Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy harnesses the power of the atom to generate tremendous amounts of electricity
from a very small amount or fuel. This controversial source is non-renewable because there is a
finite amount of uranium, and while it produces no carbon emissions it is not “green” because of
the radioactive waste it produces.

Nuclear power plants use the heat created by splitting uranium atoms to create steam either by
boiling water or turning pressurized water into steam without boiling it. The steam turns turbines,
which generate electricity. In both boiling water and pressurized water systems the steam is
condensed back into water to be cycled again. 

Nuclear fission in action

Much of the controversy surrounding nuclear energy is a fear of what could happen. In the years
since nuclear energy plants began generating, there have been three major accidents- Three Mile
Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima Daiichi in 2011. An example of what could go
wrong follows.

Three Mile Island was a loss of coolant accident. A mechanical failure prevented water from
reaching the reactor core to cool it. As pressure began to build in the core, a relief valve opened
as it should have, but remained stuck open when pressure returned to normal levels. Cooling
water poured out of the valve, but plant staff was unaware as instruments indicated the valve was
closed. Without correct information from instrument readings, staff incorrectly reduced the amount
of cooling water going to the reactor, which caused it to overheat. The zirconium cladding that
contained the uranium fuel pellets began to melt. A hydrogen bubble formed inside the containment
dome, raising fears of an explosion and containment breach. Pregnant women and small children
were ordered to evacuate, and there was a release of radiation (done intentionally to relieve pressure)
but not enough to cause any health issues. Plant staff resumed the flow of cooling water and were
able to reduce the hydrogen bubble. The reactor stabilized, and it was discovered that about half
of the core had melted. 

Three Mile Island. The cooling towers for the damaged
reactor are in the foreground. (Lancaster Online)

Safety has improved considerably at US plants. In fact, the costs associated with safety, security,
and permitting have become almost prohibitive to opening new plants. A plant in Tennessee will
be coming online in late 2016, over 40 years after construction began because low demand for
electricity and did not justify the cost of completing the plant until recently.

Aside from safety concerns, spent nuclear fuel is an issue no one is quite sure how to deal with.
Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored on-site at power plants. First, it is stored in a cooling pool
for a minimum of five years. When it has cooled enough, it is encased in a concrete and steel cask.
However, the material will remain radioactive for thousands of years and a permanent location for
disposal has yet to be found. Reprocessing allows uranium and the resulting plutonium to be reused
as fuel, which cuts down on the amount of waste material but only delays the problem.

Spent nuclear fuel in a cooling pool (International Atomic Energy Agency)

One potential solution to the waste problem is transatomic power, which dissolves nuclear waste
into molten salt, would reduce the amount of spent nuclear fuel by using it again. It also has the
potential to reduce the half-life of waste, or amount of time that it takes for half of the mass to decay
and no longer be radioactive.

Another negative environmental impact of nuclear energy is the potential for radioactive release or
water pollution from tailings at uranium mines. Uranium tailings are radioactive, and may contain
sulfides that can produce acids. Tailings should be placed within an engineered dam and then back
inside the mine when operations conclude (World Nuclear Association, 2013).

After examining various methods of energy production, it has become clear that no source is
completely free of environmental impacts. The negative impacts are wide ranging, from localized
to single windmill to a global scale with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been widely panned for the
environmental damage they cause at a regional level for oil spills to the global climate change
linked to carbon dioxide emissions. They have been ruled out as the “greenest” energy, but what
about the others? 

Wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal appear to have the least negative environmental impacts but
can be limited by factors such as geology, topography, and weather. As technology advances, it
may be able to overcome these limitations. An ideal solution to the fossil fuel problem is to
increase their generating capacity and incorporate them into an improved and more efficient grid.
Since these sources, as well as hydroelectric, are mainly regional a better grid would blend all
electricity into a single network that can easily transfer energy to rapidly meet demand. Thus,
hydroelectric from the Pacific Northwest could supply power to Iowa when the wind stops blowing. 

So what is the “greenest” energy? It is all a matter of personal preference and an individual’s
tolerance for the different negative impacts. Bird strikes from wind energy may be a more pressing
concern for some people than fish strikes caused by tidal energy. 

This week's information comes from Duke Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Wired, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Transatomic Power, and World Nuclear Association.