The Future of Power GenerationBY JOEY ZHOU

IntroductionThroughout mankind’s fifty thousand year history, humans learned to make energy their servants. The discovery of fire

allowed humans to access an immediate source of heat. Harnessing the energy of animals and slaves to harvest fields,

boosting crop yields. Sails on ships used wind power to transport humans from place to place. Then came the industrial

revolution, the new fossil-fuel based technologies advanced mankind like never before. Human population and standards

of living in industrialized states increased exponentially. By the end of the 20th Century, most of the global population

relied solely on fossil fuels. Petroleum powers the transportation industry, while coal and natural gas fuels power

generation. However, as the consumption of fossil fuel increased, so did environmental degradation. Burning fossil fuels

release large amounts of greenhouse gases, causing global warming. In response to the negative environmental impacts

of fossil fuels, researchers began looking for new ways to generate energy for society. The most efficient form of clean

energy involves nuclear power. Unlike other clean energy sources, its large power-generating capacity is able to meet

the demands of large cities and countries, while also running on a plentiful fuel source. Despite these benefits, nuclear

energy come with many risks such as nuclear meltdown and the disposal of radioactive waste products. This report

evaluates the environmental effects of nuclear energy and proposes a solution to a more sustainable, safe and clean

energy source.

What are fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels are fuels formed by the decomposition of buried dead organisms. It can take the form of petroleum, oil, and natural gas.

The combustion of fossil fuels can be used to produce a significant amount of energy per unit weight.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), it is estimated that in 2010, the worldwide energy consumption by fossil fuel based sources was over 80%

So What?

The burning of fossil fuels raises serious international environmental concerns.

Combustion of fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollutants that enhances the effect of global warming, contributes to acid rain and gives rise to other environmental issues.

Ever since the industrial revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels rose exponentially. Accounting for more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions.

So What?

Air pollutions of fossil fuel particles cause negative health effects when inhaled by humans and wildlife.

These health concerns may include respiratory illness, asthma, bronchitis, and cancers.

The burning of fossil fuels also releases radioactive materials into the atmosphere.

According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “In 2000, about 12000 tonnes of thorium and 5000 tons of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal” (Cleveland). The amount of radioactivity released in 2000 is hundreds of times greater than the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown accident.

So What?

Furthermore, fossil fuels are considered to be a non-renewable energy source.

At the current rate of consumption, fossil fuels will be completely depleted by the end of this century.

“If we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088” ("The End Of Fossil Fuels”)

Nuclear Energy

Fossil fuel burning is a global-scale issue due to massive amounts of emissions of greenhouse gases and other toxic air pollutants. Mitigation of these effects can be accomplished by the large-scale utilization of nuclear power. Unlike power plants that utilizes fossil fuels, nuclear reactors produce little greenhouse gas emissions.

In a recent paper published by the National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA), their quantitative analysis on the effects of nuclear power on human and environmental health concluded that nuclear power “nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of [greenhouse gas] emissions globally between 1971-2009” ("National Aeronautics and Space Administration”).

Nuclear Energy

NASA also compared the toxic pollutants of fossil fuel plants compared to nuclear reactors, evidence showed that “although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollutants […] than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced” ("National Aeronautics and Space Administration”).

Nuclear Energy

Contrary to popular belief, the fuel source –uranium 235 – for modern nuclear reactors is unlikely to run out within the next five billion years assuming current rate of consumption.

With over “four million tonnes” of natural uranium-235 in the Earth’s crust, and “some 44 million kilowatt-hours of electricity produced from one tonne of natural uranium” ("World Nuclear Association”) Physicist Bernard Cohen suggests that “[reactors], fueled exclusively by natural uranium […] could supply [the world] energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years” ("Nuclear Power Proposed as Renewable Energy”).

Nuclear Energy

Compared to other clean renewable energy sources, nuclear energy is perhaps the most economically efficient and environmentally friendly method of energy generation.

For hydroelectric power, building large dams by flooding fields can displace large populations of people and local organisms. Not to mention the massive ecological costs of dam construction and maintenance demands.

Solar energy is the least efficient out of all renewable energy sources. The power density, or watt per square meter of solar cells is miniscule, resulting huge area usages with minimal energy production. On top of that, it is only able to generate electricity during daylight hours. Also, it solar cells uses exotic materials such as cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium selenide that limits its mass production.

