Einstein’s equation E= mc2 changed the way we understand Energy. A small mass could produce immense energy since it is multiplied by square of speed of light (which is 3x10^8m/s square and that is whooping 9x10^12m/s!!). Now that is huge amount of energy, the destructive power of which was demonstrated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children are taught in school about controlled chain reaction, that is, channelising this fission energy for beneficial purpose. There is huge energy to tap. Many nuclear reactors are constructed around the world for this purpose.
When othe
r source of energy are depleting, nuclear energy looks like a hope. The capacity of Non conventional energy or renewable source like the wind or solar or geothermal seems to be very limited at this stage although they remain the most environment friendly. The need for reducing green house gases has led to attempts in decarbonising energy source. It is clear that nuclear energy will not fulfill all the energy need of the future but it will significantly supplement. This blogger will advocate nuclear energy provided three conditions are fulfilled.
One is the key issue of safety and disposal of waste
This line I came across in the Net expresses the predicament regarding radioactive nuclear waste. ‘The stuff we are dealing with can’t go away until it decays. You can containerize it, solidi
fy it, immobilize it and move it, but you can’t make it go away’ (James D. Werner, Scientific American, May 1996). Typically, a large nuclear power plant of generating capacity of 1000 MW electricity produces ‘around 27 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste (HLW), 310 tonnes of intermediate-level and 460 tonnes of low level radioactive waste. The amount of HLW worldwide is estimated to be currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year. The level of radioactivity and half-lives of radioactive isotopes in low-level waste are relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low-level waste to decay, at which point the waste can be disposed of as normal refuse. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high-level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years), creating long time-periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is promoting acceptance of some basic tenets by all countries for radioactive waste management. These include: (i) securing acceptable level of protection of human health; (ii) provision of an acceptable level of protection of environment; (iii) while envisaging (i) and (ii), assurance of negligible effects beyond national boundaries; (iv) acceptable impact on future generations; and (v) no undue burden on future generations. There are other legal, control, generation, safety and management aspects also. The radioactive waste management approach is to consider the nature of radioactive elements involved in terms of their half-lives and then choose the appropriate method of handling.
1) If the concentrations of radioactive elements are largely short-lived, then one would resort to what is referred to as ‘delay and decay’ approach; that is, to hold on to such a waste for a sufficiently long time that the radioactivity will die in the meanwhile.
2) Second approach is to ‘dilute and disperse’ so that the hazard in the environment is minimized.
3) But when the radioactivity is long-lived, the only approach that is possible is to ‘concentrate and contain’ the activity. In order to carry out concentrating the waste (generally the sludge), chemical precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis and natural or steam evaporation, centrifuging, etc. are resorted to. The resulting solids are highly concentrated in radioactivity.
When othe
r source of energy are depleting, nuclear energy looks like a hope. The capacity of Non conventional energy or renewable source like the wind or solar or geothermal seems to be very limited at this stage although they remain the most environment friendly. The need for reducing green house gases has led to attempts in decarbonising energy source. It is clear that nuclear energy will not fulfill all the energy need of the future but it will significantly supplement. This blogger will advocate nuclear energy provided three conditions are fulfilled.One is the key issue of safety and disposal of waste
This line I came across in the Net expresses the predicament regarding radioactive nuclear waste. ‘The stuff we are dealing with can’t go away until it decays. You can containerize it, solidi
fy it, immobilize it and move it, but you can’t make it go away’ (James D. Werner, Scientific American, May 1996). Typically, a large nuclear power plant of generating capacity of 1000 MW electricity produces ‘around 27 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste (HLW), 310 tonnes of intermediate-level and 460 tonnes of low level radioactive waste. The amount of HLW worldwide is estimated to be currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year. The level of radioactivity and half-lives of radioactive isotopes in low-level waste are relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low-level waste to decay, at which point the waste can be disposed of as normal refuse. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high-level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years), creating long time-periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is promoting acceptance of some basic tenets by all countries for radioactive waste management. These include: (i) securing acceptable level of protection of human health; (ii) provision of an acceptable level of protection of environment; (iii) while envisaging (i) and (ii), assurance of negligible effects beyond national boundaries; (iv) acceptable impact on future generations; and (v) no undue burden on future generations. There are other legal, control, generation, safety and management aspects also. The radioactive waste management approach is to consider the nature of radioactive elements involved in terms of their half-lives and then choose the appropriate method of handling.
