Prospects of Nuclear Energy

Thus, in discussing the prospects of nuclear power, we face two major sources of uncertainty.
We do not know how the alternative energy contenders will compare on technical, economic,
and environmental grounds. We know even less how public and political attitudes will evolve.
There are also differences among countries that sometimes have no clear explanation. It is easy
to understand why Norway has no nuclear power while Sweden has employed it extensively. The
answer lies in Norway’s ample hydroelectric resources that have been providing over 99% of its
electricity. However, it is hard to find such straightforward explanations for Italy’s abandoning
of nuclear power while France was emphasizing it, or the difference between substantially
nuclear Switzerland—which in 2003 referenda voted against giving up nuclear power—and
nuclear-free Austria. In the remainder of this chapter, we will discuss some of the factors that
will influence the future development of nuclear power. However, at every turn, it will be
necessary to recognize that there are large uncertainties on both the technical and political sides.

Internal Factors Impacting Nuclear Power

The future acceptability of nuclear energy, which we restrict to energy from nuclear
fission here, will depend, in part, on internal factors—the strengths and weaknesses of nuclear
power itself. Key factors are as follows:

1: Nuclear accidents. The sine qua non for the acceptance of nuclear power is a long period of
accident-free operation, worldwide. Any major nuclear accident will heighten fears of nuclear power
and each decade of accident free operation helps to alleviate them.

2: Reactor designs. For nuclear power to be attractive, next-generation reactors must be manifestly
safe and also must be economical to build. These could be either large evolutionary reactors, of
the sort recently built in France, Japan, and South Korea, or smaller reactors that may be a better
match to markets of modest size.

3: Waste disposal. The completion of integrated and fully explained waste disposal plans would
encourage people to believe that the problem is “solved.” In particular, smooth progress with the
Yucca Mountain project would
suggest that waste disposal problems are surmountable. However, for a large expansion of
nuclear power, it will be necessary to demonstrate the ability to handle the wastes from many
more years of reactor operation.

4: Resistance to proliferation and terrorism. For nuclear power to be acceptable, its facilities
must be well protected against terrorists and the nuclear fuel cycle must be proliferation resistant.

5: Assessments of radiation hazards. Most professionals believe that public fears of radiation
—and, in particular, radiation from nuclear power—are out of proportion to the actual risks. A
more realistic understanding of the dangers would, in this view, lessen some of the opposition to
nuclear power.

External Factors Impacting Nuclear Energy

Verdicts on the “internal factors” discussed earlier will be influenced by perceptions of

need. Here, factors external to nuclear power determine the apparent need. These include the
following:
-Energy and electricity demand. Economic expansion and population growth act to increase the
demand for additional energy, including nuclear energy. Effective conservation measures reduce
it.

-Limitations on oil and gas resources. The need for alternatives is enhanced if these resources are
seen to be inadequate.

-Global climate change. If the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
looms large in the public consciousness as an environmental threat, then the pressures to find
alternatives to fossil fuels will intensify. Complicating the equation is the prospect of carbon
sequestration, which, at least in principle, offers the possibility of “carbon-free” coal.

-Renewable energy. The technical and economic feasibility of renewable sources and
assessments of their environmental impacts are critical to judging the need for nuclear power.

Possible Difficulties in Nuclear Expansion

The Pace of Reactor Construction

Population is increasing so energy per capita is also increasing

Uranium Resources
However, it would make little sense to bring reactors on line that would run out of fuel

Nuclear Wastes
The nuclear waste problem will increase with its expansion

Weapons Proliferation
More countries could assert the need for uranium-enrichment facilities, ostensibly for
low-enriched uranium for civilian reactors but potentially easing the path to high-enriched
uranium for weapons.
 SAFETY

The main safety concern is the emission of uncontrolled radiation into the environment which
could cause harm to humans both at the reactor site and off-site

The Nature of Reactor Risks

1: Criticality accidents. These are accidents in which the chain reaction builds up in an
uncontrolled manner, within at least part of the fuel. In an LWR of normal design, such accidents
are highly improbable, due to negative feedbacks and shutdown mechanisms. They are less
unlikely in some other types of reactor, given sufficient design flaws. The 1986 Chernobyl
accident
was a criticality accident, although much of the energy release was from a steam explosion
following the disruption of the core.

2: Loss-of-coolant accidents. When the chain reaction is stopped, which can be accomplished
quickly in the case of an accident by inserting control rods, there will be a continued heat output
due to radioactivity in the reactor core. Unless adequate cooling is maintained, the fuel
temperature will rise sufficiently for the fuel cladding and the fuel to melt, followed by the
possible escape of radioactive materials from the reactor pressure vessel and perhaps from the
outer reactor containment. The TMI accident was a loss-of-coolant accident. There was
substantial core melting, but no large escape of radioactive material from the containment

Radiations. The UO2 fuel pellets retain most radionuclides, although some gaseous fission
products (the noble gases and, at elevated temperatures, iodine and cesium) may escape.

-The zircaloy cladding of the fuel pins traps most or all of the gases that escape from the fuel
pellets.

-The pressure vessel and closed primary cooling loop retain nuclides that escape from the fuel
pins due either to defects in individual pins or, in the case of an accident, overheating of the
cladding.

-Other harm includes physical damage to the reactor plant and contamination of the surrounding
environment that may force the evacuation of large regions

Avoiding accidents

The reactivity of the system

Reactivity os system is kept low enough to make delayed neutrons crucial for criticality.
Thus, even if the reactivity rises, the rates of increase of the neutron flux and of the power output
are relatively slow
Heat Removal and Loss-of-Coolant Accidents

The central problem in loss-of-coolant accidents arises from the need to remove the heat
produced by radioactivity during the period after reactor shutdown decay heat is removed by a
coolent otherwise it would melt the fuel

Core-Cooling Systems
During normal operation, reactor cooling is maintained by the flow of a large volume of
water through the pressure vessel. This flow can be disrupted by a break in a pipe, failure of
valves or pumps, or, in PWRs, a failure of heat removal in the steam generators. Such accidental
disruptions of the normal cooling system are generically termed loss-of-coolant accidents
(LOCAs emergency core-cooling systems intended to maintain water flow to core of reactor
coolant can be water, sodium, sodium salts.

Release of Radionuclides from Hot Fuel

The radionuclides include both fission products and actinides. They can be grouped
according to differences in their volatility. The most volatile are the noble gases. These can
diffuse out of the fuel into the fuel pins even at normal fuel temperatures. If radionuclides escape
from the cooling system or from the reactor vessel, the next barrier is the containment structure.
The integrity of the containment can be compromised by overpressure, most likely from the
buildup of steam. To avoid this containment cooling systems intended to condense the steam. For
example, PWRs commonly have spray systems for condensation.

Also there should be the maintenance of barriers that prevent the release of radiation

HAZARDS

Radiation :How Dangerous Is Radiation?high dose cancer is certain.Routine emission from

nuclear industries also from reactor accident

Reactor waste : There are several types of radioactive waste generated by the nuclear industry,
but we will concentrate largely on the two most important and potentially dangerous, high-level
waste and radon.

-High-Level Waste: The residue, containing nearly all of the radioactivity produced in the
reactor, is called high-level waste. The waste can be converted into a rock-like form and buried
deep underground in a carefully selected geological formation. The waste generated by one large
nuclear power plant in one year and prepared for burial is about six cubic yards. The ground is
full of naturally radioactive materials, no large effect on increase in radioactivity of ground.The
principal concern about buried waste is that it might dissolve in groundwater and contaminate
food and drinking water supplies. How dangerous is this material to eat or drink

- Radon problem: the release of radon, a radioactive gas that naturally evolves from
uranium. There has been some concern over increased releases of radon due to uranium mining
and milling operations. These problems have now been substantially reduced by cleaning up
those operations and covering the residues with several feet of soil. The health effects of this
radon are several times larger than those from other nuclear wastes