NUCLEAR ENERGY SAVE EARTH

How Nuclear Energy Helps Globally??

In our atmosphere today,In the Earth’s atmosphere, the warming effect of “greenhouse gases” is an

undisputed phenomenon. Without it the globe would be covered in ice. For

thousand of years, a fairly constant level of greenhouse gases created the

moderate environment in which civilization evolved. Over one third of human

induced greenhouse gases come from the burning of fossil fuel to generate

electricity, run factories, power vehicles and heat homes. In the next 50 years,

the global population will use more energy than the total consumed in all

previous history. Humanity faces a future of radical change- either in the way we

produce energy or in the health of our planet. Fossil resources- coal, oil and

natural gas- are being consumed so fast as to be largely exhausted during the

21st Century. Nuclear Power Plants do not emit greenhouse gases. New reactor design,

radiation safety and transportation and improved, more efficient mining, is placing

nuclear energy back in the scene.

GLOBAL POPULATION GROWING FAST!!

We live in a world that is just beginning to consume energy; China and India are

wining to Europe and America in the race of for “per capita” energy consumption.

Of today’s 6 and a half billion people, they represent about one third of the global

population. In the next 50 years – as world population expands to 9 billions

today’s vast unmet human needs could multiply severely. According to studies

and projections made by International Organizations, humanity will consume

more energy than any record in previous history. Economic development is

imperative not only to alleviate human misery but also to create conditions

necessary to stabilize global population. In much of the developing world a

surging drive to meet these needs is generating an enormous rise in the use of

energy. By 2050, global energy consumption will double.

Humanity cannot go backwards. A burgeoning world population will require vast

amount of energy to provide fresh water, energize factories, homes and

transportation and support infrastructures for nutrition, education and health care.

Meeting these needs will require energy from “all sources”. But the world’s

energy “mix” must quickly evolve- away from indiscriminate use of fossil fuel.

Reducing consumption of fossil fuel will preserve the environment- and

irreplaceable resources- for future generations. Conceivably, tomorrow’s megacities

could function with few direct emissions- by using electricity, electrically

charged batteries and fuel cells using electrically hydrogen. But electricity is only

a way of distributing energy. The key is to generate vastly expanded supplies of

electricity cleanly.

Nuclear power- like wind, hydro and solar energy- can generate electricity with

no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. The critical difference is

that Nuclear Energy is the only option to produce vastly expanded supplies of

clean electricity on a global scale. Far from being competitors, nuclear power and

new renewables’ are urgently needed as partners if the world’s immense clean

energy needs are to be met. Keep in mind that the sun not always shines and

that wind not always blows.

Electricity is of paramount importance for economic development. Industries and

all world communities require electricity for daily needs. On the other hand,

hydroelectric energy requires of the flooding of vast extensions of land and the

displacement of large amount of people; the best places are already taken.

These hydroelectric also depend on climate changes: a couple of years of

drought and the energetic matrix based on water would be unbalanced.

START ON NUCLEAR ENERGY NOW TO SAVE EARTH!!

Nuclear Energy Safety Video

This video demonstrates how Nuclear Energy is Safe and How Vital it is to our Planet. Up to date, no nuclear explosion has occurred due to a nuclear power plant. In fact, all related incidents have been due to human error. Hence, watch this video to see how this energy can be harnessed in a safe manner.

Why Do We Need Nuclear Energy in Our Modern World?

          

Living in the 21st century definitely has its advantages. Definitely life is easier as we can live in a more controlled environment since everything from air conditioning to freeze dried food is the result of modern life. We can also communicate instantly and live in luxury due to modern technology. However, many people don't realize the importance of electricity in our world. Almost everything that we do in our daily activities depends on electricity. Thus, without electricity, none of the modern luxuries such as air conditioning, internet, TV, modern banking as well all other necessities that we enjoy today would be possible. In fact, without electricity, world economy would undergo catastrophic break down, as production of goods will stop completely. Moreover, even basic necessities like internet would become impossible to utilize without sufficient amounts of electricity. However, the problem is the fact that electricity production depends on burning of fossil fuels. Almost 74 percent of the electricity production in the world is created through the burning of coal, oil or natural gas.

In order to produce electricity, fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are first burned in a combustion chamber in a thermal power plant. The burning process of the fossil fuels releases a lot of heat, which is then transferred to the primary coolant. Thus, the coolant takes the heat away from the combustion chamber and then the coolant is passed through a heat exchanger in order to create steam. Usually, water is utilized as a coolant in order to make the power plant system work easily and efficiently. Once steam is created from the heat, it is passed through a turbine. As the steam creates momentum on the blades of the turbine, electricity is created and this electricity is passed on to the general electrical distribution grid. The leftover steam is then cycled through a secondary cooling cycle and a condenser, which cools down the steam to turn it back into cold water again. Cooling tower is also used to release heat as well as combustion byproducts.

The main problem with this process is that great amounts of carbon dioxide from the burning process is released into the atmosphere. This is a major problem, since large amounts of carbon dioxide increase the carbon footprint and more importantly, it is one of the main causes of global warming. This has become a very important issue, as global warming is not only endangering us today, but it is also endangering our future generations as well. Moreover, there are several studies to suggest that thermal power plants which burn oil and coal are one of the major causes of carbon dioxide emission in our world. Moreover, large amounts of sulfur as well as other harmful pollution chemicals are also emitted into the environment. Of course, another major issue is the fact that fossil fuels are destined to run out in the next 40 to 60 years. Thus, for the reasons of preventing global warming, as well as for allowing the production of electricity to continue even when fossil fuels run out; nuclear energy production seems to be the only viable answer. Otherwise, either we will have a world overrun by global warming or we will have a world without electricity when we run out of usable fossil fuels.

Even though renewable energy options such as solar power and wind energy exist, they account for only a small fraction for the world's energy needs. As stated above, electricity is something that is vital to the survival of our civilization. With nuclear energy, it is possible to create enough electricity to meet the world's energy demands.

In essence, a nuclear power plant uses the same principle of electric production as thermal power plants; but instead of burning fossil fuel, heat is generated from the fission reaction itself. Due to this, there is no burning process involved and due to this, no carbon dioxide or sulfur products are vented into the atmosphere. Instead the only venting that takes place is water vapor. Thus, from an environmental protection point of view, using nuclear power plants will actually lowers our carbon footprint in the atmosphere. Moreover, the dependency on fossil fuels will decrease and electricity can be created cheaply and efficiently.

Of course, nuclear energy also comes with several problems, as it is a special process that needs to be monitored and also controlled very carefully. If monitoring is not done, it can lead to several incidents such as the Chernobyl incident. However, it has been a proven fact that it has been almost always human error which have lead to nuclear incidents. In fact it was a gross human error and management negligence that lead to the Chernobyl incident. Thus, it needs to be understood that if it is used properly, nuclear energy can be harnessed to create almost limitless amounts of electricity to meet the global demand. Another important point that needs to be remembered is the fact that there is no possibility of a nuclear explosion ever occurring in a nuclear power plant due to its nuclear dynamics. Up to now, none of the nuclear incidents that took place had any nuclear explosion occurring. Usually, most of the nuclear incidents that took place was a steam explosion or some other similar calamity.

However, proper precautions will need to be taken and newer technologies will need to be implemented, so that public safety can be maintained. Unlike the technology of the 1960's, the newer technology involving nuclear power plants involve better safety measures such as passive, inherent safety measures. Hence, even with a natural disaster like Fukuskima incident, the nuclear power plant will safely shut itself off and cool off without any external help. Especially, gas cooled nuclear reactors are very promising in this regard. Thus, keeping these in mind, a new public perspective needs to be brought forward that nuclear energy can meet our electricity demands in safe and reliable manner, especially if it is implemented properly. Of course, various school programs need to be implemented so that proper understanding of nuclear energy can be gained at a relatively young age. If used properly, nuclear energy can be a solution to our modern needs, but this level of understanding must be present.

Should I worry about nuclear power?

Nuclear power stations are not atomic bombs waiting to go off, and are not prone to "meltdowns".
There is a lot of U-238 in there slowing things down - you need a high concentration of U-235 to make a bomb.
If the reactor gets too hot, the control rods are lowered in and it cools down.
If that doesn't work, there are sets of emergency control rods that automatically drop in and shut the reactor down completely.


With reactors in the UK, the computers will shut the reactor down automatically if things get out of hand (unless engineers intervene within a set time). At Chernobyl, in Ukraine, they did not have such a sophisticated system, indeed they over-rode the automatic systems they did have. When they got it wrong, the reactor overheated, melted and the excessive pressure blew out the containment system before they could stop it. Then, with the coolant gone, there was a serious fire. Many people lost their lives trying to sort out the mess. A quick web search will tell you more about this, including companies who operate tours of the site.


If something does go wrong in a really big way, much of the world could be affected - some radioactive dust (called "fallout") from the Chernobyl accident landed in the UK. That's travelled a long way.
With AGR reactors (the most common type in Britain) there are additional safety systems, such as flooding the reactor with nitrogen and/or water to absorb all the neutrons - although the water option means that reactor can never be restarted.
So should I worry? I think the answer is "so long as things are being done properly, I don't need to worry too much. The bit that does worry me is the small amount of high-level nuclear waste from power stations. Although there's not much of it, it's very, very dangerous and we have no way to deal with it apart from bury it and wait for a few thousand years...


