Nuclear technology has advanced with new technology being developed, but also due to a strong emphasis on policy playing a role in a more efficient and safer way to utilize this energy source. After the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, the United States is being urged to make a push for a smaller scaled down nuclear reactor referred to as small modular reactor, or a SMR. Small modular reactors offer a number of advantages to a traditional nuclear reactor in being economically cheaper and safer. Being a smaller nuclear reactor, this may come as a shock due to more reactors needing to be built in order for the same amount of energy to be produced as the current nuclear reactors. “The average U.S. nuclear reactor has an operating capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more; SMRs, by contrast, have a generating capacity of less than 300 megawatts” (Foran, 2013). Theoretically, it would take over three small modular reactors in order to replace one of the current nuclear reactors already in place. The economic impact these reactors bring is substantial however. Due to the smaller size, small modular reactors have the ability to be constructed in factories where the parts and construction can be produced at a more efficient and quicker scale. Utility companies who are also interested in reaping the benefits of nuclear technology would be able to invest, because of the fact less capital would need to be raised. The factories that would be building these parts too would provide new jobs, as more countries want to adapt to small modular reactors without building the infrastructure. At the factory parts would be “cookie-cut” meaning they could be produced in an assembly line fashion and have the full reactor be completed by the end, ready to ship. Safe...
... middle of paper ...
... it also saving costs of trying to locate some.
Works Cited
Energy for the World - Why Uranium?. (2012, December 1). world-nuclear.org. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear- Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Energy-for-the-World---Why-Uranium-/
Foran, Clare. "Small Reactors May Be Nuclear Power's Future." Nationaljournal.com. National Journal Group Inc, 01 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.
"Is Thorium the Future of Nuclear?" Discovery News. Discovery Communications, 07 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
Small Reactor Designs. (n.d.). Nuclear Energy Institute. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/New-Nuclear-Energy-Facilities/Small- Reactor-Designs
Uranium. (2014, January 21). Uranium Investing News. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/17236/thorium-an-alternative-for- Unuclear-energy.html
There are many developing countries also looking into nuclear energy because of all the benefits nuclear power has to offer. As of right now between sixteen and thirty nuclear power plants are being made in developing countries like China and India. Both of these countries are moving towards nuclear energy for many reasons like its reliability and amount of energy it producing. It is very beneficial because it only takes up a small amount of space to make one of these nuclear plants and the amount of energy they produce is substantial. Both of these countries are looking into h...
The seemingly limitless power of the atom has been exploited by scientist around the world ever since the Enola Gay flew over Hiroshima on August 6th 1945 and dropped the second atomic bomb, revealing to the world this new form of energy. The key to harnessing the energy from nuclear fission in a stable reaction soon followed, starting the Nuclear age. Russia, emerging as a superpower and major industrial center found special needs for nuclear fission. From the period of 1980-1990, the Russian Federation’s Gross Democratic Product grew 2.8% each year, comparable to the United State’s 2.9% each year. To fuel this growth, the only cheap, affordable, efficient energy production means was nuclear energy. The fission of 1 lb of uranium-235 produces as much energy as 1,500 tons of coal. The Cold War only escalated this demand, and soon, reactors served dual purposes of providing energy, as well as producing weapons grade plutonium. In fact, the first reactors were designed to manufacture plutonium, not to generate electricity. Everything has its flaws though, and nuclear energy was no exception, with one of the heaviest reprucussions in the event of an accident. April 26th, 1986 is an excellent example of that. Chernobyl was not the first nuclear reactor mishap the world has encountered, but it was definitely the worst for many years to come. Previous accidents such as Three Mile Island in the United States, Indian Point near New York, and a partial meltdown at Leningrad predated Chernobyl. However, the 100 million curies of radiation emitted by the RMBK-1000 reactor put Chernobyl on an entirely different scale compared to the previous accidents. Failure to effectively prevent, contain, and effectively respond to the radiation emit...
supplied by the uranium in sea water for 7 million years(Energy 25). This is a
the U.S two thirds of respondents don’t want to live 10 miles close to a nuclear reactor. Utilities find nuclear power less, there are new solar photovoltaic installation in the U.S are springing up.
Nuclear energy has been a controversial source of alternative energy since it has been made practical in the 1950s. The goal of nuclear energy was to find a sustainable resource that would be able to replace the use of fossil fuels. Due to the exploitation and finite supply of resources such as oil and coal, an alternative to fossil fuels was needed quickly in order to provide sustainability for the future of the world. A question arises, however, when nuclear energy is considered as a source of energy: Is nuclear energy a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels?
The need for nuclear energy is more widespread today than it has been for decades. Drastic climate change and the rising prices of fossil fuels such as oil have made many scientists seek an alternative energy source. Although nuclear energy has been around for decades, the use of it has always been approached by pessimism. Because, the misuse of nuclear energy could spell disaster for any country involved in the process. Events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Japan’s Fukushima accident are reminders of how nuclear energy can go wrong. However, the continued use of fossils fuels can spell disaster for the international and domestic security of any country that is dependent on the energy source. Fossil fuel is a limited resource, meaning that the continued use of this energy source can run out one day and this could mean disaster to any country dependent on fossil fuels. Therefore, the continued use of such an energy source could spell disaster for a country's domestic and international security in the future. An alternative energy source is needed in order to control the world's consumption of fossil fuels, nuclear energy is that energy source. Although nuclear energy has been establish as a feasible energy source, it has not yet caught on due to certain nuclear events. Events like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reinforce the belief of nuclear energy as a dangerous risk. But, we can see France as a perfect example of using nuclear energy without any nuclear disasters. Nuclear energy can be the energy source we need to be free from fossil fuels, and benefits outweigh the cons of nuclear energy.
