The Explosive Past and Productive Present - