Since the partial reactor meltdown in 1979 at Three Mile Island and 1986 accident at Chernobyl, the idea of conventional nuclear power had been held back for about two decades. Now, the United States of America, United Kingdom, Switzerland, South Korea, South Africa, Japan, France, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, European Union, China and Russia, a total of 13 countries are working together as the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to lay the groundwork for the Generation IV nuclear reactor which is said to be a nuclear energy system that offers advantages in the areas of economies, safety and reliability, sustainability and could be deployed commercially by 2030. Due to the increasing cost of fossil fuels, nuclear power has been considered as the best alternative fuel. But, what most people are concerned of is whether nuclear power is safe to be used.
Due to the accidents mentioned earlier, safety features is the main concern of scientists when developing the Generation IV nuclear reactor. Even though these reactors operate at high temperatures, heat produced will be transferred to other production plant and an inert coolant will be used to cool the reactor down. For example, heat produced by the very high temperature reactor (VHTR) is transferred to hydrogen production plant and helium gas is used as coolant. Another issue that rises from the usage of nuclear power is the nuclear waste. Generation IV nuclear reactor is designed to produce nuclear waste that lasts decade instead of millennia. Furthermore, it has the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity. With these safety features, I believed that the Generation IV nuclear power definitely has the potential to be the fuel of the future.
Written By:
Sara Liew Kar Mun
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Should we even consider nuclear power in the first place?
From the roundtable discussion, I observe that no matter which nuclear reactor we are going to choose, there are bound to be some aspects in which the design of the reactor will fail to address adequately. Safeguard against nuclear weapon proliferation is one such aspect that sparks off a contentious debate among our group.
For example, VHTR though promises to produce nuclear waste that is low in radioactive content and difficult for extraction of trapped fission products for use as nuclear weapons, has failed to address the problem of producing large volume of low-radioactive waste. The difficulty in extracting trapped fission products also does not necessarily render the terrorists incapable of utilizing these products as potential nuclear weapons.
Moreover, we also observe that majority of nuclear technologies and materials needed for the construction of a Generation IV nuclear power reactor are at the same time essential to develop a nuclear weapons program. As such, claims made by the proponents of Generation IV reactor with regards to safeguarding against nuclear weapon proliferation can never be valid.
Another issue is whether nuclear power really the solution to global warming as claimed by proponents of Generation IV reactors. In my opinion, even if these reactors were environmental-friendly, nuclear power could do little or nothing in the fight against global warming. This is because nuclear power is used only to generate electricity (except for VHTR that produces hydrogen as well) and its contribution to the world’s electricity only represents a mere 16%. Electricity itself, however, only accounts for approximately one third of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. Hence, construction of any nuclear reactors is unlikely to be the solution to the global climatic change.
In conclusion, while Generation IV reactors are still unable to adequately address the issues of weapon proliferation and radioactive waste management, we should not embark on the construction of nuclear reactors so eagerly. Funding should instead concentrate more on research for renewable energy resources such as wind and solar energy which are more practical and realistic solutions to our energy demand problems.
Written by: Teo Kian Siong
For example, VHTR though promises to produce nuclear waste that is low in radioactive content and difficult for extraction of trapped fission products for use as nuclear weapons, has failed to address the problem of producing large volume of low-radioactive waste. The difficulty in extracting trapped fission products also does not necessarily render the terrorists incapable of utilizing these products as potential nuclear weapons.
Moreover, we also observe that majority of nuclear technologies and materials needed for the construction of a Generation IV nuclear power reactor are at the same time essential to develop a nuclear weapons program. As such, claims made by the proponents of Generation IV reactor with regards to safeguarding against nuclear weapon proliferation can never be valid.
Another issue is whether nuclear power really the solution to global warming as claimed by proponents of Generation IV reactors. In my opinion, even if these reactors were environmental-friendly, nuclear power could do little or nothing in the fight against global warming. This is because nuclear power is used only to generate electricity (except for VHTR that produces hydrogen as well) and its contribution to the world’s electricity only represents a mere 16%. Electricity itself, however, only accounts for approximately one third of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. Hence, construction of any nuclear reactors is unlikely to be the solution to the global climatic change.
In conclusion, while Generation IV reactors are still unable to adequately address the issues of weapon proliferation and radioactive waste management, we should not embark on the construction of nuclear reactors so eagerly. Funding should instead concentrate more on research for renewable energy resources such as wind and solar energy which are more practical and realistic solutions to our energy demand problems.
Written by: Teo Kian Siong
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)