What are the Benefits of Nuclear Power?
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-nuclear-power.htm
-
One kilogram of uranium can provide energy equal to at least 200 barrels of oil.
-
Nuclear waste disposal is costly, but nuclear power is still relatively inexpensive.
-
Nuclear power plants produce fewer pollutants than traditional power plants.
-
While generally safe when operated in accordance with guidelines, nuclear power plants are at risk for catastrophic disasters, such as the accident that occurred at Chernobyl in 1986.
-
The energy from a nuclear power plant is produced through controlled nuclear reactions.
Nuclear power has many benefits over other energy sources, particularly older methods such as oil, coal,
and hydroelectricity. It is more efficient than these traditional
sources of energy, and the raw materials needed to produce it occur
commonly throughout the natural world. Additionally, nuclear power
plants are relatively cheap to run, and safety measures have improved
substantially since the accidents of the 20th century. Although there
are some well-known risks to the use of nuclear energy, most are
generally comparable to the risks of other types of power generation.
History
In the early 20th century, scientists discovered how to create energy through the use of highly radioactive elements such as uranium.
Famously, this led to the atomic weapons that ended World War II,
resulting in a decades-long pattern of nuclear proliferation in
countries around the world. At the same time, however, a different
process was discovered that could use controlled, non-explosive nuclear
reactions to generate cheap electricity. By the 1960s, nations including
England, the U.S., and even Japan were constructing nuclear power
plants called reactors.
Ad
Efficiency and Availability
A small amount of nuclear material can produce a lot of energy; a
single kilogram (2.2 pounds) of uranium, for example, can produce at
least as much energy as 200 barrels (8,400 gallons or 31.8 m3)
of oil or 20,000 kg (44,092 pounds) of coal. Uranium, which is the
element used to generate nuclear power, is as common as tin in nature,
although it needs to be in a high enough concentration to make worth
extracting it commercially. The ore must be mined and treated to
separate it from the surrounding rocks, then processed to turn it into
uranium dioxide.
Because uranium is so common, it is not subject to the price fluctuations that are standard in the fossil
fuel market. Oil, for example, is only found in certain places in the
world and production levels can significantly affect the price.
Clean Energy
Nuclear energy is considered "clean," in that the amount of carbon
and airborne pollutants it produces is very small when compared to
traditional power plants. While the plants do produce nuclear waste, the
ratio of power generated to waste created is far greater than that of
fossil-fuel facilities. Nuclear power plants do require a large amount
of water, however, which can affect the surrounding environment. Once
used, this water is often contaminated with salts and heavy metals, but
this is also true of water used by other types of power plants.
Building and Operating Costs
Uranium is relatively inexpensive, although the cost of processing it
and disposing of the waste after it has been used do add to the costs.
This means that nuclear power plants are pretty cheap to operate. They
are expensive to build, however, because of the special materials and
safety features that are required.
Conversely, plants that use fossil fuels such as natural gas,
oil, or coal are easier to establish, and their higher fuel costs are
often offset by income from power production. The nature of investment
capital means that these short-term profits usually have greater appeal
to investors than the longer-term returns from nuclear power. This
dynamic may change if fossil-fuel prices continue to rise dramatically
in the 21st century, however.
Safety Concerns
Although nuclear energy is considered safe when plants are built and
run following very strict guidelines, the potential for catastrophic
disaster means that there is a great deal of fear concerning their
safety. High-profile accidents such as Russia's 1986 Chernobyl disaster
or Japan's Fukushima meltdown
in 2011 have eroded public faith. While these are legitimate concerns,
it is helpful to place them in the context of other power generation
methods. The pollution
from fossil fuels, for example, is estimated to kill over 10,000 people
in the United States per year, mainly due to respiratory ailments.
Fatal incidents at nuclear plants are relatively rare by comparison; the
infamous partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979
resulted in no fatalities, and studies have found that people who lived
in the area had no long-term health problems related to the accident.
Other concerns surround the highly radioactive waste that is an
inevitable by-product of nuclear power. Spent nuclear fuel remains
dangerous to human and animal life for thousands of years. A safe method
of storing nuclear waste for this time span has yet to be discovered,
but it is possible to reprocess it to extract the remaining uranium and plutonium
and turn them into usable fuel. Although the high expense of this
technique has prevented its implementation in the U.S., it is being done
in Europe and Russia. This reused fuel, in turn, produces less
radioactive waste.
Future Solutions
The Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes have inspired greater safety
measures in the design of future nuclear plants. One such design calls
for liquid cores that cannot melt down in the event of an accident,
since they are effectively pre-melted. As concerns mount over global
climate change, the environmental benefits of nuclear power may be
reassessed. If higher safety protocols and radioactive waste
reprocessing can be established worldwide, nuclear might become
preferable to traditional power generation methods.
The nuclear optionsHow to build a nuclear-power plant
https://www.economist.com/business/2017/01/28/how-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant
A new crop of developers is challenging the industry leaders
THE
Barakah nuclear-power plant under construction in Abu Dhabi will never
attract the attention that the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in neighbouring
Dubai does, but it is an engineering feat nonetheless. It is using three
times as much concrete as the world’s tallest building, and six times
the amount of steel. Remarkably, its first reactor may start producing
energy in the first half of this year—on schedule and (its South Korean
developers insist) on budget. That would be a towering achievement.
In
much of the world, building a nuclear-power plant looks like a terrible
business prospect. Two recent additions to the world’s nuclear fleet,
in Argentina and America, took 33 and 44 years to erect. Of 55 plants
under construction, the Global Nuclear Power database reckons almost
two-thirds are behind schedule (see chart). The delays lift costs, and
make nuclear less competitive with other sources of electricity, such as
gas, coal and renewables.
Not
one of the two technologies that were supposed to revolutionise the
supply of nuclear energy—the European Pressurised Reactor, or EPR, and
the AP1000 from America’s Westinghouse—has yet been installed, despite
being conceived early this century. In Finland, France and China, all
the EPRs under construction are years behind schedule. The main hope for
salvaging their reputation—and the nuclear business of EDF, the French
utility that owns the technology—is the Hinkley Point C project in
Britain, which by now looks a lot like a Hail Mary pass.
Meanwhile,
delays with the Westinghouse AP1000 have caused mayhem at Toshiba, its
owner. The Japanese firm may announce write-downs in February of up to
$6bn on its American nuclear business. As nuclear assets are probably
unsellable, it is flogging parts of its core, microchip business
instead.
Yet relative upstarts in South Korea and China show that
large reactors, such as the four 1,400-megawatt (MW) ones in Abu Dhabi,
can be built. Moreover, the business case for a new breed of small
reactors below 300MW is improving. This month, Oregon-based NuScale
Power became the first American firm to apply for certification of a
small modular reactor (SMR) design with America’s nuclear regulators.
“Clearly
the momentum seems to be shifting away from traditional suppliers,”
says William Magwood, director-general of the OECD’s Nuclear Energy
Agency. Both small and large reactors are required. In places like
America and Europe, where electricity demand is growing slowly, there is
rising interest in small, flexible ones. In fast-growing markets like
China, large nuclear plants make more economic sense.
If the South
Koreans succeed with their first foreign nuclear programme in Abu
Dhabi, the reason is likely to be consistency. Nuclear accidents such as
Three-Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 caused a long hiatus in
nuclear construction in America and Europe. But South Korea has
invested in nuclear power for four decades, using its own technology
since the 1990s, says Lee Jong-ho, an executive at Korea Electric Power
(KEPCO), which leads the consortium building Barakah. It does not suffer
from the skills shortages that bedevil nuclear construction in the
West.
KEPCO always works with the same, familiar suppliers and
construction firms hailing from Korea Inc. By contrast, both the EPR and
AP1000, first-of-a-kind technologies with inevitable teething problems,
have suffered from being contracted out to global engineering firms.
Also, South Korea and China both keep nuclear building costs low through
repetition and standardisation, says the World Nuclear Association
(WNA), an industry group. It estimates that South Korean capital costs
have remained fairly stable in the past 20 years, while they have almost
tripled in France and America.
The WNA also notes in a report
this month a “revival” of interest in SMRs, partly because of
rock-bottom sentiment toward large plants. Utilities are finding it
tough to pay for big projects (Barakah, for instance costs a whopping
$20bn), especially in deregulated power markets where prices have
slumped because of an abundance of natural gas and renewable energy. Big
investments can sink a firm’s credit rating and jack up its cost of
capital.
It is less onerous to pay for an SMR, which means that
even though they produce less energy, they can be cost-competitive with
larger plants once they are being mass produced, says the WNA. Other
advantages are that SMRs will be factory-built, easy to scale up by
stacking them together, and quick to install.
America’s regulators
expect to reach a decision on NuScale’s application within 40 months.
Safety will be the crucial issue; both the reactor and the facilities
where it will be fabricated need to pass muster. It uses a
well-established pressurised-water technology and claims not to be at
risk from the problems that caused the Fukushima disaster in Japan in
2011; it has no pumps, and no need for external power or water. If
approved, the success of the technology will not be known until many
have been produced. Yet with the prospect of SMRs and the Abu Dhabi
plant soon going into action, long-suffering backers of nuclear power at
last have something to pin their hopes on.
You’ve seen the news, now discover the story
Get
incisive analysis on the issues that matter. Whether you read each
issue cover to cover, listen to the audio edition, or scan the headlines
on your phone, time with The Economist is always well spent.
Print edition | Business
Nuclear Power Plants
https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-power-plants
Annika Breidthardt (30 May 2011). "German government wants nuclear exit by 2022 at latest". Reuters.