Wind energy is unreliable for the fact that it depends on intermittent wind currents to turn its turbines. It also poses as a hazard to local wildlife (birds, bats, etc.) and can take up huge amount of area to implement.

Nuclear Meltdowns

Despite many benefits of nuclear energy over fossil fuel based energy, the biggest concern with nuclear power generation is the devastating risks of reactor meltdowns. Meltdowns of nuclear power plants results in severe environmental contamination that may last for decades to centuries. Furthermore, disaster clean-ups can cost up to tens of billions of dollars.

Nuclear Meltdowns

In March 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused damage to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan that lead to explosions and partial meltdowns. Radioactive isotopes were released from the reactor containment vessels, which resulted in the displacement of 50,000 households in the area. Radioactive material also leaked into the air, soil and sea that led to bans on shipments of vegetation and fish. Furthermore, the contaminated area was reported as being over 25 times above the safe limit of ionizing radiation dosage. To this day, water is still being poured into the damaged reactors to cool the melting fuel rods.

As The Economist reports, “…years of clean-up will drag into decades. A permanent exclusion zone could end up stretching beyond the plant’s perimeter. Seriously exposed workers may be at increased risk of cancers for the rest of their lives...” ("When the Steam Clears”)

“…the devilishly difficult cleanup there is expected to take 40-plus years and cost tens of billions of dollars. Some 160,000 evacuees still live in temporary housing, having lost their livelihoods and land to the contamination, which may render some of it unfarmable for centuries to come” (Schiffman, 2011)

High-level Radioactive Waste

Another downfall of nuclear energy is the storage of nuclear waste. Spent fuel from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 contain countless numbers of carcinogenic isotopes. These radioactive waste products is hazardous to most forms of life and the environment.

Naturally, radioactivity decays over time, though it can range from a few weeks to millions of years for radioactive waste to decay to a safe level.

High-level Radioactive Waste

The current approach to managing these waste products is to isolate and confine these products to a disposal facility for a sufficient period of time until it no longer poses a threat to the environment.

Not only does this take up a relatively large area, but it can be lethal to nearby wildlife should the waste be improperly stored.

The waste also has to be carefully guarded and monitored to prevent terrorists from obtaining these materials to nuclear weapons.

Final Solution – Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

There are many types of nuclear reactors, but they all suffer from the risk of meltdown and the production of large amounts of radioactive waste products.

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR for short) amplifies the benefits of a standard Uranium-fueled reactor, while abolishing the risks involved in the energy generating process.

LFTR meltdown is impossible with the “emergency freeze plug” which allows the liquid core to flow into an energy dump tank in case the reactor overheats

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Furthermore, LFTRs produces considerably less radioactive waste products because energy is almost completely extracted from thorium.

Theoretically, a LFTR plant would generate thousands of times less nuclear waste than tradition uranium-fueled reactors

Of the waste products produced by LFTRs, 83% of the waste are safe within ten years and the remaining 17% will become safe after 300 years.

On top of that, LFTRs can also be used to burn current waste from most of today’s nuclear power plants.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

LFTR also provides many economic benefits over tradition Uranium-Fueled Reactors.

Because LFTRs have a greater energy production capability and the fuel source being four times more common than uranium, the total cost would be 25-50% less than a traditional nuclear reactor.

One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Conclusion

In conclusion, nuclear energy serves as a vital energy source for the future. It is clean energy source that produces little carbon emission. It is safe when operated under the right conditions. It is sustainable, as the Earth’s crusts will provide more than enough fuel for future generations. The safety risks associated with nuclear energy can be mitigated by advancements in nuclear reactor technology. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor design is one of many ways to make nuclear energy as the most viable energy source for the future. Nuclear power will revolutionize society.

Works CitedCleveland, Cutler J. "Fossil Fuel." Fossil Fuel. The Encyclopedia of Earth, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"The End Of Fossil Fuels." Our Green Energy. Ecotricity, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

"The Energy From Thorium Foundation." The Energy From Thorium Foundation. The Energy From Thorium Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"National Aeronautics and Space Administration." NASA GISS: Science Brief: Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"Nuclear Power Proposed as Renewable Energy." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Schiffman, Richard. "Two Years On, America Hasn't Learned Lessons of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster." The Guardian. The Guardian, n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

"Thorium-based Nuclear Power." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"When the Steam Clears." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 26 Mar. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"World Nuclear Association." Nuclear Fuel Cycle Overview. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.