12:42 AM
P.G.R.
BY:TARA PRASAD SETHI
ADITYA KUMAR MISHRA
1st Year,B.Tech,I.T.E.R.,
ADITYA KUMAR MISHRA
1st Year,B.Tech,I.T.E.R.,
S ’O’ A UNIVERSITY
There are over 400 nuclear power reactors that are up and running on the planet, and believe it or not, the number is growing. The whole process of converting uranium into nuclear power is complex, but it all starts off with a mining operation to extract uranium ore. Believe it or not, uranium is not hard to find, it is actually a pretty common element, more common than gold.
Many people don’t realize that our own body houses trace amounts of uranium! Canada’s actually taken advantage of this relatively abundant resource and is so far the number one uranium producer in the world.
NUCLEAR REACTOR
Can nuclear provide the energy we need? It already generates about 20% of the world's electricity, including 50% in Western Europe and 80% in France. It is reliable, having high "load factors" - typically more than 90% - with nearly all of the remaining time spent on planned maintenance. Its long-term costs are similar to those of coal. It has little harmful effect on the environment and it is safer than all other sources, apart from natural gas.
Nuclear power only differs from other energy sources in that it emits nuclear radiations. The interior of a nuclear reactor is highly radioactive, and the spent fuel has to be removed periodically for reprocessing. However, the techniques for doing this are well developed and can be carried out safely. The relatively small volumes of highly radioactive residues (nuclear waste) are first stored above ground for several decades to allow the short-lived isotopes to decay, the rest being fused into a insoluble ceramic blocks, encased in stainless-steel containers and buried far below ground in a stable geological formation.
Nuclear reactors can also be improved. While current "thermal reactors" burn only uranium-235, which accounts for just 0.7% of natural uranium, so-called "fast reactors" can burn the remaining 99.3% of the uranium. One reason why fast reactors are not used is because they are more difficult to build, but they will become more economic as uranium becomes more expensive - and could eventually take over from thermal reactors.
Before then, other reactor designs may become available. A particularly promising line of research, which is being pioneered by the Nobel-prize winning physicist Carlo Rubbia and others, is into reactors that depend on spallation neutrons from a proton accelerator. The protons hit a target of a heavy metal, such as tungsten, producing a shower of neutrons that go into a sub-critical reactor assembly. This makes the reactor go critical, thereby generating power. Such reactors are easily controlled because the reaction stops as soon as the accelerator is switched off. The neutron fluxes are also so high that the radioactive wastes can be burnt inside the reactor. These are both highly desirable environmental features. "Pebble-bed" reactors are another promising development.
In the longer term, I have high hopes that fusion energy will ultimately become available. Intensive work is in progress on several possible designs for a fusion reactor. These reactors need deuterium, which is present in water in the proportion of about one part in five thousand. The energy available from fusion reactors is therefore practically limitless.
It is indeed fortunate that, just as other major energy sources are becoming exhausted or are recognized as seriously polluting, a new energy source - nuclear power - has become available to meet our needs.
FOR AND AGAINST
Our civilization and our standard of living depend on an adequate supply of energy. Without energy, we would not be able to heat our homes or cook our food. Long-distance travel and communication would become impossible, and our factories could no longer produce the goods that we need.
A century ago the world's energy came almost wholly from coal and "traditional" sources, such as wood, crop residues and animal dung. These are still major sources of energy, particularly in developing countries, where 2 billion people are without access to, or cannot afford, modern energy forms. Wood and dung are estimated to provide an amount of energy equivalent to 1 billion tonnes of oil each year; it is sobering to realize that this is 1.6 times more energy than is provided worldwide by nuclear power, and is about the same as the amount of energy provided by coal in Europe and the US combined
During the 20th century, the world's commercial output and population increased more rapidly than ever before, as did energy consumption, which rose more than tenfold, with a major shift towards oil and gas fuels, and to hydroelectricity and nuclear power. Most of the growth was in industrial nations, where the per capita consumption of commercial fuels is about 10 times that in the developing world.
Energy markets in the industrial countries are maturing, and may even peak and decline with continued improvements in energy efficiency. The last two centuries saw energy efficiency increase enormously - in motive power, electricity generation, lighting, in the use and conservation of heat, and in an array of other applications. There is no evidence that further gains will not be achieved in the future - for example through the use of fuel cells for transport, which could lead to a two- or threefold increase in fuel efficiency relative to that of the internal combustion engine, and through distributed sources of combined heat and power.
The situation is different in developing countries, where billions of people have hardly enough energy to survive, let alone enough to increase their living standards. If they are to achieve prosperity, their energy needs - which are doubling every 15 years - will have to be met. Moreover, their population will soon be 7-10 times greater than that of the industrial world, and (with the sad exception of several African countries) economic growth is much higher than it is for industrial nations.
If we assume that, after allowing for gains in energy efficiency, the developing world eventually uses only half of the energy per capita consumed by industrial nations today, then the world's energy consumption will still rise more than threefold. Developing nations will therefore need about 5 x 106 MW of new electricity-generating capacity in the coming decades, compared with the 1 x 106 MW they have today and the 2 x 106 MW in the industrial nations. (Electricity generation accounts for only about one-fifth of our final energy consumption - the rest mainly being for transport and heating.)