1) If the concentrations of radioactive elements are largely short-lived, then one would resort to what is referred to as ‘delay and decay’ approach; that is, to hold on to such a waste for a sufficiently long time that the radioactivity will die in the meanwhile.
2) Second approach is to ‘dilute and disperse’ so that the hazard in the environment is minimized.
3) But when the radioactivity is long-lived, the only approach that is possible is to ‘concentrate and contain’ the activity. In order to carry out concentrating the waste (generally the sludge), chemical precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis and natural or steam evaporation, centrifuging, etc. are resorted to. The resulting solids are highly concentrated in radioactivity.
Triet Nguyen, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, has written in an article ‘High-level Nuclear Waste Disposal’, (1994) that “High-level nuclear waste from both commercial reactors and defence industry presents a difficult problem to the scientific community as well as the public. The solutions to this problem are still debatable, both technically and ethically ... . There are many proposals for disposing high-level nuclear wastes. However the most favoured solution for the disposal of these wastes is isolating radioactive waste from man and biosphere for a period of time such that any possible subsequent release of radionuclides from the waste repository will not result in undue radiation exposure”.
The gist here is although we are aware of the dangers of radioactive wastes but we still don’t have a very safe method of disposal of nuclear waste as also monitoring system for these. Also safety issue within the nuclear reactor is another major concern. Chernobyl was an eye opener and so are many of the places where nuclear reactors are located, it has adverse affect on human population (I saw a documentary on this long time back….by Anant Patwardhan?).
Second is the issue of sharing this source of energy. Why is that only some countries allowed the access to nuclear energy? What is so special about USA or India that it can use this energy while countries like Iran or Sri Lanka is denied? Scientists in particular Einstein did it for the sake of humanity, meaning it should not have any geographical limitations. It will be in the interest of international community if these installations are under control of international agencies like IAEA or UN.
Third is the most significant one and that is there should be a standard formulated to distinguish peaceful use of nuclear energy from military. Military use of nuclear technology that is Bomb making shou
ld be outlawed (cartoon taken from Net). Nuclear bombs are not only anti human it is against the very survival of life. Nobody can win a nuclear war. And so the nuclear arsenals in USA or Britain should be decommissioned and dismantled or transferred to UNSC for ‘minimum deterrence’ from any rogue nation. (Since USA dependents on world market to sell its product the countries could take measures to hurt US economy, the crux is that countries stockpiling nuclear weapons should be dealt at the societal and individual level internationally). If this is not done then every country in the world has sovereign right to defend itself, democratic Iran in specific. The Iran issue also has to do with religion. The reason why American administration is so vehemently protesting is because Iran is a Muslim country. The far Right in USA (that control the Bush & Co.) doesn’t want Iran to get the bomb for this very reason (I happen to watch Christiana Amanpour’s God’s Warrior in CNN recently. It is a must watch). A pastor even advocated attacking Iran to prevent it from making nuclear bombs!!. It is shocking how the product of Science and Technology (which they don’t believe in et al evolution) should be the reason for superiority claim. Also the paradox of claim of peace by the religion and WMDs in the backyard!!. The duplicity is astounding!!.The nuclear deal of US with India if it contains provisions on Military use should be rejected. The political parties protest doesn’t seem to be on these lines. Sitaram Yechury (comrade who loves camera and studios) was quoted saying deal would take away ‘sovereign right to nuclear test’. Such an appalling statement.
Clearly society cannot solely depend on thermal or hydroelectric means for energy; the environmental ramification is significant, further it may not be able to provide for exponential energy demands. The need for ‘decarbonisation’ also put pressure on energy requirement. It is clear that nuclear energy will significantly contribute to needs in future, risks are however high unless the above mentioned factors are taken care. In the meantime countries need to focus on implementing the commitments made in the World Summit in September 2005 to take action to promote clean energy and energy efficiency and conservation, accelerate the development and dissemination of affordable and cleaner energy efficiency and energy conservation technologies, and promote and support greater efforts to develop renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal.
