter, this was not a very cost effective approach, he stressed that there are other solutions out there,  however they are being ignored. He also went on to explain that aside from the problems introduced when building new plants, the older nuclear power plants are still causing waste issues, for example the Sellafield plants are currently polluting the local air with plutonium. To counteract this Gregg explained that it is a relatively new technology, and with all early stages in technologies there is going to be problems, the important thing is to develop a learning curve. This is where the UK are having issues, because there is no consistency and data logging of the nuclear industry progress, there are no learning curves and therefore problems tend to reoccur rather than get resolved. He also went on to reinforce the point I mentioned in the last article, that nuclear power can also be used to produce energy indirectly in producing biofuels. However Peter thinks biofuels are inefficient.  

We then went on to look at the issues faced within geological disposal of nuclear waste and whether it is wise to put into practice stakeholder engagement. Geological disposal simply means that the nuclear waste will be buried hundreds of meters below the ground in a stable geologic environment.  Stakeholder engagement allows any individual, community or organisation that may be affected by the waste disposal to have meaningful opportunities to express their views, which will be then be taken into consideration in the decision making process. Gregg fully supports this idea and believes that it promotes democracy, stating that consultation of the locals is very important. However Peter counteracted this stating that firstly people are presented with insufficient information in order to make their decisions, and somethings are being held back from them. He also explained that nuclear waste outlasts humans and therefore the people of today will be making a decision for future generations who will have to accept the decisions by default. Furthermore he also went to explain that science isn’t always right and therefore there could be some serious consequences for the locals’ health,and he finally added that the UK has proven to be geologically unsuitable for nuclear waste disposal. Gregg replied to this by stating that the stakeholders would regulate the scientific inaccuracies, and that rather than using the UK negotiations could be struck with other countries.

We discussed the impact government has on the nuclear industry. Greg explained that the government were in favour of nuclear power simply because it cuts CO2  emissions significantly. However Peter stated that this is because they are not educated properly on the technology and are blindly following it. He then went on to explain that allowing people holding bachelors of arts and business degrees to read, analyse and understand scientific reports in order to make decisions regarding nuclear energy isn’t exactly the most confidence inspiring method. This results in the government ignoring the uncertainties and doubt regarding low dose radiation  with regards to how dangerousit actually is. The government also fully support the reprocessing of nuclear waste streams to produce one spent fuel, which Peter explains only cuts 20% of the fuel and increases operating costs by 20% stressing that economically it is a very bad option. Gregg explains that reprocessing waste streams allows us to deal with one spent fuel rather than several different waste streams.

Finally we concluded on the topic of public perception and how information and science reports are tailored to favour nuclear energy introduction,  Peter explained. He states that there is no transparency in information and that the public should be able to access all information available in order to have faith and trust nuclear research. However Gregg responded to this by explaining that some information needs to be keep confidential for the safety of the country to avoid terrorist threats etc…

It can be seen from this brief summary of the debate that it is difficult to conclude whether or not to adapt nuclear energy within the UK. The positives of this technology have been looked into and the debate was inconclusive, so all that remains is to ask ‘What are the serious disadvantages to this technology that are pushing people such as Mr.Wilkinson to take such a strong stance against it?’

What Does Nuclear Energy Bring to the Table?

OK, so we now know briefly how nuclear energy is produced alongside a little background history, but what are the real benefits of such an energy source?
If we look at the largest sources of energy in today’s society we find that they are not evenly distributed over the planet. Over 68% of oil is concentrated in the volatile region of the Middle East and around 67% of gas reserves are concentrated in Russia. This introduces a risk in terms of reliability on the supply of energy for other countries, it also allows these regions to monopolise  these resources of energy. Furthermore with the introduction of the Kyoto agreement which demanded that signatories decreased their CO2 emissions in order to reduce global warming, nuclear power plants seemed like an extremely attractive option. Some countries utilised nuclear energy more than others. As we can see from the graph below showing the percentage of electricity produced from nuclear sources from 1980-2004, there is a huge increase in France from 22% to 80%. This is due to the fact that France is very poor in natural fossil fuel sources and therefore a large emphasis is placed on nuclear energy.

Japan is researching methods in which energy in the transportation sector can also be generated by nuclear energy. This involves replacing the hydrocarbons such as gasoline and diesel oil with hydrogen, electricity or synthetic liquid fuels. Using nuclear energy we can produce these energy carriers, or if not we can combine nuclear energy and fossil fuels by a synergistic process. Again this eradicates or at least minimises the emission of carbon dioxide. In order to produce hydrogen, nuclear electricity can be used to electrolyse water, or with the addition of heat can be used in high-temperature electrolysis of steam. Hydrogen energy can be used in various sectors such as fuel cell vehicles and fuel cells to supply electricity to rail trains and marine vessels, also hydrogen can be used in jet engines to propel aircrafts. With regards to electricity, the Japanese government are introducing electric automobiles into the market which allow supply of nuclear energy in the transportation sector through the battery-powered car. However the batteries in these cars are very expensive and therefore production is low. The introduction of a hybrid plug-in car (illustrated below) combined the benefits of nuclear energy and the low costs of using fossil fuels. It was illustrated that on average a hybrid plug-in car could cover 70% of the distance that a Japanese car travels per day running on electricity generated by nuclear energy, and then travels the remaining 30% of the distance using petroleum. This means that around 70% of CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel burning can be cut down if these plug-in hybrid cars were mass-produced and introduced into society.

 

As well as being used in the generation of electricity, nuclear energy was also used in propulsion. The nuclear energy is compacted into vehicles that must travel long distances without refuelling. This is used in naval vessels such as submarines and aircraft carriers. For example in the Cold War there were 100 nuclear powered submarines and a significant number of aircraft carriers in the US fleet. The first aircraft carrier to be deployed was the enterprise used in 1961 and illustrated below. You can see as a tribute the  men on board the ship are standing in a formation on the flight deck spelling out Einstein’s formula.

It’s obvious from this that nuclear energy does pose very beneficial for the economy, yet it is still one of the smaller contributors to energy in today’s society. Why is this? Possibly because alongside the benefits it also brings problems and dangers to the table….

 

Nuclear Power – A brief history

Today’s society consumes more energy than ever, and energy demand will continue growing as bigger, better and faster technologies are introduced. Energy consumption rate has risen by over 50% in the past 20 years.  The pressing issue here is that renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro etc.) are not providing sufficient energy to meet demand and non-renewable sources (Coal, Crude Oil etc.) are inevitably coming to an end. Furthermore the production of greenhouses gases impacts the climate thus further complicating matters and adding to the problem. Therefore, there has never been a more crucial time for the utilisation of nuclear energy. This type energy is generated as a result of controlled nuclear reactions i.e. nuclear fission, and can be used in various ways, be it in reactors or even in bomb making!!

In order to understand the impacts of nuclear energy, it is useful to first explore its history and how it was received by the general public. This will build a good foundation to allow analysis of recent issues and problems presented by nuclear energy, exactly what caused these problems and how harmful or disastrous they could be. Once the problems are recognised, it is vital that they be addressed, after detailed investigation, with solutions such as suitable waste immobilisation. It will also allow for discovery and evaluation of the great benefits nuclear energy introduces and the great impact this has on the economy and the environment. In this Nuclear blog I aim to discuss and investigate nuclear energy as a replacement energy source as well as how it can be coupled with renewable energy to meet the economic constraints of today’s society and most importantly how the waste it produces can be immobilised efficiently. It will also explore how, over history, nuclear energy was manipulated in the production of nuclear weaponry i.e. the atomic bomb.

To get things rolling I want to start this blog with a report on the brief history of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy dates back to late 1800’s. To be exact ionising radiation was discovered by Wilhelm Rontgen in 1895 producing continuous x-rays by passing an electric current through an evacuated glass. Progressive steps were taken in the research of radiation until 1902 when Ernest Rutherford illustrated that radioactivity creates a different element by emitting an alpha (2 protons & 2 neutrons) or beta particle (an electron) from the nucleus. To understand how this works let’s look at an atom of nitrogen.

