NUCLEAR POWER

SMALL THINGS CAN MAKE BIG DIFFERENCES

Mehmet Fatih Unal | 140212043 | 18.04.2018

How it All Began ?
Have you ever been in an argument about nuclear power?
I have, and i found it frustrating and confusing, so let’s try and get to grips with this
topic.
It all started in the 1940s.After the shock and horror of the war and the use of the
atomic bomb, nuclear energy promised to be a peaceful spin-off of the new technology,
helping the world get back on its feet.
Everyone’s imagination was running wild.
Would electricity become free?
Could nuclear power help settle the Antarctic?
Would there be nuclear-powered cars, planes, or houses?
It seemed that this was just a few years of hard work away.
One thing was certain: the future was atomic.
Just a few years later, there was a sort of atomic age hangover; as it turned out, nuclear
power was very complicated and very expensive.
Turning physics into engineering was easy on paper, but hard in real life.
Also, private companies thought that nuclear power was much too risky as an
investment; most of them would much rather stick with gas, coal, and oil.
But there were many people who didn’t just want to abandon the promise of the atomic
age; an exciting new technology, the prospect of enormously cheap electricity, the
prospect of being independent of oil and gas imports, and, in some cases, a secret
desire to possess atomic weapons provided a strong motivation to keep going.
Nuclear power’s finest hour finally came in the early 1970s, when war in the Middle
East caused oil prices to skyrocket worldwide.
Now, commercial interest and investment picked up at a dazzling pace.
More than half of all the nuclear reactors in the world were built between 1970 and
1985.
But which type of reactor to build, given how many different types there were to choose
from?
A surprising underdog candidate won the day: the light water reactor. It wasn’t very
innovative, and it wasn’t too popular with scientists, but it had some decisive
advantages: it was there, it worked, and it wasn’t terribly expensive.
So, what does a light water reactor do?
Well, the basic principle is shockingly simple: it heats up water using an artificial chain
reaction. Nuclear fission releases several million times more energy than any chemical
reaction could. Really heavy elements on the brink of stability, like uranium-235, get
bombarded with neutrons.
The neutron is absorbed, but the result is unstable. Most of the time, it immediately
splits into fast-moving lighter elements, some additional free neutrons, and energy in
the form of radiation.
The radiation heats the surrounding water, while the neutrons repeat the process with
other atoms, releasing more neutrons and radiation in a closely controlled chain
reaction.

SAYFA 1
Very different from the fast, destructive runaway reaction in an atomic bomb. In our
light water reactor, a moderator is needed to control the neutrons’ energy.
Simple, ordinary water does the job, which is very practical, since water is used to drive
the turbines anyway. The light water reactor became prevalent because it’s simple and
cheap.
However, it is neither the safest, most efficient, nor technically elegant nuclear reactor.
The renewed nuclear hype lasted barely a decade, though in 1979, the Three Mile
Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania barely escaped a catastrophe when its core
melted. In 1986, the Chernobyl catastrophe directly threatened Central Europe with a
radioactive cloud, and in 2011 the drawn-out Fukushima disaster sparked new
discussions and concerns. While in the 1980s 218 new nuclear power reactors went
live, their number and nuclears’ global share of electricity production has stagnated
since the end of the ’80s.
So, what’s the situation today?
Today, nuclear energy meets around 10% of the world’s energy demand. There are
about 439 nuclear reactors in 31 countries. About 70 new reactors are under
construction in 2015, most of them in countries which are growing quickly.
All in all, 116 new reactors are planned worldwide. Most nuclear reactors were built
more than 25 years ago with pretty old technology.

SAYFA 2
More than 80% are various types of light water reactor. Today, many countries are
faced with a choice: the expensive replacement of the aging reactors, possibly with
more efficient, but less tested models, or a move away from nuclear power towards
newer or older technology with different cost and environmental impacts.
So, should we use nuclear energy?

Arguments for nuclear as renewable energy

Most supporters of nuclear energy point out the low carbon emission aspect of nuclear
energy as its major characteristic to be defined as renewable energy. According to
nuclear power opponents, if the goal to build a renewable energy infrastructure is to
lower carbon emission then there is no reason for not including nuclear energy in that
list.

But one of the most interesting arguments for including nuclear energy in the
renewable energy portfolio came from Bernard L Cohen, former professor at University
of Pittsburg. Professor Cohen defined the term 'indefinite'(time span required for an
energy source to be sustainable enough to be called renewable energy) in numbers
by using the expected relationship between the sun (source of solar energy) and the
earth. According to Professor Cohen, if the Uranium deposit could be proved to last as
long as the relationship between the Earth and Sun is supposed to last (5 billion years)
then nuclear energy should be included in the renewable energy portfolio.

In his paper Professor Cohen claims that using breeder reactors (nuclear reactor able
to generate more fissile material than it consumes) it is possible to fuel the earth with
nuclear energy indefinitely.

SAYFA 3
Although the amount of uranium deposit available could only supply nuclear energy for
about 1000 years, Professor Cohen believes actual amount of uranium deposit
available is way more than what is considered extractable right now. In his arguments
he includes uranium that could be extracted at a higher cost, uranium from the sea
water and also uranium from eroding earth crust by river water. All of those possible
uranium resources if used in a breeder reactor would be enough to fuel the earth for
another 5 billion years and hence renders nuclear energy as renewable energy.

Arguments against nuclear as renewable energy

One of the biggest arguments against including nuclear energy in the list of renewables
is the fact that uranium deposit on earth is finite, unlike solar and wind. To be counted
as renewable, the energy source (fuel) should be sustainable for an indefinite period,
according to the definition of renewable energy.

Another major argument proposed by the opponents of including nuclear energy as

renewable energy is the harmful nuclear waste from nuclear power reactors. The
nuclear waste is considered as a radioactive pollutant that goes against the notion of
a renewable energy source. Yucca Mountain is one of the examples used quite often
to prove this point. Most of the opponents in the US also point at the fact that while
most renewable energy source could render the US energy independent, uranium
would still keep the country energy dependent as US would still have to import
uranium.

Conclusion
It seems like at the heart of debate lies the confusion over the exact definition of
renewable energy and the requirements that needs to be met in order to be one. The
recent statement by Helene Pelosi, the interim director General of IRENA (International
Renewable Energy Agency), saying IRENA will not support nuclear energy programs
because it is a long, complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,
proves that their decision has nothing to do with having a sustainable supply of fuel.
And if that's the case then nuclear proponents would have to figure out a way to deal
with the nuclear waste management issue and other political implications of nuclear
power before they can ask IRENA to reconsider including nuclear energy in the
renewable energy list.

Three reasons why we should stop using nuclear energy

1. Nuclear Weapons Proliferation:
Nuclear technology made a violent entrance onto the world stage just one year after
the world's first-ever nuclear test explosion in 1944. Two large cities were destroyed
by just two single bombs after that, reactor technology slowly evolved as a means of
generating electricity, but it's always been intimately connected with nuclear weapons
technology it's nearly impossible to develop nuclear weapons without access to reactor
technology.

SAYFA 4
In fact, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty serves the purpose of spreading nuclear
reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons, with limited success in forty
years. Five countries have developed their own weapons with the help of reactor
technology the fact of the matter is that it can be very hard to distinguish a covert
nuclear weapons program from the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In the nineteen
seventies the big nuclear powers were happily selling peaceful technology to smaller
countries which then developed weapons of their own the road to deadly nuclear
weapons is always paved with peaceful reactors.
2. Nuclear waste and pollution spent nuclear fuel is not only radioactive:
But also contains extremely poisonous chemical elements like plutonium. It loses its
harmfulness only slowly over several tens of thousands of years and there is also a
process called reprocessing which means the extraction of plutonium from spent
nuclear fuel. It can be used for two purposes: to build nuclear weapons or to use it as
new fuel, but hardly any of it is used as fuel, because we don't have the right kind of
reactors for that, a milligram will kill you, a few kilograms make an atomic bomb and
even an inconspicuous country like Germany literally has tons of the stuff just lying
around because reprocessing. Sounded like a good idea decades ago but where will
all the waste go? After dumping it into the ocean was forbidden we've tried to bury it,
however we can't find a place where it will definitely stay secure for tens of thousands
of years. Over 30 countries operate nearly 400 reactors managing several hundred
thousands of tons of nuclear waste and only one is currently serious about opening a
permanent civilian waste storage: tiny Finland.
3. Accidents and Disasters:
Over sixty years of nuclear power usage there have been seven major accidents in
reactors or facilities dealing with nuclear waste three of those were mostly contained
but four of them released significant amounts of radioactivity into the environment.
In 1957, 1987 and 2011 large areas of land in Russia, Ukraine and Japan were
rendered unfit for human habitation for decades. To come the number of deaths is
highly disputed but probably lies in the thousands. These disasters happened with
nuclear reactors of very different types in very different countries and several decades
apart.
Looking at the numbers we may as well ask ourselves: are 10 percent of the world's
energy supply worth a devastating disaster every 30 year? Would thirty percent be
worth another Fukushima or Chernobyl somewhere on earth every 10 years? What
area would have to be contaminated so we say no more? Where is the line?
So should we use nuclear energy?

Three reasons why we should continue using nuclear

energy
1. Nuclear energy saves lives.
In 2013, a study conducted by NASA found that nuclear energy has prevented around
1.8 million deaths. Even if you include the death tolls from Chernobyl and Fukushima,
nuclear energy ranks last in death per energy unit produced. While nuclear waste is
really toxic, it’s usually stored somewhere, while the toxic byproducts of fossil fuels are
pumped into the air we breathe every day.

SAYFA 5
So, just by reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned, countless cases of cancer or
lung disease and accidents in coal mines have been avoided.
If we can choose between lots of dangerous stuff being put into a deep hole and lots
and lots and lots of dangerous stuff being pumped into the atmosphere, the former
seems more logical.
Nuclear energy feels way more dangerous, though. Single catastrophic events burn
into our memory, while coal and oil kill silently. It is like the death rate of flying versus
driving.
Even in the best-case scenario, it would take at least forty years to switch to 100%-
renewable energy. So, for as long as we continue using fossil fuels, nuclear energy
will save way more lives than it destroys.

2. Nuclear energy reduces CO₂ emissions:

Carbon Dioxide Comparison Generating 1 million kilowatt-hours of electricity produces:

996 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a coal-fired plant

809 metric tons of carbon dioxide from an oil-fired plant

476 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a natural gas-fired plant

None from a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear energy is arguably way less harmful to the environment in terms of climate
change than fossil fuels, our main source of energy.
Since 1976, about 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions have not been pumped
out thanks to nuclear energy. And by the mid-21st century, that could amount to an
additional 80–240 gigatons.
Humanity’s energy consumption is rising steadily. According to US government
projections, China alone will add the equivalent of a new 600-MW coal plant every 10
days for the next 10 years. China already burns 4 billion tons of coal each year. Coal
is cheap, relatively abundant, and easy to get to. So, it’s not likely that humanity will
stop using it soon.
Nuclear energy might be the only way of dampening the effects of climate change and
preventing a catastrophic man-made global warming. Compared to the other things we
do, nuclear energy is relatively clean. So, even if it is a good idea to quit nuclear energy
long-term, it might be a good solution for the next hundred years or so, compared to
the alternatives.
3. New technologies:
Maybe technology will solve the problem of nuclear waste and dangerous power
plants. The nuclear reactors we’ve used so far are mostly outdated technology,
because nuclear innovation stopped in the 1970s. There are models, like the thorium
reactor, that could solve the problem altogether. Thorium is abundant, really hard to
turn into nuclear weapons, and up to two orders of magnitude less wasteful than
current nuclear reactors. The waste material might also be only dangerous for a few
hundred years, in contrast to a couple of thousand years.

SAYFA 6
1 ton of thorium is estimated to provide the same amount of energy as 200 tons of
uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal. So, while we cannot know for sure if alternative
nuclear technology will keep its promises, shouldn’t we at least do more research
before we forego an opportunity to solve lots of humanity’s current problems?
It may not be an easy challenge, but that hasn’t stopped us before.
So, should we use nuclear energy?
There are risks involved in any great human endeavour, and we have to make an
informed decision, rather than rely on gut feeling.

Turkey’s Nuclear Journey

The fierce arguments in Turkey about nuclear energy had actually started at the same
time with the world. In 1955, after 1. Geneva Conference which ordered for the ‘Use of
Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes’, ‘Atomic Energy Commission’ is established
with subject to Prime Ministry of Turkey in 1956. In 1957, Turkey became member of
‘International Atomic Energy Agency’ which is an UN institute.

