Fission
based nuclear power was once thought of as the holy
grail of power. It would provide limitless inexpensive
energy that would answer any and all needs the United
States would have in the foreseeable future. The fairy
tale of nuclear power was just that, however, and with
a combination of accidents like Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl, as well as public awareness about the dangers
of radioactive waste, nuclear power has all but disappeared
in the United States. With the growing fear of CO2
producing fossil fuel sources contributing to a global
greenhouse effect, and with the supply of fossil fuel
coming close to being exhausted, many would suggest
the US revival of nuclear fission as a viable, non-greenhouse
gas-producing energy alternative a timely measure. The
proponents of such a measure ignore the fact that both
the fuel supply for nuclear fission, and the waste products
produced by it are too high a price to pay when there
are many other better alternatives available that do
not carry the same liability.
Nuclear fission�s primary fuel component
is enriched uranium, known as uranium 235, which is
as limited in supply as fossil fuels. Uranium 235 is
an isotope of uranium that is very uncommon in nature
(because of its unstable nature), so instead uranium
238 is mined, and through a process called gaseous diffusion
is refined into uranium 235. Unlike uranium 238, uranium
235 is fissionable - mostly because of its unstable
nature. As long as at least 4% of the fuel is Uranium
235, a sustainable fission reaction can occur.[1] Using current pressurized
water reactors (which are, by far, the most common currently
in use) with rod-based fuel and control mechanisms,
the supply of uranium 235 will not be able to meet the
projected demand even at current growth rates, which
in the United States is close to zero.[2] According to the Uranium Institute, �only by combining
[the] lowest scenario for demand with [the] highest
for supply is [it possible] to forecast that supply
will be sufficient to meet demand, and then only from
2002 onwards.�[3]
It is also very likely that current uranium deposits
around the world will only last for between 50 and �65
years at present consumption rates.�[4] Many proponents of
nuclear fission would argue that with the use of special
breeder reactors, deposits could be extended to hundreds
or even thousands of years, but the byproduct of fission
reactors capable of this is far worse than simple waste.
Fission reactors capable of using
fuel comprised of uranium 238, called breeder reactors,
convert up to 70% of the uranium into highly fissionable
plutonium 239, which can then be bombarded with neutrons
to create a chain fission reaction.[5]
At first, this technology seems to be an excellent alternative
to standard fission reactors, where only about 4% of
the fuel can be utilized to create power, but plutonium
239 is the principle ingredient in modern nuclear weapons.
The plutonium 239 generated by the breeder reactor would
be so valuable on the black market that it would simply
be a matter of time before it was stolen or compromised
in some way. Another major problem facing breeder reactors
is that no nation as of yet has developed a commercially
feasible model.[6]
While France had built a functioning breeder
reactor, the incredible complexity of the operation,
combined with the high overhead costs, forced its shutdown
after only a few years of operation, despite nearly
constant use for both energy production and fuel creation.
Even with a working and viable reactor, breeder or otherwise,
the problem of waste still exists.
Nuclear waste was the one part
of the fairy tale everybody seemed to ignore during
the development of the first plants, and continues to
be a topic that proponents of nuclear energy like to
avoid. The disposal of high level nuclear waste generated
from the daily operations of fission plants is a nearly
impossible task. Factors such as transportation, dump
locations, containment, and accidental future discovery
are just some of the pressing questions that still don�t
have any good answers. If the United States were to
bring back nuclear energy, these issues would become
even more pressing, and the problems associated with
them would become real instead of just predicted. The
United States is going to have enough of a problem dealing
with its current radioactive waste without having to
worry about more waste being generated from new power
plants. With plans like the Yucca
Mountain site proposal continually protested,
it is unlikely that any of the issues will be solved
anytime soon. The best solution to the problem of nuclear
waste is simply not to create any.
There are countless other alternatives
to nuclear energy which don�t produce CO2
or high level radioactive waste, and these should be
considered long before we rush back to nuclear power.
Solutions like large-scale hydrogen fuel cell planets,
biomass, solar, wind, and even future technologies like
nuclear fusion
should be concentrated on long before nuclear fission
power is revisited. The public also must be educated
about nuclear technology, as there is a great deal of
potential in fusion-based
reactors that may become a reality in as little as the
next twenty years, and it would be a huge disaster if
people associated the completely clean fusion
power with its dirty cousin, fission. The public also
needs to be well informed about the potential of technologies
available today, like fuel cells and solar power. Much
like France has brainwashed its society into believe
that nuclear fission is the best way to power their
country, the United States should teach its children
the importance of both conservation and the increased
use of alternative energies. Meanwhile, the country
should take an incremental approach to shifting its
infrastructure from fossil fuel based energy sources
to the available alternatives, and increase funding
for future alternatives like fusion.
Fear should not be the means of convincing the country
of the flaws in a technology; instead, an educated populace
should make up their own minds using the facts. This
will foster an environment of innovation, and result
in far better solutions down the road. Misinformation
and the reliance on economics as the sole factor determining
design is what made nuclear fission a bad choice, not
the technology itself. If a technology is chosen and
developed instead from a standpoint of what will be
of the most benefit to those using the technology, then
stories like that of the advent and eventual demise
of nuclear power will be told far less frequently.
[1]http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/fission_power/fission_power.html
[2]http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/articles/art25.htm
[3]http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/articles/art25.htm
[4]http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/P_release/2000/prn2600.shtml
[5]http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,16562+1,00.html
[6]http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,16562+1,00.html
|