There are many different opinions about nuclear power, and it strikes me that most of the people who protest about it don't have any idea what they're talking about. But please make up your own mind, find out as much as you can, and if someone tries to get you to believe their opinion ask yourself "what's in it for them?"

HANDLING NUCLEAR WASTE????

People are wondering where the nuclear waste go or how to dispose of them properly so that it is perfectly safe for us the living creature and the environment?

So, this time, we'll discuss mainly on disposing the nuclear waste correctly.

Nuclear waste generated from a nuclear reactor is classified as HIGH LEVEL WASTE, and there are proper procedure to dispose them .About 27 tonnes of used fuel or three cubic metres per year of vitrified waste for a typical large nuclear reactor.They can be effectively and economically isolated, and have been handled and stored safely since the production of nuclear power began.Storage is mostly in ponds at reactor sites, or occasionally at a central site.  Some 90% of the world's used fuel is stored thus and some of it has been there for decades.  The ponds are usually about seven metres deep, to allow three metres of water over the used fuel to fully shield it.  The water also cools it.  Some storage is in dry casks or vaults with air circulation and the fuel is surrounded by concrete.

If the used fuel is reprocessed, as it is in UK, French, Japanese, and German reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. 

These are separated from the used fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. The remaining HLW generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high, and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW.

But if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, it will still contain all the highly radioactive isotopes, and the entire fuel assembly is treated as HLW for direct disposal. As HLW, it generates considerable heat and requires cooling. However, since it largely consists of uranium (with a little plutonium), it represents a potentially valuable resource. Hence there is an increasing reluctance to dispose of it irretrievably.Either way, after 40-50 years, the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one-thousandth of the level at removal. This provides a technical incentive to delay further action with HLW until the radioactivity has reduced to about 0.1% of its original level.

After being stored for approximately 40 years, the used fuel assemblies are ready for encapsulation or loading into casks ready for indefinite storage or permanent disposal underground.

NORM

NORM, or naturally ocurring radioactive material, is found almost everywhere. It is found in the air and in soil, and even in radioactive potassium in our own bodies. It is found in public water supplies and foods such as brazil nuts, cereal, and peanut butter.
Many people are afraid of living near nuclear power plants. People are unaware that radioactivity is natural. Foods that are rich in potassium, like fruits, beans and lentils, vegetables, and some whole grains, expose us to radiation as potassium decays. Less than 1/4 % of the potassium in foods we eat is radioactive. The food we eat exposes us to about 40 millirem of radiation each year. An x-ray technician works with x-ray machines everyday, resulting in exposure to about 500 millirem of radiation each year.


Smoking 1 and a half packs a day can result in exposure to 1300 millirem of radiation per year. Tobacco has a high concentration of polonium-210, a naturally occuring radioactive element. Flying in an airplane reduces the thickness of atmosphere shielding you from cosmic sources of radiation, including our sun and cosmic rays. You receive about 1 millirem of radiation for each 1000 miles you fly. A member of an airline crew receives about 200 millirem a year on the job.


If you live near a nuclear power plant, you'll receive about 0.009 millirem of radiation each year. If you are a nuclear power plant worker, you receive 180 millirem a year. The maximum recommended dose per person per year is 5000 millirem.

The Power of the Atom

Nuclear Power's Remarkable Energy

Nuclear energy may be the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century. It is based on physics of the atom, which is the reason a large portion of the public does not yet understand it. It is difficult to grasp how an energy source can be so powerful and still have so little impact on the environment. Yet if we were to describe the ideal energy source - low fuel requirements, no carbon emissions or other pollution, little land requirements, low cost, and large amounts of power - it would be nuclear energy.


Splitting a uranium atom yields two million times as much energy as breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond in coal. That means a few uranium fuel rods can produce the same amount of power as whole trainloads of coal. In fact, the traces of uranium in coal is about 0.03 percent of its weight which actually contoin more potential energy than the coal itself. Instead of burning coal, it would be much better to mine it for uranium.


Low energy density is an even bigger problem when we come to renewable resources. What we are calling renewables are actually energy flows in nature, with far lower density than fossil fuels. Biofuels, for example, have about 1/4 to 1/10 the density of coal because they are young coal that has not compacted and ages in the earth for millions of years. Wind and solar are limited by the density of air and energy content of sunlight, which are sunstantial over vast areas, but are relatively weak on the scales of traditional energy sources. Only geothermal energy has a high sensity and that is because it is actually nuclear power emanating from deep within the Earth. The breakdown of uranium and thorium deep in the Earth, combined with the pressure of gravity, raises the temperature at the center of the Earth to 7000 degrees Celcius, hotter than the surface of the sun. When we build a nuclear plant, we are simply borrowing some of the Earth'd natural heat and putting it in the controlles environment of a reactor. Nuclear power and geothermal power are essentially the same thing.


Energy density becomes hugely important when it comes to mining and transporting these fuels and disposing of their waste. A 1000 megawatt coal plant is fed by a 110 car freight train arriving every 30 hours, 300 times a year. In one year the plant will throw 10 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Whole mountainsare being decapitated and mile wide holes dug in the ground in Wyoming or Montana to mine this coal. When sulfur and ash are removed by scrubbing, large reservoirs of sludge are produces that are a disposal problem in themselves. Yet this effort to clean coal of its pollutants will pale beside any attempt to capture carbon dioxide, the prime waste product and store it in underground caverns. Carbon capture and sequestration will be the biggest engineering job ever attempted on the planet.



 Now compare this to nuclear technology. A nuclear reactor is refueled when a half dozen tractor trailers arrive at the plant carrying new fuel rods once every 18-24 months. The rods are only mildly radioactive and can be safely handled with gloves. They will sit in the reactor for five years, producing no pollution or carbon emissions. When removed five years later, they will look exactly the same, just like a bundle of metal pipes except now they are radioactive. A few feet of lead or water blocks all radiation, however, so they can be stored safely in pools or lead lined casks. Within three years they will lose half their radioactivity. After that, nuclear reprocessing can recycle mosy of the soent fuel rod into new fuel. Only 3 percent of the energy potential of a fuel rod is used in its first run-through.


It is this off the scale energy potential thats makes nuclear energy so hard ti understand and the subjects of so much fearful speculation. When the uranium atom splits in 2, about one billionth of its mass is completely transformed into energy. Yet because of Einstein's famous equation, E = mc², this tiny amount of matter converts into one quadrillion times as much enegy. A uranium fuel pellet the size of a thimble contains the energy equivalent of 1780 pounds of coal, 149 gallons of oil, or 17000 cubic feet of natural gas. After a fuel assembly completes its five year cycle, only six ounces of the mass will have been completely converted into energy. Yet this energy will be enough to power a city teh size of San Franvisco for those five years.

Comparison to Fossil Fuels and Renewables 

Wind, solar and other renewables have energy densities that are incomparably smaller. Therefore their land requirements are stupendously larger. While a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor is powered by a fuel assembly that would fit into an average sized living room, a 1000 megawatt hydroelectric plant requires a reservoir 250 miles square. This is the reason environmentalists began opposing dam construction in the 1960s because they took up so much space. Wind has less density and wind farms will have to cover 270 square miles to generate the same 1000 MW of reliable electricity. Burning biomass to generate electricity will require about 800000 acres of continuosly farmed grassland or forest to generate 1000MW. And any effort to harness the tides or ocean currents will face the same limitations. About 25 miles of coastline will be required to produce 1000MW.

 Solar energy radiates from nuclear reactions in the Sun, but they occur 90 million miles away and are very dilute by the time they reach the Earth. Solar energy gives us about 400 watts per square meter. Since the best technologies can convert only 25% of this to electricity, solar can give us one 100 watt bulb per average card table. This is a significant amont of energy. We should do everything we can to take advatage of it. Covering every square inch of the rooftop in the country with solar collectors could probably provide enough power to run our indoor lighting and some household appliances during daylight hours.


Solar electricity's great advantages is that it peaks during the hottest hours of the day and on summer afternoons, when customers are running their air conditioning and utility companies are straining to meet peak demand for power. Solar electricity would be ideal for meeting peak demand, now handled mostly by expensive gas turbines.


The problem arise when overenthusiastic supporters of solar and wind energy argue it can be used to meet nase loads. Solar and wind electricity is ill suited to provide base load power, which must run uninterrupted night and day as electricity from solar and wind can't be stored still. Without some way to stored large amounts of electricity, there's no way to have more than 25% of our electricity being provided by solar and wind.


For all these reasons, reducing carbon emissions will mean building nuclear plants to provide base load electricity until carbon capture and sequestration, or some other technology can be developed to capture emissions from coal plants or until some unforeseen technological development makes it possible to use sun and wind for base load. Right now these alternatives are too uncertain and expensive. Only nuclear power offers the potential for reducing our impact on the environment, resolving the problem of climate cahnge while producing large amounts of cheap, clean and reliable electricity. The potential is there. We only have to address the inreasonable fears surrounding nuclear energy.