1.0 Introduction
1.1 Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is the energy that we get from the nucleus of an atom of uranium. There is a huge amount of energy that bond holds the atom together. We need this energy in order to make electricity. There are two ways of getting energy from nucleus nuclear fission and nuclear fusion (Willis, 1999).
1.2 Purpose of the Research
Coal and other fossil fuel are limited. They are in limited amount in the Earth crust and the demand of energy is increasing day by day. In this situation we need some other sources of energy and one of this could be nuclear energy (Willis, 1999). Nuclear energy is an upcoming energy source that is being contemplated by many nations worldwide to help overcome the burden of other energy source such as coal. This energy is one of the solutions that can help to replace the diminishing coal as the Earth’s energy source. An overwhelming interest in atomic physics is the main reason why a research on nuclear energy is carried out (Willis, 1999). Nevertheless, this is a controversial topic as it has been opposed by many conservative groups and therefore making it difficult to be accepted publicly. The study on nuclear energy will help increase the understanding of this current issue and raise awareness of people around the world on the importance of nuclear power (Willis, 1999).
1.3 Production of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear fission is the process in which big atom splits into small atoms and releases energy (Willis, 1999). Uranium is the element which readily undergoes fission. When we project loose electron towards the uranium atom it absorbs it and turn in to fission product. The combined mass of these two atoms are less than the original uranium atom because some mass is converted and released as heat energy to the atmosphere (Willis, 1999). In the same process some neutrons are also released and hit the other atoms, thus resulting in self sustaining chain reaction. This reaction creates very large amount of heat, which can be used to generate electricity (Energy, 1993).
On the other hand, nuclear fusion is the process in which small atoms combine to make a big atom and releases energy (Willis, 1999). Most common example of nuclear fusion is the Sun because the Sun produces energy from fusion of hydrogen nuclei with the helium. Research is still going on the production of fusion energy. Fusion starts by using an atomic bomb due to its complexity and large amount of energy is required for this reaction to get started (Willis, 1999).
1.4 Brief History
Enrico Fermi an Italian physic in 1934 carried out an experiment that proved that neutrons can be made able to split to different kinds of atoms (Energy, 1993). He couldn’t get the elements that he supposed to get when he bombarded uranium with neutrons. After four years, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman fired neutrons from a source containing the radium and beryllium into uranium and they were surprised to discover lighter elements for example radium and beryllium into the remaining material(Energy, 1993). These new elements had about half the atomic mass of uranium which is very light relative to the findings made by Enrico Fermi. Hahn and Strassman contacted Lise Meitner, who is an Austrian colleague who had been forced to flee Nazi Germany, before announcing their discovery. However, Meitner conducted her own research and found out that the atomic masses of the fission products did not total as the uranium’s mass. She used the Einstein’s theory to prove that the lost mass is actually due to the mass being released as energy to its surroundings. This confirmed Einstein’s work and proved that fission really does occur (Energy, 1993). In 1939, Bohr shared with Einstein the Hahn-Strassman-Meitner discoveries and also met Fermi at a convention on theoretical physics in Washington, D.C. They discussed the exciting possibility of a self-sustaining chain reaction. The self-sustaining chain reaction is a process where atoms could be split to release a large amount of energy. This created a major euphoria as scientists throughout the world began to believe of this concept. Unfortunately, the quantity of uranium needed for this to work should be sufficient. In the year 1942, Fermi and his group of scientists met and started working on their theories which included a potential design for a uranium chain reactor (Energy, 1993).
The world’s first nuclear reactor, which is also known as Chicago Pile-1 was constructed beneath the University of Chicago’s athletic stadium. Finally, the world had entered the nuclear age when Fermi and his group successfully proved the theory of a self-sustaining nuclear reaction during the demonstration of Chicago Pile-1 (Energy, 1993).
