Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SAYFA 1
Very different from the fast, destructive runaway reaction in an atomic bomb. In our
light water reactor, a moderator is needed to control the neutrons’ energy.
Simple, ordinary water does the job, which is very practical, since water is used to drive
the turbines anyway. The light water reactor became prevalent because it’s simple and
cheap.
However, it is neither the safest, most efficient, nor technically elegant nuclear reactor.
The renewed nuclear hype lasted barely a decade, though in 1979, the Three Mile
Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania barely escaped a catastrophe when its core
melted. In 1986, the Chernobyl catastrophe directly threatened Central Europe with a
radioactive cloud, and in 2011 the drawn-out Fukushima disaster sparked new
discussions and concerns. While in the 1980s 218 new nuclear power reactors went
live, their number and nuclears’ global share of electricity production has stagnated
since the end of the ’80s.
So, what’s the situation today?
Today, nuclear energy meets around 10% of the world’s energy demand. There are
about 439 nuclear reactors in 31 countries. About 70 new reactors are under
construction in 2015, most of them in countries which are growing quickly.
All in all, 116 new reactors are planned worldwide. Most nuclear reactors were built
more than 25 years ago with pretty old technology.
SAYFA 2
More than 80% are various types of light water reactor. Today, many countries are
faced with a choice: the expensive replacement of the aging reactors, possibly with
more efficient, but less tested models, or a move away from nuclear power towards
newer or older technology with different cost and environmental impacts.
So, should we use nuclear energy?
But one of the most interesting arguments for including nuclear energy in the
renewable energy portfolio came from Bernard L Cohen, former professor at University
of Pittsburg. Professor Cohen defined the term 'indefinite'(time span required for an
energy source to be sustainable enough to be called renewable energy) in numbers
by using the expected relationship between the sun (source of solar energy) and the
earth. According to Professor Cohen, if the Uranium deposit could be proved to last as
long as the relationship between the Earth and Sun is supposed to last (5 billion years)
then nuclear energy should be included in the renewable energy portfolio.
In his paper Professor Cohen claims that using breeder reactors (nuclear reactor able
to generate more fissile material than it consumes) it is possible to fuel the earth with
nuclear energy indefinitely.
SAYFA 3
Although the amount of uranium deposit available could only supply nuclear energy for
about 1000 years, Professor Cohen believes actual amount of uranium deposit
available is way more than what is considered extractable right now. In his arguments
he includes uranium that could be extracted at a higher cost, uranium from the sea
water and also uranium from eroding earth crust by river water. All of those possible
uranium resources if used in a breeder reactor would be enough to fuel the earth for
another 5 billion years and hence renders nuclear energy as renewable energy.
Conclusion
It seems like at the heart of debate lies the confusion over the exact definition of
renewable energy and the requirements that needs to be met in order to be one. The
recent statement by Helene Pelosi, the interim director General of IRENA (International
Renewable Energy Agency), saying IRENA will not support nuclear energy programs
because it is a long, complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,
proves that their decision has nothing to do with having a sustainable supply of fuel.
And if that's the case then nuclear proponents would have to figure out a way to deal
with the nuclear waste management issue and other political implications of nuclear
power before they can ask IRENA to reconsider including nuclear energy in the
renewable energy list.
SAYFA 4
In fact, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty serves the purpose of spreading nuclear
reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons, with limited success in forty
years. Five countries have developed their own weapons with the help of reactor
technology the fact of the matter is that it can be very hard to distinguish a covert
nuclear weapons program from the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In the nineteen
seventies the big nuclear powers were happily selling peaceful technology to smaller
countries which then developed weapons of their own the road to deadly nuclear
weapons is always paved with peaceful reactors.
2. Nuclear waste and pollution spent nuclear fuel is not only radioactive:
But also contains extremely poisonous chemical elements like plutonium. It loses its
harmfulness only slowly over several tens of thousands of years and there is also a
process called reprocessing which means the extraction of plutonium from spent
nuclear fuel. It can be used for two purposes: to build nuclear weapons or to use it as
new fuel, but hardly any of it is used as fuel, because we don't have the right kind of
reactors for that, a milligram will kill you, a few kilograms make an atomic bomb and
even an inconspicuous country like Germany literally has tons of the stuff just lying
around because reprocessing. Sounded like a good idea decades ago but where will
all the waste go? After dumping it into the ocean was forbidden we've tried to bury it,
however we can't find a place where it will definitely stay secure for tens of thousands
of years. Over 30 countries operate nearly 400 reactors managing several hundred
thousands of tons of nuclear waste and only one is currently serious about opening a
permanent civilian waste storage: tiny Finland.
3. Accidents and Disasters:
Over sixty years of nuclear power usage there have been seven major accidents in
reactors or facilities dealing with nuclear waste three of those were mostly contained
but four of them released significant amounts of radioactivity into the environment.
In 1957, 1987 and 2011 large areas of land in Russia, Ukraine and Japan were
rendered unfit for human habitation for decades. To come the number of deaths is
highly disputed but probably lies in the thousands. These disasters happened with
nuclear reactors of very different types in very different countries and several decades
apart.
Looking at the numbers we may as well ask ourselves: are 10 percent of the world's
energy supply worth a devastating disaster every 30 year? Would thirty percent be
worth another Fukushima or Chernobyl somewhere on earth every 10 years? What
area would have to be contaminated so we say no more? Where is the line?
So should we use nuclear energy?
SAYFA 5
So, just by reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned, countless cases of cancer or
lung disease and accidents in coal mines have been avoided.
If we can choose between lots of dangerous stuff being put into a deep hole and lots
and lots and lots of dangerous stuff being pumped into the atmosphere, the former
seems more logical.
Nuclear energy feels way more dangerous, though. Single catastrophic events burn
into our memory, while coal and oil kill silently. It is like the death rate of flying versus
driving.
Even in the best-case scenario, it would take at least forty years to switch to 100%-
renewable energy. So, for as long as we continue using fossil fuels, nuclear energy
will save way more lives than it destroys.
Nuclear energy is arguably way less harmful to the environment in terms of climate
change than fossil fuels, our main source of energy.
Since 1976, about 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions have not been pumped
out thanks to nuclear energy. And by the mid-21st century, that could amount to an
additional 80–240 gigatons.
Humanity’s energy consumption is rising steadily. According to US government
projections, China alone will add the equivalent of a new 600-MW coal plant every 10
days for the next 10 years. China already burns 4 billion tons of coal each year. Coal
is cheap, relatively abundant, and easy to get to. So, it’s not likely that humanity will
stop using it soon.
Nuclear energy might be the only way of dampening the effects of climate change and
preventing a catastrophic man-made global warming. Compared to the other things we
do, nuclear energy is relatively clean. So, even if it is a good idea to quit nuclear energy
long-term, it might be a good solution for the next hundred years or so, compared to
the alternatives.
3. New technologies:
Maybe technology will solve the problem of nuclear waste and dangerous power
plants. The nuclear reactors we’ve used so far are mostly outdated technology,
because nuclear innovation stopped in the 1970s. There are models, like the thorium
reactor, that could solve the problem altogether. Thorium is abundant, really hard to
turn into nuclear weapons, and up to two orders of magnitude less wasteful than
current nuclear reactors. The waste material might also be only dangerous for a few
hundred years, in contrast to a couple of thousand years.
SAYFA 6
1 ton of thorium is estimated to provide the same amount of energy as 200 tons of
uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal. So, while we cannot know for sure if alternative
nuclear technology will keep its promises, shouldn’t we at least do more research
before we forego an opportunity to solve lots of humanity’s current problems?
It may not be an easy challenge, but that hasn’t stopped us before.
So, should we use nuclear energy?
There are risks involved in any great human endeavour, and we have to make an
informed decision, rather than rely on gut feeling.
From the outset, it has been day-to-day to work in various fields such as training and
manpower development, establishment of research centers and laboratories, legal and
legislative works to coordinate the studies, various production and applications and
tendering works towards energy production.
It has been painful process for Turkey until first rigid step is taken in 2010. Akkuyu NPP
Corporation coordinated with Russian Rosatom Company has established.
Finally, in 3rd April 2018 Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan launched
the construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. (Akkuyu is a district near
Mediterranean Sea in city of Mersin)
The Akkuyu NPP project will have 4 power units with capacity of 1200 MW each.
Akkuyu NPP is an NPP-2006 serial project based on the Novovoronezh NPP-2
(Russia, Voronezh region). The service life of Akkuyu NPP is 60 years. Slightly
enriched uranium dioxide serves as the fuel.
SAYFA 7
Diagram of the power circuit and safety systems
SAYFA 8
Nuclear Energy Production By Country
SAYFA 9
REFERENCES
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/chowdhury2/
https://www.statista.com/chart/8301/the-countries-holding-the-worlds-nuclear-
arsenal/
https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/world-nuclear-generation-and-capacity
http://home.olemiss.edu/~cmchengs/Global%20Warming/Session%2017%20Nuclear
%20Energy%20-%20Statistics/Nuclear%20Energy.pdf
https://science.howstuffworks.com/inside-nuclear-power-plant-pictures.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-ore-made-into-nuclear-
fuel.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-
reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-
generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
https://www.ntv.com.tr/ekonomi/nukleer-enerjinin-turkiyedeki-tarihcesi,LI7qG7zm-
0q6yZLV0rHy7g
http://www.akkunpp.com/npp-2
http://www.akkunpp.com/project-history-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYbgyL5n1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOFV4y5z8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVbLlnmxIbY
SAYFA 10