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.

Wind Energy

Wind energy is another “clean” energy using the power of moving air to generate electricity. It is renewable because there is no shortage of air on the planet, and it is constantly in motion to a varying degree. It is not completely reliable because the wind is not always blowing, although the wind turbines are at least 100 feet above the ground to take advantage of the less turbulent and more abundant airflow, as compared to ground level.

Wind farm (US Department of Energy)

Wind energy currently makes up 4% of the US energy mix, but is growing and will eventually pass
hydroelectric as most rivers are dammed to capacity. An ideal place for wind farms in the central US
“Tornado Alley” because of nearly constant strong wind. Wind farms are compatible with the
traditional farms of the region and are an economic boon for farmers. They can lease land to energy
companies for windmill placement, and still have the ability to use nearly all of their land. Ridge tops
in the Appalachians are another great location, where topography produces adequate wind speeds.  

Developing technology has greatly improved the efficiency of windmills. Lighter blades, taller towers,
and control systems have increased the average capacity factor from 22% in 1998 to 33% in 2014. As
the race to replace fossil fuels continues, expect efficiency to increase further.

The downside to wind energy, aside from lack of wind, includes environmental impacts. Construction
of windmills in undeveloped areas requires access roads and site preparation, which can be a strain on
the environment. Leaking lubricants can pollute the soil. Birds and can be struck and killed by
windmill blades. However, fewer birds are killed by windmills than stationary buildings. Many birds
are learning to avoid areas containing windmills. Tornado Alley windfarms are away from major
flyways so migratory birds are less likely to affected in that region.

Birds and windmills are not always a good mix (NBC News)

Other negatives are aesthetics and safety. Many people believe the windmills are unsightly and ruin the
landscape. One workaround for that is to install them in developed areas, where they might actually
improve the view, especially if the view is mainly housing developments and shopping centers.
The focus then shifts to noise. The rotating blades can be noisy, depending on the distance from the
listened but the elevation above the ground helps reduce that.

Safety can be an issue when rotating blades are involved. Machines malfunction, and should a windmill
throw a blade, the potential for human death is there. A serious concern in Tornado Alley is that a
namesake tornado could destroy a wind farm and turn the blades into deadly projectiles.

This week's information comes from National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Mount Holyoke College, and US Department of Energy. Next week we'll take a look at solar energy.

Tidal Energy

Continuing the series on alternative energy sources, this week features tidal energy. It is similar to
hydroelectric power: it uses the same principles of water in motion and is also a “clean” energy source.
However, tidal power relies not on the temperamental flow of a river which is subject to effects of
weather and climate but on the timeless and ceaseless pull of the sun and moon on the world’s oceans.
Because of its reliance on ocean tides, this is considered a renewable energy source because it does
not diminish the amount of tides in the ocean.

Tidal power is also similar to wind power. Tidal turbines look like miniature underwater windmills.
Tidal turbines can be smaller and more densely spaced than windmills because water is denser than air;
less surface area is required to generate a comparable amount of electricity. While the wind may not
always blow, the tides are always in motion. 

Tide turbines (Forbes)

Another device to harness the energy of the tides is called a barrage. It is similar to a small submerged
dam that blocks the incoming and outgoing tides at the mouth of an estuary. A sluice in the dam opens
to collect the tidewater, which flows though and turns turbines to generate electricity.

One drawback of tidal energy is the tides themselves. Generation capacity is limited by the tidal cycle,
meaning peak demand will frequently be missed. Also, the change in tides must be at least seven
meters for this to be economically efficient. 

Barrages are limited by location. Not all estuaries are suitable sites. The equipment used for generation (either barrages or tide turbines) must be highly durable due to the unforgiving nature of the undersea environment.

Tidal barrage (Britannica)

Like the other energy sources previously mentioned, tidal power has negative impacts on the environment. However, due to limit use of this technology, these impacts are still being studied and at present are not certain to be occurring. The possible impacts include altered waves, currents, substrate, and sediment movement; loss of habitat for benthic organisms; noise that may interfere with biosonar; generation of magnetic fields; introduction of toxins in paint, lubricants, and antifouling; hindrance of fish passage; and fish being struck by blades or sucked into turbines.

This week's information comes from Marine Current Turbines, Ocean Energy Council, and Pacific Marine Energy Center. After a brief break for a look at June's Species of the Month, this series will resume with wind energy.

Another Red Knot Failure

Last year, I spent a day along the Jersey Shore (Delaware Bay side, away from the beach-goers) in search of migratory shorebirds making their way north. In particular, I was after the rare and elusive red knot. I failed to find any, but they were at the first beach I visited just hours before I arrived.

This year, I planned a second trip to try again. Red knots stop at Delaware Bay to refuel on horseshoe crab eggs, and with the full moon this past weekend I was sure the crabs would be spawning. I planned a camping trip so I could spend more than just a day searching, and be there first thing in the morning without having to leave home at 2 AM.

The corona virus put a stop to my plans. With snow, rain, and wind there were two nice days out of the four I had planned on spending at the beach so it wasn't a total loss. I'll have to try again next year. Until then, enjoy some pictures from last year's expedition.

Firefly Watch starts next week and will go on as planned. Stay tuned for a report this fall!