Should Nuclear Power be an important part of our energy mix for the 21st Century? Nuclear power is seen by many as the future for energy production. With fossil fuels producing gases which pollute the environment and at threat of running out and other more renewable resources not being reliable and being overly expensive, nuclear power has the potential to be affordable, renewable and can produce masses of energy. The main reason nuclear power is being invested in globally by governments is its ‘clean’ profile; unlike other fossil fuels, which are currently used to produce most energy, nuclear energy production produces no smoke or carbon dioxide. Nuclear fission only produces steam from the power plants, causing no harm to the environment.
PROS AND CONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY While energy from coal, oil and gas are the main source of world’s energy, another of today’s energy source is nuclear power. From the climate change viewpoint nuclear power has certain advantage. Nuclear energy releases nearly no carbon dioxide and therefore does not contribute to global warming. However, nuclear energy does have some tremendous downsides. The prime examples are demonstrated in the catastrophe in Chernobyl and more recently after a 2011 earthquake and tsunami that caused the shutdown of reactors in Fukushima, Japan.
Nuclear fission produces no greenhouse emissions (Alexander 1). This is also good for our atmosphere (Alexander 1). As nuclear energy is produced, there are no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides being produced with it, unlike the burning of fossil fuels (Rastogi 1). These oxides can cause acid rain which is very bad for the environment
CADMIUM POLLUTION AND ANTHROPOLOGY by Courtney Van Gemert Cadmium toxixicity is of great concern to the world anthropologically. Cadmium is an element existing naturally in minute concentrations across terrestrial and marine environments, but greater excess levels observed are almost entirely anthropogenically introduced. Though cadmium has favorable chemical and physical properties conducive to wide use in special alloys, stabilizers, in rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries, and as a control rod material in nuclear reactors, it is a toxic heavy metal of increasing environmental concern due to its wide variety of adverse effects [1]. Cadmium is harmful to various organs, from kidneys to the central nervous system in vertebrates, including humans. In fish, neurological functions, intermediary metabolism, antioxidant activity, epithelial transport, and other physiological and biochemical systems are damaged by cadmium [2].All of these harmful bioinorganic effects are largely due to occupational or environmental exposure to in-excess levels of cadmium through inhalation or ingestion of fine air particulates and consumption of cadmium-exposed plants, animals, or water.
Although the ESBWR uses none of the active systems that the previous design entails, the power production from the natural circulation, gravity, evaporation, and condensation that the advanced design incorporates is much greater than the previous design. The previous design’s production of its components fit to a “build-as-you-go” concept; this can cause a longer production process, plus more of a chance that things going wrong with this production process. All the components of the ESBWR system are produced prior to putting the pieces together; therefore, this will cut production costs and time spent on the project. As far as enrichment of fuel, the old and new designs do not differ much at all. For the 1980’s design, it has a fuel enrichment of 2.5-4.5% UO2.
the second cause of global climate change is fluorocarbons. Fluorocarbons are man-made chemicals used in refrigerants, solvents, and anesthetics. These chemicals contribute to the greenhouse effect, warming the Earth. The amount of these gases in the atmosphere and their atmospheric concentration is lower than carbon dioxide but, they are a lot more potent. Even though the use of fluorocarbons has been phased out, they still exist inside of older equipment.
The neutralization, reduction, or removal of fission products and subsequently their associated negative effects will allow for higher burnup in nuclear reactors. Source and Quantity of Fission Products The total quantity of fission products present in the fuel can be determined by a direct mass balance relating the rate of production by fission (requires that the fission product yield be known) to the rate of loss by radioactive decay. In order to determine the overall fission product yield the contribution from beta decaying precursors to the independent yield of the isotopes must be accounted for. The independent fission yield (iy) is the
Nuclear power contaminates water supplies. Around the country, there has been cases of water contamination with radioactive substanves. The worl of mining materials used in some nuclear plants, like uranium and titanium, run a very high risk of water contamination to near rivers, streams, and ground water supplies. This would not be good. It would harm more than it would help.
Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States. RISK FACTORS/Exposure to mercury One major risk factor for mercury toxicity is industrial contamination. Workers employed in the manufacturing of mirrors, thermometers, fluorescent lights, and radiography machines, as well as in gold mining, are at risk for inorganic mercury poisoning. Organic mercury poisoning can occur among exposed workers in the paper and pulp industries. Mercury mining areas in China have also contributed to cases of methylmercury poisoning through the ingestion of rice grown in contaminated soil.
Air pollution from government facilities, such as the Hanford nuclear testing facility, is causing harmful effects to people and the environment (OEM 1). Some side effects are damage to local wildlife, cardiovascular health problems and global warming (OEM). According to the American Lung Association, “The human toll is profound. They cited one 2010 study that estimated fine particles (PM2.5) contribute to 223,000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide.” (ALA, Par. 3).