Our world today is growing every day every year and there will be a time where more and more energy will be needed to sustain human life. The demand for electricity and its value is increasing rapidly and will only continue to do so. The world will need greatly increased energy supply in the next 20 years, especially clean generated electricity [WNA, 2014]. Fourteen percent of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear energy to use. The use and demand for electricity will increase in 2030 by eighty one percent. Therefore, nuclear power plants need to rise to fulfill the demands and needs for the growth of the population. Since the demand for electricity is increasing and with many resources to get electricity from, the use of nuclear energy without constant support will probably decline to around 9 percent or less by 2035. At least two factors will make this quite difficult for nuclear energy to gain a bigger m...
Media coverage of such cases have made the public less comfortable with the idea of moving further towards nuclear power and they only opt for reducing human activities to reduce global warming. It is true that there have been some notable disasters involving nuclear power, but compared to other power systems, nuclear power has an impressive track record. First, it is less harmful and second, it will be able to cater for the growing world population. Nuclear power produces clean energy and it delivers it at a cost that is competitive in the energy market (Patterson). According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are currently 65 such plants in the Unite States (National Research Council). They produce 19 percent of the total US energy generation.
America needs to pay better attention to what is happening in Japan. This is our opportunity to learn and prepare our own Nuclear Plants in the event of such a crisis. We currently have 100 commercial nuclear power reactor units licensed to operate in the U.S. These operate in 31 of the 48 contiguous states. The nuclear power reactor units provide the U.S. with approximately 20 percent of its electricity. By reviewing Americas history of some recent natural disasters, I intend to build a case that an incident such as Fukushima could happen her in the U.S. I find it essential that these lessons be taken seriously to strengthen nuclear safety and it eventually leading to a complete phasing out of nuclear energy.
Nuclear power has always been a controversial issue because of its inherent danger and the amount of waste that the plants produce. Once considered a relatively safe form for generating energy, nuclear power has caused more problems than it has solved. While it has reduced the amount of traditional natural resources (fossil fuels), used to generate power like coal, wood, and oil, nuclear generating plants have become anachronisms. Maintaining them and keeping them safe has become a problem of immense proportion. As the plants age and other technology becomes available, what to do with these “eyesores” is a consuming issue for many government agencies and environmental groups. No one knows what to do about the problem and in many areas of the world, another nuclear meltdown is an accident waiting to happen. Despite a vast array of safety measures, a break in reactor pipe or a leak in a containment vessel, could spell another environmental disaster for the world.
Now let us examine the Nuclear Reactor. Nuclear reactors are neither cheap nor quick to build and there are a number of different designs to choose from meaning there will be more debate and discussion between the experts and industries. This means there will be more taxes you and I will have to pay.
Thorium is the nuclear fuel that should have been. Thorium has many advantages over uranium but was and most likely will never be used as a nuclear fuel source. There is only one primary reason thorium was never used as a nuclear fuel source - this reason is wartime politics. There are also reasons we aren’t going to make a switch anytime soon. These reasons include our lack of experience with Thorium, the amount of money it would take to convert uranium nuclear reactors to thorium (or build new reactors), and lack of infrastructure in place for thorium. However, other countries are investing heavily on thorium. India is planning to handle 30% of their electrical needs with thorium in the near future. China is also heavily investing with the same general plan - 30% dependency.
The energy industry is beginning to change. In today’s modern world, governments across the globe are shifting their focuses from traditional sources of power, like the burning coal and oil, to the more complex and scientific nuclear power supply. This relatively new system uses powerful fuel sources and produces little to no emissions while outputting enough energy to fulfill the world’s power needs (Community Science, n.d.). But while nuclear power seems to be a perfect energy source, no power production system is without faults, and nuclear reactors are no exception, with their flaws manifesting in the form of safety. Nuclear reactors employ complex systems involving pressure and heat. If any of these systems dysfunctions, the reactor can leak or even explode releasing tons of highly radioactive elements into the environment. Anyone who works at or near a nuclear reactor is constantly in danger of being exposed to a nuclear incident similar to the ones that occurred at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi plants. These major accidents along with the unresolved problems with the design and function of nuclear reactors, as well as the economic and health issues that nuclear reactors present serve to show that nuclear energy sources are not worth the service that they provide and are too dangerous to routinely use.
However, nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions, produces virtually no air pollution, and increases energy security. Because of western world energy codes and technologies, the methods of storing/disposing of nuclear waste are safer than ever. In addition to an increased focus on saving the environment, many governments have proclaimed a need for energy through a method that is environmentally friendly. According to the World Nuclear Association, “Electricity demand is increasing twice as fast as overall energy use and is likely to rise by more than two-thirds 2011 to 2035 (World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power)”. As of now, Nuclear power provides about 11% of the world's electricity (Ricotti). Only through nuclear energy will the world’s exponential energy demands be met. Despite political hype, environmental consequences, and lack of facility standardization, Nuclear power continues to offer a solution to be a worldwide, emission-free, scalable energy source that can meet global energy demands, as...
...he building of four nuclear plants to try and ease the transition from finite fuels.21The reactors used in these plants will be able to last longer and will run on 17% less uranium per energy unit than reactors in use currently. EDF estimate that their new reactors are capable of supplying up to 30% of the UK’s total energy. 21