Our common ground in debating the question "Do we need nuclear power?" is therefore the fact that the world is likely to need yet more energy, despite the immense amount of energy consumed today. The environmental problems associated with energy production and use will also need to be addressed, including local and regional pollution, and the much-discussed problem of global warming.
Many people don’t realize that our own body houses trace amounts of uranium! Canada’s actually taken advantage of this relatively abundant resource and is so far the number one uranium producer in the world.
NUCLEAR REACTOR
Can nuclear provide the energy we need? It already generates about 20% of the world's electricity, including 50% in Western Europe and 80% in France. It is reliable, having high "load factors" - typically more than 90% - with nearly all of the remaining time spent on planned maintenance. Its long-term costs are similar to those of coal. It has little harmful effect on the environment and it is safer than all other sources, apart from natural gas.
Nuclear power only differs from other energy sources in that it emits nuclear radiations. The interior of a nuclear reactor is highly radioactive, and the spent fuel has to be removed periodically for reprocessing. However, the techniques for doing this are well developed and can be carried out safely. The relatively small volumes of highly radioactive residues (nuclear waste) are first stored above ground for several decades to allow the short-lived isotopes to decay, the rest being fused into a insoluble ceramic blocks, encased in stainless-steel containers and buried far below ground in a stable geological formation.
Nuclear reactors can also be improved. While current "thermal reactors" burn only uranium-235, which accounts for just 0.7% of natural uranium, so-called "fast reactors" can burn the remaining 99.3% of the uranium. One reason why fast reactors are not used is because they are more difficult to build, but they will become more economic as uranium becomes more expensive - and could eventually take over from thermal reactors.
Before then, other reactor designs may become available. A particularly promising line of research, which is being pioneered by the Nobel-prize winning physicist Carlo Rubbia and others, is into reactors that depend on spallation neutrons from a proton accelerator. The protons hit a target of a heavy metal, such as tungsten, producing a shower of neutrons that go into a sub-critical reactor assembly. This makes the reactor go critical, thereby generating power. Such reactors are easily controlled because the reaction stops as soon as the accelerator is switched off. The neutron fluxes are also so high that the radioactive wastes can be burnt inside the reactor. These are both highly desirable environmental features. "Pebble-bed" reactors are another promising development.
In the longer term, I have high hopes that fusion energy will ultimately become available. Intensive work is in progress on several possible designs for a fusion reactor. These reactors need deuterium, which is present in water in the proportion of about one part in five thousand. The energy available from fusion reactors is therefore practically limitless.
It is indeed fortunate that, just as other major energy sources are becoming exhausted or are recognized as seriously polluting, a new energy source - nuclear power - has become available to meet our needs.
FOR AND AGAINST
Our civilization and our standard of living depend on an adequate supply of energy. Without energy, we would not be able to heat our homes or cook our food. Long-distance travel and communication would become impossible, and our factories could no longer produce the goods that we need.
A century ago the world's energy came almost wholly from coal and "traditional" sources, such as wood, crop residues and animal dung. These are still major sources of energy, particularly in developing countries, where 2 billion people are without access to, or cannot afford, modern energy forms. Wood and dung are estimated to provide an amount of energy equivalent to 1 billion tonnes of oil each year; it is sobering to realize that this is 1.6 times more energy than is provided worldwide by nuclear power, and is about the same as the amount of energy provided by coal in Europe and the US combined
During the 20th century, the world's commercial output and population increased more rapidly than ever before, as did energy consumption, which rose more than tenfold, with a major shift towards oil and gas fuels, and to hydroelectricity and nuclear power. Most of the growth was in industrial nations, where the per capita consumption of commercial fuels is about 10 times that in the developing world.
Energy markets in the industrial countries are maturing, and may even peak and decline with continued improvements in energy efficiency. The last two centuries saw energy efficiency increase enormously - in motive power, electricity generation, lighting, in the use and conservation of heat, and in an array of other applications. There is no evidence that further gains will not be achieved in the future - for example through the use of fuel cells for transport, which could lead to a two- or threefold increase in fuel efficiency relative to that of the internal combustion engine, and through distributed sources of combined heat and power.
The situation is different in developing countries, where billions of people have hardly enough energy to survive, let alone enough to increase their living standards. If they are to achieve prosperity, their energy needs - which are doubling every 15 years - will have to be met. Moreover, their population will soon be 7-10 times greater than that of the industrial world, and (with the sad exception of several African countries) economic growth is much higher than it is for industrial nations.
If we assume that, after allowing for gains in energy efficiency, the developing world eventually uses only half of the energy per capita consumed by industrial nations today, then the world's energy consumption will still rise more than threefold. Developing nations will therefore need about 5 x 106 MW of new electricity-generating capacity in the coming decades, compared with the 1 x 106 MW they have today and the 2 x 106 MW in the industrial nations. (Electricity generation accounts for only about one-fifth of our final energy consumption - the rest mainly being for transport and heating.)
Our common ground in debating the question "Do we need nuclear power?" is therefore the fact that the world is likely to need yet more energy, despite the immense amount of energy consumed today. The environmental problems associated with energy production and use will also need to be addressed, including local and regional pollution, and the much-discussed problem of global warming.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment