| NUCLEAR POWER: THE GREEN ALTERNATIVE
? Independent scientist James Lovelock believes that nuclear power is
currently the only practical alternative we have to using fossil fuels as an energy
source. In a recent article he claimed that our
rejection of nuclear power is based only on "unreasoning arguments" and
"imaginary dangers". Although he supports the Green vision of all energy
eventually coming from renewable sources he does not think we have the time to wait for
this to happen. Nuclear power could be used temporarily to remedy the harm from burning
fossil fuels.
According to Lovelock, a recent Swiss study shows nuclear electricity to
be by far the safest of the power industries, even when taking into account the Chernobyl
disaster. Lovelock also claims that the numbers of deaths resulting from Chernobyl were
far fewer than the 5,000 Londoners killed by industrial smog in 1952. "45 people died
at Chernobyl and many of them were the firemen and
helicopter crews who tried to extinguish the fire". He criticises the Greens of
having made such a strong stance against nuclear power that a change of mind by them is
almost impossible, despite its potential to lessen the greenhouse effect. |
|
Apart from being safe and
economic, Lovelock believes that using nuclear power would provide an ideal opportunity to
reduce the stockpiles of uranium and plutonium currently lying in weapons, converting them
to civilian purposes. And, when tackling the issue of nuclear waste, Lovelock has a number
of suggestions. He says he would happily store high level waste on his own land, using the
heat from it to warm his home. Alternatively, nuclear waste could be disposed of into
downward moving regions of the ocean or within tropical forests. As evidence of the safety
of such an option Lovelock describes a wildlife park close to Chernobyl. This area is
considered too radioactive for people to enter but is inhabited by animals and birds,
apparently suffering nothing more than a slightly shorter lifespan.
There are 438 operating
nuclear power plants in 30 countries around the world
n On average, 16% of the world's
electricity supply is generated from nuclear power, avoiding 2 billion tonnes of CO2
emissions annually.
n Use of nuclear power instead of
fossil fuels also cuts sulphur dioxide emissions.
n In 1999, 25% of Britain's
electricity was supplied by nuclear power.
Nuclear Power: The Controversial Issues
We all know that the fossil fuels which currently supply most of our
energy are not in endless supply. The World
Energy Council predicts that by 2020 Western European oil and gas reserves will be low
with coal reserves lasting only 200 to 300 years longer. We also need to replace fossil
fuels with energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide and contribute to global warming
and climate change. Some people believe that nuclear power could be the answer to our
energy crisis, but accidents such as Chernobyl promote fears about the dangers of its use.
Fission Energy: What is
nuclear power?
Radioactive materials, such as uranium, are composed of atoms that are
unstable. An unstable atom gives off its excess energy until it becomes stable.
Uranium-235 is used in nuclear reactors as its unstable atoms can be induced to undergo
fission (splitting) if hit by an atomic particle called a neutron. When this happens, the
atoms split into two and release 2 or 3 more neutrons. In a controlled reactor one of
these neutrons will collide with another uranium atom causing another fission event. A
chain reaction has begun.
Energy is released during fission. The fission products weigh slightly less than the
original atom and this weight difference becomes energy. Einstein’s famous equation
E=mc2 actually states that the energy released will be equal to the weight difference
multiplied by the speed of light squared – a pretty large number to scale up by!
Nuclear power potentially
offers large quantities of energy and does not release carbon dioxide or pollutant gases
such as sulphur dioxide. Used fuel can be reprocessed to reduce waste and the need for
mining new fuel. However, there are a number of objections to nuclear power:
1. Risk to human health and environment from ionising radiation
released.
2. Problems of waste disposal and long lasting radioactive effects of
waste.
3. Accidents could have potentially devastating effects on health, environment and
economy.
4. Shipment of fuel greatly
increases global environmental and security risks. An accident at sea would be far harder
to deal with than on land.
5. Plants are costly; critics claim nuclear power is uneconomic and
unsuitable for poorer nations. |
The Chernobyl Disaster.
On 26th April 1986, a steam explosion at Chernobyl took place. The carbon moderator in
the reactor burned for 9 days and the contents of the reactor, including some of the
radioactive core, were scattered. People within a 30km radius were evacuated as a
contamination zone became established, but farms as far away as Wales and the Lake
District were effected by radioactive fallout. The accident is suspected to have left 237
sufferers of acute radiation sickness and there is strong evidence that an increase in
thyroid cancer in the children of Belarus and Ukraine is linked to Chernobyl.
A recent assessment by the Nuclear Energy
Agency Committee concluded that the Chernobyl accident was "the product of a lack of
safety culture". There were a number of problems with the design of the Chernobyl
plant that made it more susceptible to accident and the operators were unaware that the
test performed could bring the reactor to an explosive state. They also failed to observe
the established operational procedures and safety features had been temporarily disabled.
Power plants are no longer built to the same design as the Chernobyl plant and many
developments have been made to reduce the possibility of such a catastrophe happening
again. |
Alternatives to Nuclear Power
Despite the potential benefits, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace believe that
nuclear power is inherently unsafe and instead recommend investment in Green Energy –
renewable energy sources such as the sun, the sea and the wind, that are clean, safe and
won’t run out. Fusion energy (from the combining rather than splitting of atoms) has
also been discussed as an alternative to fission energy, offering the benefits of nuclear
power without the risks. There are two types of nuclear fusion being investigated: hot
(similar to the reactions that take place in the sun and other stars) and cold.
Did You Know ?
• A sphere of enriched uranium
the size of a cricket ball can produce as much energy as a 50ft cube filled with petrol,
our best conventional fuel.
• Nuclear power is generated in
30 countries around the world. In 2000, France, Lithuania and Belgium all used nuclear
power to generate over half of their electricity.
• The UK has the fourth largest
number of operational nuclear power plants worldwide.
• The UK’s offshore wind energy resources
would theoretically supply the UK’s current energy need 3 times over.
What Do You Think?
Could nuclear power be the answer to global warming, or are the risks too great? How
would you feel about living near a nuclear power plant? What do you think about renewable
energy? Write to Evergreen and let us know!
Useful Links:
www.british-energy.com
www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl.html
www.greenpeace.org |
|
