TEAM 13

THE TRUE FACTS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY – THE GOODS AND THE EVILS OF AN ONGOING

WORLD DISCUSSION

Navpreet SanghraNavreet KaurAmbika TejpalAlex KocevGaurie AggarwalNayani Rajamohan

Table of Contents TITLE OF SLIDE SLIDE #

1. Introduction 3 2. PRO Title Page: Why is Nuclear Energy a smart option? 4 3. Argument #1: Efficiency of Nuclear Energy 5 - 8 4. Rebuttal to Argument #1 9 5. Argument #2: No Pollution (Environmental Effects) 10 - 11 6. Rebuttal to Argument #2 12 7. Argument #3: Economically Wise 13 - 16 8. Rebuttal to Argument #3 17 9.CON Title Page: Why should Nuclear Energy be stopped? 18 10. Argument #1: Environmental and Effects on Humans 19 - 20 11. Rebuttal to Argument #1 21 12.Argument #2: Health and Safety Effects 22 - 23 13.Rebuttal to Argument #2 24 14. Argument #3: Sustainability Issues 25 - 26 15.Rebuttal to Argument #3 27 16.Final Conclusion 28 17.Bibliography 29

INTRODUCTION Nuclear Energy has been a debatable topic in

the energy industry for many years. Having many positive and negative effects in the world, there are many arguments surrounding the topic.

There is no concrete answer to whether nuclear energy is the right choice. This presentation will outline the pros and cons of nuclear energy, leaving you to make the decision of whether nuclear energy is reliable or not.

PRO: WHY NUCLEAR

ENERGY IS THE WAY

OF THE FUTURE

Efficiency of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power plants: • produce a large amount of electrical

energy compared to coal factories with less waste and resources

• does not require large amount of fuel to create more energy than other power sources (renewable and non-renewable)

In a document published in EIC Climate Change Technology

2006, it is stated that with the energy demands predicted in

the future years, only nuclear fission can generate the amount of

power needed. All the renewable energy sources would not be able to provide for the demand

Efficiency of Nuclear EnergyThe waste created by the nuclear plant is not

all disposed of The waste can be used to generate

heat It can be created into another fuel

source and it can be reprocessed In the US, the waste is taken to a light

water reactor where the waste is used to generate more power. The energy from these plants is used to power many buildings and homes. 75% of the waste from the original plants is reused in light reactors.

In Japan and France, waste is reprocessed. The uranium oxide from the waste is infused with plutonium oxide to produce mixed oxide nuclear fuel. This fuel can then be sent back to the original plants and be used all over again. Making nuclear energy just as efficient as other non-renewable fuels.

Efficiency of Nuclear EnergyTechnological advancements:

have led to more efficient waste disposals. A nuclear fusion-fission hybrid designed and created by physicists at the University of Texas reduces waste by up to 99%.waste created by the original plant is taken to light water reactorswaste remaining from the reactors is what scientists call sludge: highly radiotoxic and long lived waste. through the Compact Fusion Neutron Source – based fusion-fission hybrid, which the physicists created, this sludge can be destroyedto burn the sludge which is a hazardous material, the hybrid would hit it with a type of sledgehammerThe advantages of this?This hybrid would not only be smaller than an average sized room and require fewer devices than other proposed ideas but can also destroy the waste created by 10-15 light water reactors. Only 1% of the sludge would remain and that is stored. However the burning process of the sludge also produces heat energy therefore more power can be created from the system as well.

Efficiency of Nuclear EnergyThe discovery of thorium

Thorium’s atomic number is 90 and is an actinide like uranium and plutonium. Although thorium is not fissile, Th-232 can absorb slow neutrons to produce U-233. The U-233 can then be split from the thorium and the thorium can be used to produce more uranium. When the fuel is spent it can also be reprocessed. Thorium is more abundant than uranium and most of the potentially mined thorium can provide fuel unlike certain uranium isotopes that can only be used.

Estimated World Amount of Thorium

Australia

USA

Turkey

India

Venezuela

Brazil

Norway

Egypt

Russia

Greenland

Canada

South Africa

Other countries

Rebuttal to Efficiency of Nuclear Energy

Even with the latest advancements in nuclear technology, numerous energy sources are much more efficient than nuclear power ex: renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro) do not have the

issue of disposing of dangerous waste when using thorium instead of uranium to produce nuclear

energy, the same negative affects are still present (ex: health issues) why induce these negative side effects when they could be

avoided by using other sources of energy? Thorium is non-renewable, and therefore will not last forever

Time and money will be spent developing this new technology, which may not even last long enough to make the entire process worth it

Nuclear power is environmentally friendly in many ways. Primarily, it does not emit any carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and other greenhouse gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect, global warming and acid rain. The Nuclear Energy Institute of the United States estimates that nuclear power plants help prevent 5.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 164 million tons of carbon and 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide from going into the earth’s atmosphere. Nuclear fuel is also solid, so it cannot spill over into the environment like the often occurring oil spills. Even if the nuclear fuel is tossed into the environment, when unused, the fuel is just slightly more radioactive than what is found in nature. As well, nuclear fuel deliveries are carried out cautiously and all needed efforts are made to ensure that the environment does not get contaminated by the nuclear fuel.

No Pollution (Environmental Effects)

No Pollution (Environmental Effects)

Finally, nuclear power plants can be beneficial to wildlife and the environment around them. Nuclear power plants must exchange their thermal heat by putting it through a body of water or a cooling tower. Usually, power stations build artificial lakes, where many animals live. The Turkey Point Generating Station in Florida helps to protect the endangered American crocodile, which enjoys the heat in the waters. They are returning about 13, 500 acres of wetlands to their natural conditions. Many other nuclear power plants, in Canada and around the world, are implementing environmental policies. Canada’s Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) has introduced an environmental policy in their Chalk River Reactor, which includes pollution prevention and waste analysis.

Rebuttal to No Pollution (Environmental Effects)

It is agreeable that nuclear energy creates very little or no pollution, but what about the future effects? The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved issue. The waste from the nuclear energy is dangerous. It has to looked after for several thousand years, 10 000 according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Taking this into thought, what if that nuclear plant leaks? No nuclear power plant is 100% secure. That would hurt everything around it, ranging from the environment to human life, leading to mutations. If the leak is large, the radiation has the chances of spreading to a larger area and thus affecting more of the area.

1. Running a nuclear power plant is really inexpensive - It takes one train car of nuclear fuel to keep a nuclear power plant running

for an year. This is because the uranium or plutonium fuel rods that are used to superheat the heavy water, that is in turn used to boil normal water, creating steam to spin the turbines, constantly emit energy over a long period of time. This does not technically make them a renewable resource but does make them extremely efficient.

- It takes a train load of coal every day to run a conventional power plant. This is because coal is a flammable organic compound known as anthracite as well as a fossil fuel created by decomposed organic materials. Unlike a nuclear power plant, conventional power plants create steam through direct contact with the chemical reaction or burning the coal, meaning that a lot more coal is needed to perform the same task as uranium.

- This means that the monetary resources that must be invested in just acquiring the fuel for a nuclear power plant are far smaller than those of a coal plant, meaning that those resources can be invested in enhancing the safety or productivity of the plant

Economic Benefits of Using Nuclear Power

Economic Benefits of Using Nuclear Power

2. Both jobs are highly hazardous, but one pays higher than the other

- Both coal and nuclear power plant workers risk their lives every day but at what cost?

- The average salary of a coal plant worker in the US is $29, 286 a year

- The average salary of a nuclear plant worker in the US is $52, 530 a year

- It is clear that working at a power plant is far more sustainable than working at a coal plant. However, it can be argued that a higher worker pay is bad economically since the government and corporations lose more money, and as such, a higher salary is a con. The economy however is not just the wealth of the corporations, it is the accumulated wealth of the people and it is these people that must be looked to when determining the economic success of a certain job. This proves that a higher salary results in more money deposited into the economy, which in turn results in more money out of the economy.

Economic Benefits of Using Nuclear Power

3. The energy created by nuclear power plants is far greater than that of conventional plants

- Nuclear power accounts for 15% of Canada’s overall energy and 50% of Ontario’s overall energy – as a result of only 16 power plants in Ontario

- This demonstrates that if nuclear power is abolished in Canada, one in every 6 households will lose access to electricity. As a result, the economic benefits of using nuclear power greatly outweigh any possible consequences.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Struktura_chemiczna_w%C4%99gla_kamiennego.svg

Rebuttal to Economic Benefits The money may not go into the

resources, but a sufficient amount does go into paying the workers, and controlling the waste, as well as making sure that the public is not harmed in anyways. There are other methods of getting energy that will be just as cost effective overtime, as although initial costs may be slightly high, the overall maintenance and control of it will be about as much. Examples of alternate sources like this are windmills and water turbines.

Are we really going to put a price on a person’s life? Our source of energy should not be compromised with the life of the people in the society. Alternative energy sources provide for cleaner environments for people to work in, and do not involve a risk in getting cancer.

Although the quantity may be low, the dangers of nuclear waste can be very devastating. In order to properly remove nuclear waste, it must be buried, which increases the chances of it running into a groundwater system. In the first few years, just the smallest amount (roughly 0.01 ounces) of tainted water can be fatal. That risk is something we as a society just cannot take.

By taking advantage of the resources we do have and investing the time and money into perfecting it, we can match and even outdo these statistics. By taking full use of water turbines, installing solar panels, building greener architecture, creating windmill fields, and efficiently using energy, we can match the energy created by nuclear power plants, create jobs, and cut down our energy bills!

CON: WHY NUCLEAR ENERGY

SHUOLD BE DISCONTINUED

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND EFFECT OF HUMANS

Nuclear Energy is the basis of using uranium, which is very radioactive and harmful not only to humans, but also to the environment. One large threat caused by the construction of nuclear power plants is attacks on it by terrorist or even military. This can cause radioactive elements to be released and affecting the environment and humans. One example is the explosion of the Nuclear power plant in Ukraine, called the Chernobyl Disaster. On April 26, 1986, a reactor exploded causing larger radiation leakage than of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. 1800 thyroid cancer cases of children between 0 – 14 years of age at the time of the disaster. The explosion was felt throughout Europe, even reaching as far as Ireland. Health defects were formed and people were dying. Knowing that a few kilograms of uranium, out of the tonnes that are used in a plant, can be used to make a simple nuclear weapon is devastating and a few micrograms inhaled can cause cancer. That is something to think about.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND EFFECT ON HUMANS

Nuclear Energy can have potentially catastrophic risks on both the health of people and on the environment and some can be long term. When Uranium is extracted and processed, nuclear waste is produced and when mining uranium, the waste is released into the atmosphere. Risks can be either endogenous – which are things such as radioactive heat emission or nuclear core melts, technical issues – or exogenous – things such as human error, storms, and the effect of climate change. In the environment, nuclear energy can cause considerable natural and sanitary damage and will harm the living organism that live there, also contamination of water. Also, there is a high chance of Uranium running out. In order to meet the demand, uranium extraction would have to be increased 100% in the next 10 – 20 years and if all fossil fuels were to be replaced by nuclear energy, that would only be enough for 3 – 4 years. Then we would have to resort to another form of energy. Is that really worth the time it will take for it all to run out?

REBUTTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND EFFECT ON HUMANS

The likely hood of terrorists having safe access to nuclear weapons may not diminish over time however, with nations such as Canada and the United States, and continents like Europe condemning countries who constantly flaunt their nuclear powers the problem is being addressedThe last disaster in nuclear plant related events occurred in 1986, while it is still possible for another leak to have happened, countries that use nuclear power are learning from mistakes and maintain safer practicesThe waste produced by a plant is being reduced due to the many advancements in technology that are taking place

Nuclear fuel can be made without using uranium but instead thorium which is easier to useThe demands of the human race can be met with reprocessing of uranium like France and Japan doNo other non-renewable source of energy will be able to keep up with the demand our the human nation, therefore instead of worrying about a uranium shortage, people should be looking at ways to reduce the amount of energy they useThat way the transition to nuclear energy would be easier

NEGATIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

There are risks that need to be taken into account when dealing with nuclear energy. Major concerns include the risk of something going wrong at the site and it affecting the public, or the radiation effects on the workers or public.

Health-wise, these effects include apoptosis, the programmed death of a cell, which is needed to properly develop, but in excess can cause cell mutations and inhibit growth. Also, nuclear reactions can cause small amounts of gamma radiation, which can penetrate the body and can cause radiation sickness and an increase in the incidence of cancer.

NEGATIVE HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

Safety-wise, nuclear energy causes nuclear waste, which is extremely difficult to get rid of and can be a threat to people and the environment. It can contaminate drinking water and the cells of the vegetation in the area, which can severely harm the public and even make an area impossible to live in. The waste is sometimes rid of by burying it into the ground for several hundreds of years, but if it contaminates ground water or vegetation within the first 100, it will only take 0.01-0.1 ounces of the water to kill. There are also chances for something to go wrong in the reactor process, and one accident can lead to fatal consequences. Examples of this are incidents such as the Chernobyl Disaster as mentioned before.

With such fatal risks involved with nuclear energy, is it really such a viable option energy source? Nothing is more valuable to a society than its people, therefore we should never risk something we can’t afford to lose.

REBUTTAL TO HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS

Nuclear radiation from a nuclear power plant does not have that much of an effect on the plant workers or the communities around the plant. A person living 50 miles from a nuclear power plant receives 0.01millirem (mrem) of radiation annually, in contrast to someone living within 50 miles of a plant processing fossil fuels (such as coal), who receives 0.03 mrem. As well, just by living 1000 feet above sea level, one receives 28 mrem of radiation annually.

In this way, the biological effect of radiation on humans is not severe. As well, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited had made sure that the health and safety of workers is their top priority and has established many programs to make the workers more aware of the safety regulations, as well the environmental effects of nuclear power. Finally, nuclear reactors are generally very safe and nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl in Ukraine and the Three Mile Island in the United States do not happen often. Not one single fatality from a nuclear reactor accident has occurred in the last 40 years around the world. Though accidents like Chernobyl get lots of media attention, they do not occur often and nuclear power plants are generally safer than fossil fuel plants.

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

Nuclear power is an unsustainable source of energy, making it an inefficient solution to the issue of how to generate energy.

obtained through fission: splitting of uranium atoms

uranium as finite a resource as fossil fuels ex: coal major goal in energy production is to reduce

the use of non-renewable resources – nuclear energy simply adds to the issue

not a permanent solution, so time and money should not be wasted developing this technology

instead, focus should be put on renewable energy sources○ ex: solar energy, wind power, etc.

the uranium will run out yet the long lasting effects will still be present (as have been discussed), reiterating the ineffectiveness of using nuclear energy

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES expensive to mine and process uranium, build a nuclear

power plant, and rid of waste the process costs billions of dollars

○ after spending so much money, numerous problems arise (as have been discussed)

○ money could be better spent on a source of energy that is sustainable and does not have so many negative outcomes

most places where uranium is found are located on lands that the owners do not wish to be mined ex: Aboriginal lands building nuclear power plants is a long and complicated

process – if on top of that even finding the uranium is so challenging, and after finding it will one day run out, the entire process does not seem worth it, especially since other options are available

process of building a nuclear power plant is extremely long with planning, building, and formalities, it takes

approximately 20 – 30 years in the western world world’s uranium supply is expected to last between 30

and 60 years such a cumbersome process hardly seems worth it when

supply will run out so soon

REBUTTAL TO SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

Nuclear power is not a renewable resource. That however, does not mean it is not sustainable. Nuclear power plants run on radioactive fuel rods. A single rod, once activated, can emit heat energy for 18 to 24 months after nuclear fission occurs. This demonstrates how nuclear power plants, opposed to conventional plants, require far less materials to sustain electrical production. As for acquiring the uranium and plutonium needed for the fission, the earth’s crust is estimated to contain 1017 kilograms of all uranium isotopes. This demonstrates that although there is a finite amount of uranium in the world, it will be a long time until it runs out.

Furthermore, once nuclear fuel rods are used in a power plant they are not lost to the environment as hazardous chemicals, like coal in a conventional power plant, but are instead kept at the power plant for a few years to cool and then transported to a storage facility in the form of nuclear waste. Although this waste is far more dangerous that any byproduct created from a conventional power plant, the care invested in ensuring the proper disposal of the waste is far greater and takes into account far more socio-environmental factors, such as the effect of the radiation on people and ecosystems. This proves that nuclear power is a sustainable electrical source that can benefit humanity and lead to future scientific development.

FINAL CONCLUSION• There have been many technological

advancements in the field of nuclear energy but at the same time, no plant is 100% secure

• Although the main issue of the waste being stored for over 10 000 years, advancements in the field help eliminate 99% of the waste created

• In conclusion, it is necessary for further advancements to be made in order to make this energy source safer and more efficient

• It will never be renewable nor will the threat of nuclear disaster disappear however it is stated to be the only energy source to keep up with the demand of the human population

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acheson, Ray. Health Effects and the Nuclear Age. <http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/technical/factsheets/health.html>. Accessed December 19, 2009. American Nuclear Society. Environment and Safety. Electricity: Benefits/Effects. <http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?

fC=Electricity,Benefits_^_Effects>. Accessed 2 January 2010. American Nuclear Society. Radiation Dose Chart. Public Information. <http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/>. Accessed 16 December 2009. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Safe, Healthy Workplace. Sustainable Development. <http://www.aecl.ca/Development/Communities/Workplace.htm

>. Accessed 21 December 2009. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Environment. About AECL. <http://www.aecl.ca/About/Governance/Policies/Environment.htm>. Accessed 28

December 2009. Bertell, Rosalie Dr. No Immediate Danger, Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. <http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html>. Accessed

November 23rd, 2009. Darvill C. Nuclear Power - energy from splitting Uranium atoms. <http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm#adv>. Accessed November 10th, 2009 Fairley P. Cleaner Nuclear Power? MIT Technology Review; 2007 Nov. 27.<http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19758/page1/>. Accessed

December 11, 2009. Florida Power and Light Company. About Turkey Point. About our Plants. <http://www.fpl.com/environment/nuclear/about_turkey_point.shtml

>. Accessed 9 December 2009. Green Peace Canada. Only Energy Conservation can solve Electricity Crisis: Nuclear is the problem, not the solution. <

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/press/press-releases/electricity-crisis>. Accessed November 28th, 2009. Japan Nuclear. What is a “Closed“ Nuclear Fuel Cycle [home page on the Internet]. Japan Nuclear; 2002. <

http://www.japannuclear.com/nuclearpower/fuelcycle/what.html >. Accessed November 27th, 2009. Lightfoot H D. A Strategy for Adequate Future World Energy Supply and Carbon Emission Control Montreal (Qu): EIC Climate Change Technology, 2006

IEEE; 2006 May 11.<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4057295&isnumber=4057291>. Accessed November 15th, 2009. Lightfoot H D, Manheimer W, Meneley D A, Pendergast D, Stanford G S. Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible Canada: Computare <

http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Nuclear%20Paper%2006_05.htm>.; 2006 Sept. 12. [cited 2009 Dec. 18]. Available from:

ScienceDaily. Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Contribute To Carbon-Free Energy. Science Daily; 2009 Jan. 29. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127131654.htm>. Accessed November 16th, 2009.

Time for Change. Pros and cons of Nuclear Energy.<http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability>. Accessed December 29th, 2009.

World Nuclear Association. Thorium [home page on the Internet]. World Nuclear Association; 2009 Oct.. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html>. Accessed December 21, 2009.