Michael Dittmar. Taking stock of nuclear renaissance that never was Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 2010.
WNA (20 June 2013). "Nuclear power down in 2012". World Nuclear News.
"The Nuclear Renaissance".
"China Nuclear Power - Chinese Nuclear Energy".
Duroyan Fertl (5 June 2011). "Germany: Nuclear power to be phased out by 2022". Green Left.
James Kanter (25 May 2011). "Switzerland Decides on Nuclear Phase-Out". New York Times.
"Nuclear Share of Electricity Generation in 2017". IAEA. 24 May 2018. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
Nuclear Power Reactors in the World (PDF). Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. 2018. ISBN 978-92-0-101418-4.
"Operational & Long-Term Shutdown Reactors". IAEA. 13 April 2013. Retrieved 14 April 2013.
Bain, Alastair S.; et al. (1997). Canada enters the nuclear age: a technical history of Atomic Energy of Canada. Magill-Queen's University Press. p. ix. ISBN 0-7735-1601-8.
"Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory: Fast Reactor Technology". U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory. 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-25.
"Reactor Makes Electricity." Popular Mechanics, March 1952, p. 105.
"From Obninsk Beyond: Nuclear Power Conference Looks to Future". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
"Nuclear Power in Russia". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-27.
"This Day in Quotes: SEPTEMBER 16 – Too cheap to meter: the great nuclear quote debate". This day in quotes. 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-16.
Pfau, Richard (1984) No Sacrifice Too Great: The Life of Lewis L. Strauss University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, p. 187 ISBN 978-0-8139-1038-3
David Bodansky (2004). Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. Springer. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-387-20778-0. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
"USA supports new nuclear build in Armenia". World Nuclear News. 23 November 2007. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2007.
Agência Estado (12 September 2008). "Lobão diz que país fará uma usina nuclear por ano em 50 anos" (in Portuguese). G1.globo.com. Retrieved 15 October 2008.
Bulgaria quits Belene Nuclear Power Plant project, Novinite, 28 March 2012
"Egypt, Russia sign deal to build a nuclear power plant". reuters.com.
"Kolme uutta reaktoria, Jees!". Tekniikka ja talous. 15 October 2009. Retrieved 3 December 2009.
F_405. "Iran's Bushehr nuke power plant at full capacity from May 23: Russian contractor - People's Daily Online". English.peopledaily.com.cn. Retrieved 28 January 2013.
"Nuclear Power in Japan | Japanese Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org. World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 26 August 2017.
"Genkai unit 4 supplying power again". www.world-nuclear-news.org. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
"Nuclear Power Plants in Japan - The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan(FEPC)". www.fepc.or.jp. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/saudi-arabia.aspx
"Nuclear Power in South Africa". Retrieved 12 April 2015.
"S.Africa wants nuclear contracts to stay at home". Reuters. 23 April 2012. Retrieved 28 January 2013.
Nuclear power in Spain Archived 28 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine., World Nuclear Association, URL accessed 13 June 2006
Associated Press (28 September 2011). "Swiss Nuclear Power Plan Moves Toward Phase-Out Of Reactors". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 28 January 2013.
"Taiwan to end nuclear power generation in 2025：The Asahi Shimbun". The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 2017-06-12.
"BBC NEWS | Politics | New nuclear plants get go-ahead". News.bbc.co.uk. 10 January 2008. Retrieved 18 April 2015.
"Nuclear Power in Ukraine". World Nuclear Association. August 2008. Retrieved 22 September 2008.
"Nuclear Power United Arab Emirates | UAE Nuclear Energy | Abu Dhabi | Dubai". www.world-nuclear.org. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
Nuclear
power plants use the heat generated from nuclear fission in a contained
environment to convert water to steam, which powers generators to
produce electricity. Although the construction and operation of these
facilities are closely monitored and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), accidents are possible. An accident could result in
dangerous levels of radiation that could affect the health and safety of
the public living near the nuclear power plant.
Nuclear power
plants operate in most states in the country and produce about 20
percent of the nation’s power. Nearly 3 million Americans live within 10
miles of an operating nuclear power plant.
Before a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency
The
following are things you can do to protect yourself, your family and
your property from the effects of a nuclear power plant emergency:
- Build an Emergency Supply Kit with the addition of plastic sheeting, duct tape and scissors.
- Make a Family Emergency Plan
- Obtain public emergency information materials from the power company that operates your local nuclear power plant or your local emergency services office. If you live within 10 miles of the power plant, you should receive the materials yearly from the power company or your state or local government.
- Sign up for emergency updates, if available, from your local emergency management agency to receive timely and specific information for your area.
During a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency
If
an accident at a nuclear power plant were to release radiation in your
area, local authorities would activate warning sirens or another
approved alert method. They also would instruct you through the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) on local television and radio stations on
how to protect yourself.