Nitrogen Atom (N)
Ernest Rutherford

The yellow spheres are the protons, and the orange spheres are the neutrons, combined they form the nucleaus and give the atom its mass number (mass number = protons + neutrons). Nitrogen contains 7 protons (carrying a positive charge) and 7 neutrons with a mass number of 14. The 7 small white spheres orbiting the nucleas in shells are the electrons (carrying a negative charge). These numbers characterise the nitrogen atom, therefore if they are altered there would be changes in the element.  Using this research Rutherford illustrated, in 1919, that all the particles fired from a radium source into nitrogen could form oxygen as a result of the nuclear rearrangement. He fired alpha particles (2 proton & 2 neutrons) at the nitrogen atom, this in turn increased the amount of protons and neutrons in nitrogen from 14 to same amount as in an isotope (an atom of an element with the same number of protons but different number of neutrons) of oxygen, and thus the element was converted from nitrogen to oxygen.

In the 1930s research accelerated and scientists were experimenting with bombarding atoms with protons and neutrons in order to create artificial radionuclides. It was also illustrated that upon bombardment of the nucleus with the neutron, the neutron is captured causing severe vibration and leading the nucleus to split into two not quite equal parts thus releasing significant amounts of energy. This is called nuclear fission and it was discovered this fission reaction could release further more neutrons which in turn would lead to more fission resulting in a vast amount of energy being released. Since its discovery nuclear energy, used with bombs and reactors, has been received with great controversy. It is associated with mutation, atomic weapons and universal doom. It is a prime example of irrational public fear of a misunderstood technology. This is illustrated by a recent survey undertaken in America and Japan showing that reactor accidents evoked more feelings of dread amongst the public than any other modern risk, including problems that harm millions of people annually. Also in the early days nuclear scientists were seen as alchemists due to the misunderstanding of the transmutation capabilities of nuclear science. This misunderstanding led to the labeling of nuclear energy as the ‘elixir of life’ in the early 20th century. Such an ideology was reinforced by the discovery that radium was useful in treating certain types of cancer, however the press reported that radium was capable of fully conquering all types of cancer (media hype). By the 1930s radium was included in pastes, powdered pills, tonics and even mineral waters to cure baldness, restore youth etc. However the public eventually came to learn that radium has as much chance of causing mutations and cancer as treating it. Up until this point nuclear energy was only seen to be useful for medicinal purposes, however over the late 20th century nuclear fission energy was harnessed and used in several ways, with the main use being in the nuclear fuel cycle delivering the nuclear energy we know today. Nuclear fission occurs when a heavy atomic nucleus breaks into smaller pieces (decay) releasing energy. This process can also be accelerated by bombardment of the nucleus with neutrons. Let’s take for example uranium, the most stable isotope has a mass number of 238 (146 protons + 92 neutrons) and is the slowest decaying. Uranium 235 decays slightly faster, however is still relatively stable. If we were to bombard U-235 with neutrons, the neutron would attach to the nucleus and form U-236, a very unstable isotope. This decays rapidly into an atom of barium and krypton. This is called induced fission. This is illustrated in the diagram below.

Bombarding a Nucleus with a Neutron to create Induced Fission

Nuclear scientists manipulated this energy and began using it in nuclear reactors. In 1951 the Experimental Breeder Reactor illustrated electric power can be generated from a nuclear source demonstrating the possibility of breeding plutonium. It was also illustrated that the water in reactor can be left to boil thus generating steam directly. However there was scepticism regarding the dangers of the instability associated with the boiling. As a result BORAX tests were undertaken to show that boiling reactors can operate safely and as a result further work was implemented illustrating electrical generation in 1955. This resulted in the commercial manufacture of boiling water reactors with the first being put into operation in Illinois, USA in 1960. Research in the USA led to the discovery of the pressurised water reactor with the first being used to produce commercial electric power at Pennsylvania USA in 1957. These reactors have been enhanced and improved through the year up until today, to produce the nuclear energy we know and hate/love (?).