2.0 Advantages of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable, compact, competitive, and practically unlimited. Today over 400 nuclear reactors provide base-load electric power in 30 countries (Ashcroft 2008). Fifty years old, it is a relatively mature technology with the guarantee of great enlargement in the next generation. Nuclear energy produces nearly no carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides at all. These gases are produced in huge quantities when fossil fuels are burned (Ashcroft 2008).
2.1 Nuclear Waste
One gram of uranium yields about as much energy as a ton of coal or oil it is the famous "factor of a million" (Kunzemann, 2008). Nuclear waste is correspondingly about a million times is not biggest than fossil fuel waste, and it is fully confined. In the USA and Sweden, spent fuel is easily stored away in another place. Spent fuel is reprocessed to separate out the 3% of radioactive fission products and heavy elements to be vitrified (cast in glass) for safe and enduring storage (Kunzemann, 2008). The remaining 97% Plutonium and uranium were recovered and recycled into new fuel materials to produce more energy. The quantity of nuclear waste produced is too small. Nuclear waste is to be deposited in deep geological storage sites; it does not go in the biosphere. Its impact on the ecosystems is negligible (Kunzemann, 2008). Nuclear waste spontaneously decays over time while constant chemical waste, such as arsenic or mercury, lasts forever. Most of the fossil fuel wastes are in the form of gases that go up the smokestack. We don’t see it, but it is not without effect, causing global warming, acid rain, smog and other atmospheric pollution (Kunzemann, 2008).
2.2 Safety
Nuclear energy is safe as proved by the record of half a century of commercial operation and the accumulated experience of more than 12,000 reactor-years(Pillai, 2008).
There have been only two serious accidents in the commercial exploitation of nuclear power .Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979 USA and in 1986 it was in the Soviet Union (Pillai, 2008). TMI was the worst accident one can imagine in a western power reactor. The core of the reactor melted down and much of it fell to the bottom of the reactor vessel. The radioactivity released was almost completely confined within the reinforced concrete containment structure, the air-tight silo-like building which houses the reactor (Pillai, 2008). The small amount of radioactivity which escaped was quite innocuous. As a result, no one at TMI was seriously radiated nor did anyone die. In fact, Three Mile Island was a real success story for nuclear safety.
The worst possible accident occurred, a core meltdown, and yet no one died or was even injured. The reactors at Chernobyl had no containment structure. The reactor’s faulty design made it unstable and Chernobyl was operated that night in a way known to be dangerous (Ling, 2009). In the execution of a test, all the security systems were deliberately bypassed. An uncontrollable surge in power occurred leading to a steam explosion. The 600-ton graphite moderator then caught fire and burned for several weeks. The smoke carried more than half the radioactive fission products directly into the atmosphere where they were swept far and wide by the winds(Ling, 2009). Fewer than 32 persons died within a few months, and about 200 more were severely irradiated but survived. The inhabitants of the exclusion zone were also victims as they were hurriedly uprooted, evacuated and resettled elsewhere. They lost their jobs and suffered psychological and social trauma in the dissolving Soviet Union (Newkirk, 2009).
Minor accidents that caused release of radioactivity have also taken place like the one occurred in Hitachi, Japan, about 10 years back.
2.3 Reliability
Nuclear reactors grant base-load power and are available over 90% of the time. Interval between refueling has been extended and down time for refueling has been reduced (Ashcroft, 2008). In the USA, these improvements over the years have been the equivalent of adding one reactor a year to the obtainable fleet. Most reactors are designed for a life of 40 years; many are getting that age in good condition and extensions of 20 years have usually been granted (Ashcroft, 2008).
2.4 Competitive Cost
The cost of nuclear energy is competitive and constant. The cost of nuclear energy fuel is a small part of the price of a nuclear kilowatt-hour, whereas fossil fueled energy, particularly oil and gas, is at the mercy of the market (Ashcroft, 2008). Uranium is found everywhere in the crust of the Earth. It is more plentiful than tin. Major deposits are found in Canada and Australia. It is estimated that increasing the market price by a factor of ten would result in 100 times more uranium coming to market. Ultimately, we will be able to recover uranium from sea water where 4 billion tons are dissolved (Ling, 2009). The stations of nuclear energy are too compact, occupying typically the location of football stadium and its surrounding parking lots. Solar cells, airstream turbine farms and growing biomass, all these need a big part of land (Ling, 2009).
2.5 Radiation
Very few are aware of the fact that radiations are present everywhere in the environment. The anti-nuclear organizations also exploit the widespread but mistaken explanation of the studies of the health of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing (Newkirk, 2009). In fact a moderate quantity of radiation is natural and beneficial, if not essential, to being. Radiation has been bathing our environment since the earliest history of our planet, and it is present everywhere in nature. In fact, our Sun and its planets including the Earth are the remnants of the huge explosion of a supernova. Everything is radioactive around us in nature and it was already there even before the radioactivity was discovered. This radiation spontaneously decreases with time. When life first appeared on Earth, the natural radiation levels were about twice as high as today. Most people are totally unaware of the fact that the human body itself is naturally radioactive. Our bodies contain about 8000 Becquerel’s (8000 atoms disintegrating every second), about half of which is potassium-40, a chemical element essential for health (Newkirk, 2009).
3.0 Statement of Problem
Nuclear energy has become an important source of energy to be used in the world since the amount of fossil fuel is reducing. Additionally, it has been considered as an exclusive concept to the issue of climate change because it emits no greenhouse gases (Ashcroft, 2008).
The nuclear reactors produce and discharge extremely radioactive nuclear waste products. These products emit dangerous radiation during decomposition and this decaying process will last for thousands of years minimum before it reaches the safe level of decomposition (Ashcroft, 2008). Hence, they cannot be dumped out without proper management and this matter is clearly highlighted in the state of Georgia as there are thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste placed in enclosed areas still waiting to be disposed off (Newkirk, 2009).
The construction of nuclear reactors is very costly and it takes a long time to build them (Pillai, 2008). These nuclear reactors have a short lifespan ranging from forty to fifty years and hence, they are costly to replace (Anderson, D., 2001). The current economic recession has strictly limited all countries in rejuvenating the nuclear industry especially countries that are contemplating in expanding their nuclear fleet as the current reactors are most likely to be retiring by 2030 (Ling, 2009). Besides that, the third world countries will unlikely have access to nuclear power due to the complicated technologies involved and the high costs of construction of nuclear reactors (Kunzemann, 2008). The maintenance and operating costs are also high because lots of money must be sent on to the safety systems in case something goes wrong (Newkirk, 2009).
While the likelihood of a modern reactor explosion like Chernobyl is almost impossible, there is still a possibility of having quite horrific results. Nuclear plant workers usually are exposed to high levels of radiations, which can cause cancer and other ailments. Nuclear reactors are particularly vulnerable to terrorist attacks as it would be very alluring targets to anyone wanting to interrupt the power supply and devastate an entire region in one chance (Ashcroft, 2008).
4.0 Methods of research
A survey was carried out to know the public opinion regarding the issue of the implementation of nuclear energy. 100 questionnaires were distributed to students of MMU Cyberjaya campus, to know their views regarding this matter. The survey was filled up by both the local and international students as the answer will clearly show on what the world think of this energy. This will also indirectly give us an indication on what our future will be as students are the next generation leaders for their respective countries.
5.0 Survey
Our group has successfully conducted a survey regarding the topic on the implementation of nuclear energy from 7th of March 2010 to 14th of March 2010 in Multimedia University, Cyberjaya campus. The set of questionnaires were distributed to the volunteers who were willing to take their time and answer it. A total of 100 questionnaires were distributed randomly to students with different gender, faculty, and age group of MMU. Below are the results and discussions based from the collected data. We present the data in the form of graphs and charts. Analysis of the collected data is also carried out, as discussed in following paragraphs.
 |
| Figure 1: The public's opinion regarding nuclear energy |
Figure 1 clearly shows that the public has a very negative opinion about nuclear energy. From question 1, about 65 out of the 100 participants who took part in this survey disagreed with the statement that the nuclear energy is a clean source of energy while the other 35 agreed to this statement. The majority of the participants also gave a "no" when asked on whether Malaysia will be interested to practice nuclear energy, which is about 55% of the participants. It is noted that Malaysia does not have the resources that are required for the production of this power. The uranium and the plutonium will cost a fortune and this will really prove a problem to the limited financial resources what Malaysia has at present.
 |
| Figure 2: Concerns regarding nuclear energy |
Figure 2 gives a very strong impression about the concerns regarding nuclear energy. Majority of the participants answered as yes to both questions leaving a huge task for nuclear energy to ease this uncertainty. About 90 out of the 100 participants agreed that there are terrorism or proliferation concerns regarding nuclear energy.
The nuclear bomb that the United States dropped in Japan has left everyone with a painful memory. This is why many countries are afraid of nuclear energy. This is followed by 70 out of the 100 participants agreeing that the nuclear energy will not be accepted due to the current economic meltdown. The current economy recession has caused many countries to suffer financially. As the cost of the nuclear production being very high, most of the countries will try not be involved in this sector as much as they can.
 |
| Figure 3: Alternative energy if nuclear energy does not get acceptance worldwide |
About 85% of the participants answered that renewable energy is a mean of energy source that is available readily if nuclear energy is rejected. However there were still 15% of them who think fossil fuels should be maintained as an energy source. This is something to think about as the supply of fossil fuel is limited and going to be extinct soon as it takes million of years to reproduce this through geological process under the Earth plates.
 |
| Figure 4: General perception for countries to have nuclear energy |
Figure 4, however, shows how close the public opinion is regarding other countries having nuclear energy. About 45 participants said that every country has the right to implement nuclear energy while the other 55 disagreed to this. Question 7 also gave a carbon copy data as majority of the participants think that every country should not have nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes. This might be due to the terrorism or proliferation concerns that were asked earlier.
 |
| Figure 5: Energy of Choice |
Based on question 6 from Figure 5, 55 of the 100 participants which are approximately 55% think that nuclear energy is a much more efficient power source compared to fossil fuel. This is considered as a small step towards the acceptance of this controversial energy resource. However, when asked for suggestion, the participants’ answers were very uncertain as both fossil fuels and nuclear energy received 50% each. This clearly shows that all the problems have given the people food for thought on which energy will be more suitable.
 |
| Figure 6: Research on Nuclear Energy |
Among the 100 participants who took this questionnaire, 80% of them gave an overwhelming "no" to the idea of researching more about nuclear energy, if it is considered as an alternative to fossil fuels, while the other 20% think likewise. This clearly shows that the public has not agreed to the idea that nuclear energy is a solution and want to wait for further development regarding new sources of energy that might be available in the future.
6.0 Conclusion
After the dark ages the human being had been through, such a hardcore poverty, ignorance, weakness in defeating diseases, etc, human has become able to control atoms and manipulate different types of energy. Once human could control one of the most dangerous energy type which is nuclear energy, then human will be able to develop the world or destroy it.
The Scientific American magazine 2008, in terms of development, it writes "A massive switch from coal, oil, and nuclear energy plants to solar power plants could supply 69% of the US’ electricity and 35 % of its total energy by 2050, if we change our point of view to one of the disadvantages and that is towards the fact that during the second world war (i.e. in 1945), the US dropped two atomic bombs in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to the survey which has been carried out by our group, the first chart indicates that the public has a very negative concept about the quality of the nuclear energy source. Also it shows that the public has rejected the ability of Malaysia in implementing nuclear energy. Figure 2 brings a lot of question marks on public’s mentality in how they become afraid of such a development in such kind of energy and it also shows that they don’t have faith in the international security department. The right to implement nuclear energy in other countries is no go in public's opinion which is 55%, i.e., 55 out of 100 participants think that nuclear energy is much more efficient power source compared to fossil fuel. This is considered as a small step towards the acceptance of this controversial nuclear energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment