Is Nuclear Power The Solution For Global Warming?
Nuclear power is not a solution for Global Warming. It is neither the only option, nor the best one.
First of all, let us discuss the meaning of global warming and its consequences to the environment. Global warming is the increase of temperature in the Earth due to the use of fuels fossils and other industrial level processes, that form an accumulation in the atmosphere of gases which provide the Greenhouse Effect, such as Carbon Dioxide, Methanol, Nitrogen Oxide and the CFCs.
It’s known that Carbon Dioxide can retain the infrared radiation of the Sun on atmosphere, stabilizing then the temperature through the Greenhouse Effect. Therefore, it can also cause our death, as we are increasing its quantity in the air, which makes the Earth really hot, causing the high ocean level(melting the ices in the Poles), killing people that live in countries not used to cold weather. Also, a problem that is clear for everyone is the change in the seasons, which are getting unstable, with hot winters, cold summers and affecting some animals’ hibernation.
The Problems of Global Warming are gerenally caused by the bad use of energy, the fuels(cars and traffic) and pollution. A Solution for the Global Warming then comes, by the government’s eyes(it doesn’t mean it is right), and it is: Nuclear Power.
Nuclear Power is the energy that the atom has, keeping protons and neutrons together. If for exemple, a neutron reaches the nucleus of an atom of Uraniun-235, dividing it with emission from 2 to 3 neutrons, part of the energy that links the protons and the neutrons goes out in form of heat. This process is called nuclear fission. The Nuclear Power is an option of energy source: it’s possible to use the heat emmited from the fission to move the water, which moves the turbines which generates the eletricity.
In a reactor of power type PWR the fuel is uranium enriched 3.5%. Uranium found in the environment contains just 0.7% of the isotopus 235U, then it must be processed until the proportion gets 3.5%.
FIGURE 1 – The Project of a water reactor[7]
The complete process of attainment of the nuclear fuel is known as cycle of the fuel and it has diverse stages:
i) extration of the ore from the ground;
ii) improvement to separate the Uraniun from other ores;
iii) conversion in gas of the product of the improvement, called yellow cake
iv) enrichment of the gas, in which the ratio of 235U is increased until the desired level;
v) reconversion of the enriched gas of Uraniun for the dust state;
vi) manufacture of tablets from the compacting of the dust;
vii) and finally the assembly of the combustible elements, when they place the tablets in metallic cylinders that will go to form the combustible elements of the nucleus of the reactor.
Currently, in the world, there are, in operation, 440 nuclear reactors directed toward the generation of energy in 31 countries. Other 33 are in construction. About 17% of the world-wide’s electric generation is of nuclear origin, the same ratio of the use of hidroeletric energy and energy produced by gas.
Some developed countries have its supplying of electric energy with one high percentage of nuclear generation. Between them, France has 78%, Belgium 57%, Japan 39%, the South Korea 39%, Germany 30%, Sweden 46%, Switzerland 40%. Only in the United States, the 104 reactors in operation, that generate 20% of the electricity of that country, produce more electricity than all the Brazilian system of electric generation. Beyond these reactors, 284 reactors of research in 56 countries function more, without counting to an esteem number of 220 reactors of propulsion in ships and submarines.
If it is so complicated preparing the nuclear power, why should we be for it? That is what the gorvenment guide us to, hidding what? The problems. Energy resources are two: the reuseable ones, and the non-reuseable ones. Not very happy to say that Nuclear Power is not reuseable. And what do they do about the waste? In some places, like in Finland, there are people, like Posiva, who know how to get those things in a right place: The spent fuel is set in cast iron, which is then encased in copper and dropped down a borehole. The borehole is filled with saturated bentonite, a kind of clay. He also affirms that: “Posiva's metallurgists suggest that under these conditions the copper barrier would be good for at least a million years.” Though, George Monbiot stated that not all the countries can do what Finland does and it may no longer be available as a solution.
The whole world is not so ignorant about this, and some argumentations are already made about this theme. Some people, like James Lovelock, afirm that the only solution for Global warming is Nuclear energy, giving arguments such as explaining how the world is in danger, as said before, by high temperatures all around the world and, he comfirmed "only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy" as it does not emmit gases from the Greehouse Effect. However, some people have argumented against these afirmations, such as George Monbiot, who has replied to Lovelock, saying that “he was wrong on two counts. It is not the only one, and it is not immediately available”, stating the dangers of Nuclear Energy into human being and nature, as well as he states that the use of nuclear energy is not immediately avaiable because the governmet is not up to pay for suddenly, and something like a nuclear plant takes a long time to be done. Monbiot also afirms that “
The Rocky Mountain Institute has shown that you can save seven times as much carbon through electricity efficiencies as you can by investing in nuclear. And you kill no one.” As an add to the side against using nuclear power, two dutch researchers - Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith - show that, ahead the increasing exploration of Uranium, the extration is going to become more and more difficult and expensive, spending increasing amounts of energy, which is going to launch in the atmosphere a great volume of carbon dioxide.
Though, a lot of argument are in fight to decide if it’s useful or not using nuclear power. The reason the people are talking about this, is all because of global warming, using it as an alternative source, however what about the environmental impacts? There are three main environmental problems of this energy source. The first one is the manipulation of radioactive material in the process of nuclear fuel production and in the nuclear reactors, with risks of emptyings and accidents. The second problem is related to the clandestine shunting line possibility of nuclear material for use in weapons, for example, increasing risks of nuclear proliferation. The last one is the one mentioned above: the uraniun waste.
The alternative sources as solar, aeolian and biomass, are not totally exempt of ambient impacts, even though they can be relatively less aggressive to the environment. The use in wide scale of panels or biomass implies in an alteration in the use of the ground. The manufacture of components of these technologies also produces ambient problems, as it is the case of the extration of silicon for panels. Many of these systems depend on chemical batteries for storage of the electricity, that still present serious problems of contamination for toxic lead and other metals for the environment.
The use of nuclear power, then, is a kind of solution, but not he best because of its environmental problems, difficulty to extract, and, at last, the energy sources are just 20% guilty of the global warming. If the people are looking for best solutions, they should start with something easier, like protecting their own houses, using less energy, less polution, less use of cars, preservation of trees and recycling. Why should we keep looking for such expensive solutions, while we can just use our conscience and do simple solution, which are basically, the best ones.