Transcript Nuclear Reactor (simplified)

What is Nuclear Power?
• It is simply electricity made from
fissioning uranium and plutonium.
Fission
If a uranium nucleus absorbs a neutron, it can break up and release:
-Energy (Heat)
-More neutrons
-Other radiation
Also Plutonium
Nuclear Reactor (simplified)
Nuclear Power Plant (simplified)
WHY SHOULD YOU CARE ABOUT
NUCLER POWER?
• Because it offers huge environmental benefits in
producing electricity
– It releases zero carbon dioxide
– It releases zero sulfur and nitrous oxides
• Because it saves thousands of lives yearly when
substituted for electricity from coal
• Because it is our only economical source of baseload electricity except coal power (hydro is
unavailable)
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE
CONCERNED ABOUT IT?
Primarily,
• Safety: the uranium rods in the reactor become intensely
radioactive, and people could be harmed if the radiation
escaped
• Waste Disposal: since the spent (or used) uranium rods
remain radioactive for thousands of years, can they be
disposed of safely?
• Costs: is nuclear electricity too expensive?
• Proliferation
Let’s examine each.
SAFETY
• Phenomenal Safety Record
– Began 1960; 440 plants worldwide; 100 plants in US
– ONLY accident public harmed - Chernobyl 1986
- 2005 Study by several UN Agencies (World Health Org.,
IAEA, --)
- 50 known deaths from radiation
- Study "estimated" eventually 9,000 - 10,000
- "Corrected" study gives 1,000 - 3,000 eventually
• Contrast:
– 90,000 coal miners died "instantly" US alone 1901-2000
– 250,000 US miners "drawing" black lung compensation
SAFETY – Continued
In fact, the nuclear power we have (20% of
US electricity) saves thousands of lives in WI
and elsewhere in US yearly
•Coal plants emit particulates
•Harvard, ACS, EPA estimate thousands of
premature deaths yearly from them
•Nuclear plants emit no particulates
SPENT FUEL WASTE DISPOSAL
Nuclear wastes offer a huge benefit over fossil wastes
• U rods = Solid, like rock/glass, 5,000o melting pt.
• Encase in concrete/metal casks, bury underground
• Size of ~25 autos per year per plant
Contrast: Same size coal plant each year
•
•
•
•
•
Burns the coal in a 250 mile long railroad train
Emits 7,000,000 tons of CO2 - greenhouse warming
Emits 1,000 tons of SO2
Emits 1,400 tons of deadly particulates
Leaves 700,000 tons of ash including 90 tons of arsenic, lead,
chromium, others - frequently, metals into ground
WASTE DISPOSAL – Continued
Yucca Mountain standards established by EPA
• Isolated, desolate, uninhabited land in Nevada
• No person at site boundary 24 hours/day, 365
days/year 10,000 years from now permitted more
radiation than 1.5 chest X-rays (one-sixth as much
workers in US Capitol)
• Sensible/reasonable limit when we face
potentially-catastrophic climate change?
WASTE DISPOSAL – Continued
IRONIES
• We have a limit on nuclear power in WI until "waste
disposal problem solved." We have a practical solution for
nuclear waste; we do NOT have a solution for coal wastes.
I believe the limit should be on coal plants.
• A few miles from Yucca Mt., DOD has exploded hundreds
of atomic and hydrogen bombs underground. Has left tons
of plutonium and other radioactive residue totally
unprotected in the caverns. Much more severe.
Note: We can destroy the nuclear wastes so YMs would not
be needed. Research under way to reduce cost.
COSTS
• The electricity you buy today averages about
– 1.72 cents/kWhr from nuclear
– 2.21 cents/kWhr from coal
– 7.51 cents/kWhr from natural gas
• Electricity from new nuclear plants would be a
modest percentage higher than from new coal
plants. If Congress imposed a reasonable tax on
CO2 emissions, nuclear electricity would become
cheaper.
PROLIFERATION
A Diplomatic Problem
• I do not know of any case (India?) where a nuclear
power program has significantly assisted in the
development of weapons - the latter came first
• US, UK, USSR, China, France
• N. Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan
• Easier way to obtain plutonium than n.p.p.
- Simple plant - N. Korea
• U-235 via centrifuges - N. Korea, Iran
ENVIRONMENTALISTS & OTHERS
• James Lovelock, British chemist - 1997 Blue Planet Prize: "We are headed
toward a warmer Earth where most life on the planet will have to move to the
Arctic basin, to a few islands, ... My justification for nuclear power is that even
the results of an all-out nuclear war pale into insignificance compared to what is
going to happen.“
• Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace: "In the 1970s, I equated
nuclear energy to holocaust. Now, my views have changed. Nuclear energy
may be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
- catastrophic climate change. ... Wind and solar can't replace coal, nuclear, and
hydro. Natural gas is too expensive. Nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable
substitute for coal. It is that simple.“
• Rep. John Dingle, D-Michigan: "If we are to maintain our standard of living,
even with massive conservation ... we have no choice but to utilize the nuclear
option - absolutely no choice but to do so.
In closing - MY DREAM:
Nuclear plants in place of coal plants for
electricity
and
battery-driven automobiles (such as General
Motors expects to sell in five years) charged
by nuclear electricity.
Or fuel-cell automobiles with hydrogen
separated by nuclear electricity (unless a
better means evolves).