Nuclear Energy: The Peaceful Atom?

Joyee Basu
Research Scholar
Department of Physics
Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, Howrah 711103
Email - jbasu@physics.becs.ac.in

Why nuclear energy?

Our world is sustaining itself today on the burning of fossil fuels (85% of the
world's energy is from coal, oil and gas). There are other sources of energies
like solar, tidal, wind, natural gases, but they all have natural limitations in
daily use. Alternative sources of energy are not very useful, for several
reasons, mainly because of a problem of "net energy": the amount of energy
output is not sufficiently greater than the amount of energy input. Alternative
sources simply havent been able to replace 30 billion annual barrels of oil.
There will never be a solar-powered airplane. Wind power has some
drawbacks; a "wind farm" requires extensive areal coverage to produce
significant amounts of energy, and bird fatalities have been a concern.
Producing hydrogen with solar power is still a dream of environmentalists
and renewable energy proponents. Hydroelectric dams are reaching their
practical limits. Solar, wind, and geothermal power are only effective in
certain areas and for certain purposes; such types of power, in any case, are
only of significant value when converted into electrical energy, requiring the
use of disposable batteries - a practice as ecologically unsound as the use of
fossil fuels. Some developed countries may have used the above
unconventional sources in satisfactory ways, but the need of energy is
increasing every moment, at a large scale, and the greatest problem with
these unconventional sources are that they cant keep up to that pace but
nuclear energy can.
How is it commercially used?
Conventional thermal power plants all have a fuel source to provide heat.
Examples are gas, coal, or oil. For a nuclear power plant, this heat is
provided by nuclear fission inside the nuclear reactor. When a relatively large
fissile atomic nucleus is struck by a neutron it forms two or more smaller
nuclei as fission products, releasing energy and neutrons in a process called
nuclear fission. The neutrons then trigger further fission. And so on. When
this nuclear chain reaction is controlled, the energy released can be used to
heat water, produce steam and drive turbine to generate electricity. The
chain reaction is controlled through the use of materials that absorb and
moderate neutrons. In uranium-fueled reactors, neutrons must be moderated
(slowed down) because slow neutrons are more likely to cause fission when
colliding with a uranium-235 nucleus. Light water reactors use ordinary water

to moderate and cool the reactors. When at operating temperatures if the

temperature of the water increases, its density drops, and fewer neutrons
passing through it are slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That
negative feedback stabilizes the reaction rate.

Does it even work?

The world is divided over the industrial use of nuclear energy. Some of the
European countries presently use nuclear energy to generate around 80% of
their electricity. France, for example, has the cleanest and cheapest
electricity in Europe: 80 per cent of its electricity is nuclear and 15 per cent
is water power.
What goes against?
Nobody wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard, and frightening publicity
regarding reactor meltdowns at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island has only
reinforced these fears. There have been only two serious accidents in the
commercial exploitation of nuclear power: Three Mile Island in 1979 (in
Pennsylvania, US) and Chernobyl in 1986 (in Ukraine when it was part of the
Soviet Union).
TMI was the worst accident one can imagine in a western power reactor: the
core of the reactor melted and much of it fell to the bottom of the reactor
vessel; but the radioactivity released was almost entirely confined in the
reinforced concrete containment structure, the air-tight, silo-like building that
houses the reactor. It was designed for that purpose, and as a result the
amount of radiation that went out into the atmosphere was a million times
less than at Chernobyl. The small amount that escaped was quite innocuous,
and as a result no one at TMI was seriously irradiated nor died. In fact, Three
Mile Island was a real success story for nuclear safety: the worst possible
accident occurred (core meltdown), and yet no one was injured or killed.
Chernobyl was different. The reactors at Chernobyl had no containment
structure. The reactor was unstable (may be a faulty design), and was
operated that night in a way known to be dangerous (ironically, in order to do
a safety test they bypassed all the security systems), provoking a surge in
power and a water vapor explosion. The 600 tons of graphite moderator then
caught fire and burned for several weeks. The smoke carried more than half
of the radioactive fission products directly into the atmosphere where they
were swept hither and yon by the winds. There is difference over the exact
casualties, but many innocent people suffered death and trauma. The
statistics and data available from different sources contradict each other.
Chernobyl remains the perfect example of what not to do with a nuclear
reactor: a faulty design, an unstable reactor, operate it in a forbidden way,
and disconnect all security systems before doing so.
However in both those cases the hazards could be avoided. Its somehow
different than that happens in a case of tsunami or earthquake where man
just has to accept his loss. Its so easy to switch on the gas or to ignite a drop

of kerosene at home, how many fold the difficulty is to produce the smallest
amount of nuclear energy at home? Almost infinite. Splitting the atom to boil
water is like using a chainsaw to cut butter. This difference is to be kept on
mind when dealing with nuclear power plants. A nuclear reactor needs
almost infinite serious attention and monitoring round the clock. Every single
article is dangerous if not handled with proper caution.

What about nuclear waste?

Another drawback that is associated with the use of nuclear energy is that of
nuclear waste. One gram of uranium yields about as much energy as a ton of
coal or oilit is the famous "factor of a million" effect. Nuclear wastes are
accordingly about a million times smaller than fossil fuel wastes. Most fossil
fuel waste are gases that go up the smokestack and we don't see it, but it is
not without effect, causing global warming, acid rain, smog and other
atmospheric pollution. The volume of nuclear waste produced is very small.
In his whole lifetime, the volume of highly active vitrified waste that is
produced by a typical French citizen is only the volume of a golf ball. The
nuclear wastes are confined (which is easy because they are solid, not
gaseous), and they are not rejected into the biosphere (therefore the impact
on the ecosystems is absolutely nil). Another interesting feature of nuclear
wastes is that they spontaneously decay over time, unlike stable chemical
wastes, which last forever, such as arsenic or mercury.
An acceptable regime for the disposal of higher level, and longer-lived
nuclear and other hazardous wastes remains to be implemented in most
countries. This has once again been brought into focus with the possible
resurgence of nuclear power due to a growing power demand and a need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More recently, the prospect of the
clandestine use of nuclear waste as a weapon has once again focused
attention on the security of interim surface storage of these wastes.
The nuclear waste still remains a controversial problem.

Will the energy crisis be over?

Mined uranium comes in several forms, or isotopes. For starting a nuclear

chain reaction in a reactor, the only important isotope is uranium-235, which
accounts for JUST 7 out of 1000 atoms in the mined product. To fuel a nuclear
reactor, the concentration of uranium-235 has to be increased to 40 to 50
out of 1000 atoms. This is done by separating isotopes in an enrichment
plant to achieve the higher concentration. Reactor operators could increase
the amount of fuel made from a given amount of natural uranium by buying
more enrichment services to recover more uranium-235 atoms. Current
enrichment capacity is enough to recover only about 4 out of 7 uranium-235
atoms. Limited uranium supplies could be stretched if industry could recover

5 or 6 of these atoms, but there is not enough processing capacity worldwide

to do so.
Even Nuclear power may suffer from a lack of fuel. The only good side is that
thorium can be used in a more advanced technology; the required uranium
can be artificially produced in the future laboratory, whereas oil and coal
cannot be produced.

Which side to be taken?

Another important thing is that the industrial and commercial use of nuclear
energy especially in India is right now at a nascent state. On the way of
development of any technology there can be many unforeseen positive and
negative outcomes. Most of the controversies on this topic all over the world
have so far been largely politically motivated, and India is no exception. A
side is to be taken only after all right information and all pros and cons are
well established with authentic facts and statistics.
What is the future?
Nuclear energy is a boon its power is authoritarian. It can not only solve
earths energy crisis, but also can someday be used as energy sources on
other planets. It is the energy source of sun, starts and the universe. It is the
power behind creation. An extensive effort is needed not to oppose but to
find out comprehensive and useful ways so that nuclear industry can address
its economic, proliferation, and safety concerns.
Whether its a bane is entirely on man.

Sources and references:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/
2. WNA Annual Symposium 2002
3. www.stormsmith.nl
4. http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/
5. "Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy" by Bruno Comby, published by TNR
Editions, 350 pages (available at <www.comby.org>).