From the outset, it has been day-to-day to work in various fields such as training and
manpower development, establishment of research centers and laboratories, legal and
legislative works to coordinate the studies, various production and applications and
tendering works towards energy production.

It has been painful process for Turkey until first rigid step is taken in 2010. Akkuyu NPP
Corporation coordinated with Russian Rosatom Company has established.

Finally, in 3rd April 2018 Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan launched
the construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. (Akkuyu is a district near
Mediterranean Sea in city of Mersin)

The Akkuyu NPP project will have 4 power units with capacity of 1200 MW each.
Akkuyu NPP is an NPP-2006 serial project based on the Novovoronezh NPP-2
(Russia, Voronezh region). The service life of Akkuyu NPP is 60 years. Slightly
enriched uranium dioxide serves as the fuel.

SAYFA 7
 Diagram of the power circuit and safety systems

Ideas About Nuclear Power in My Community

“It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom” said Albert Einstein. And i think it is literally
valid for the situation in Turkey. His expression is the best summary or explanation of
what is the situation of peoples’ thoughts and feelings about nuclear and nuclear
powerplant construction in Turkey. A big majority thinks that nuclear is exceptionally
dangerous for people and for nature. The reason of this common misperception is
Chernobyl disaster.

SAYFA 8
 Nuclear Energy Production By Country

AS OF APIL 2017 2016

NUMBER OF NUCLEAR NUCLEAR NUCLEAR
NUCLEAR CAPACITY GENERATION FUEL SHARE
COUNTRY
UNITS (MW) (GWH) (%)
Argentina 3 1,632 7,677.4 5.6
Armenia 1 375 2,194.9 31.4
Belgium 7 5,913 41,430.5 51.7
Brazil 2 1,884 14,970.5 2.9
Bulgaria 2 1,926 15,083.5 35.0
Canada 19 13,554 95,650.2 15.6
China 36 31,384 197,829.0 3.6
Czech Republic 6 3,930 22,729.9 29.4
Finland 4 2,764 22,280.1 33.7
France 58 63,130 386,452.9 72.3
Germany 8 10,799 80,069.6 13.1
Hungary 4 1,889 15,183.0 51.3
India 22 6,240 35,006.8 3.4
Iran 1 915 5,924.0 2.1

Japan 43 40,290 17,537.1 2.2

Korea, 25 23,077 154,306.7 30.3
Republic of
Mexico 2 1,552 10,272.3 6.2
Netherlands 1 482 3,749.8 3.4
Pakistan 4 1,005 5,438.9 4.4
Romania 2 1,300 10,388.2 17.1
Russia 37 26,528 184,054.1 17.1
Slovakia 4 1,814 13,733.4 54.1
Slovenia 1 688 5,431.3 35.2
South Africa 2 1,860 15,209.5 6.6
Spain 7 7,121 56,102.4 21.4
Sweden 10 9,740 60,647.4 40.0
Switzerland 5 3,333 20,303.1 34.4
Taiwan, China 6 5,052 30,461.0 13.7
U.K. 15 8,918 65,149.0 20.4
U.S.* 99 99,319 805,327.2 19.7
Ukraine 15 13,107 76,077.8 52.3
Total 451 391,521 2,476,671.2

SAYFA 9
REFERENCES

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/chowdhury2/

https://www.statista.com/chart/8301/the-countries-holding-the-worlds-nuclear-
arsenal/

https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/world-nuclear-generation-and-capacity

http://home.olemiss.edu/~cmchengs/Global%20Warming/Session%2017%20Nuclear
%20Energy%20-%20Statistics/Nuclear%20Energy.pdf

https://science.howstuffworks.com/inside-nuclear-power-plant-pictures.htm

http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-ore-made-into-nuclear-
fuel.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-
reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-
generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

https://www.ntv.com.tr/ekonomi/nukleer-enerjinin-turkiyedeki-tarihcesi,LI7qG7zm-
0q6yZLV0rHy7g

http://www.akkunpp.com/npp-2

http://www.akkunpp.com/project-history-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYbgyL5n1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVbLlnmxIbY

SAYFA 10