- Follow the EAS instructions carefully.
- Minimize your exposure by increasing the distance between you and the source of the radiation. This could be evacuation or remaining indoors to minimize exposure.
- If you are told to evacuate, keep car windows and vents closed; use re-circulating air.
- If you are advised to remain indoors, turn off the air conditioner, ventilation fans, furnace and other air intakes.
- Shield yourself by placing heavy, dense material between you and the radiation source. Go to a basement or other underground area, if possible.
- Stay out of the incident zone. Most radiation loses its strength fairly quickly.
After a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency
The following are guidelines for the period following a nuclear power plant emergency:
- Stay tuned to local radio or television stations for the latest emergency information.
- Public shelters are locally managed and operated in response to events. If you have been told to evacuate or you feel it is unsafe to remain in your home, go to a designated public shelter. To find the nearest open shelter in your area, text SHELTER + your ZIP code to 43362 (4FEMA), example: shelter 12345.
- Act quickly if you have come in to contact with or have been exposed to hazardous radiation.
- Follow decontamination instructions from local authorities.
- Change your clothes and shoes; put exposed clothing in a plastic bag; seal it and place it out of the way.
- Seek medical treatment for unusual symptoms, such as nausea, as soon as possible.
- Help a neighbor who may require special assistance - infants, elderly people and people with access and functional needs may require additional assistance.
- Return home only when authorities say it is safe.
- Keep food in covered containers or in the refrigerator.
Shareables
- Building as Shelter Text Version (link)
- Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation (PDF)
- American Red Cross (link)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (link)
- Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (link)
- Environmental Protection Agency (link)
Build A Kit
https://www.ready.gov/build-a-kitMake sure your emergency kit is stocked with the items on the checklist below. Most of the items are inexpensive and easy to find, and any one of them could save your life. Headed to the store? Download a printable version to take with you. Once you take a look at the basic items, consider what unique needs your family might have, such as supplies for pets, or seniors.After an emergency, you may need to survive on your own for several days. Being prepared means having your own food, water and other supplies to last for at least 72 hours. A disaster supplies kit is a collection of basic items your household may need in the event of an emergency.Basic Disaster Supplies Kit
To assemble your kit, store items in airtight plastic bags and put your entire disaster supplies kit in one or two easy-to-carry containers such as plastic bins or a duffel bag.A basic emergency supply kit could include the following recommended items:- Water - one gallon of water per person per day for at least three days, for drinking and sanitation
- Food - at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food
- Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a NOAA Weather Radio with tone alert
- Flashlight
- First aid kit
- Extra batteries
- Whistle to signal for help
- Dust mask to help filter contaminated air and plastic sheeting and duct tape to shelter-in-place
- Moist towelettes, garbage bags and plastic ties for personal sanitation
- Wrench or pliers to turn off utilities
- Manual can opener for food
- Local maps
- Cell phone with chargers and a backup battery
Download the Recommended Supplies List (PDF)Additional Emergency Supplies
Consider adding the following items to your emergency supply kit based on your individual needs:- Prescription medications
- Non-prescription medications such as pain relievers, anti-diarrhea medication, antacids or laxatives
- Glasses and contact lense solution
- Infant formula, bottles, diapers, wipes, diaper rash cream
- Pet food and extra water for your pet
- Cash or traveler's checks
- Important family documents such as copies of insurance policies, identification and bank account records saved electronically or in a waterproof, portable container
- Sleeping bag or warm blanket for each person
- Complete change of clothing appropriate for your climate and sturdy shoes
- Household chlorine bleach and medicine dropper to disinfect water
- Fire extinguisher
- Matches in a waterproof container
- Feminine supplies and personal hygiene items
- Mess kits, paper cups, plates, paper towels and plastic utensils
- Paper and pencil
- Books, games, puzzles or other activities for children
Maintaining Your Kit
After assembling your kit remember to maintain it so it’s ready when needed:- Keep canned food in a cool, dry place
- Store boxed food in tightly closed plastic or metal containers
- Replace expired items as needed
- Re-think your needs every year and update your kit as your family’s needs change.
Kit Storage Locations
Since you do not know where you will be when an emergency occurs, prepare supplies for home, work and vehicles.- Home: Keep this kit in a designated place and have it ready in case you have to leave your home quickly. Make sure all family members know where the kit is kept.
- Work: Be prepared to shelter at work for at least 24 hours. Your work kit should include food, water and other necessities like medicines, as well as comfortable walking shoes, stored in a “grab and go” case.
- Vehicle: In case you are stranded, keep a kit of emergency supplies in your car.
- "World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements". World Nuclear Association. 1 October 2010. Retrieved 23 October 2010.
- "UAE's fourth power reactor under construction - EE Publishers". EE Publishers. Retrieved 19 October 2015.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar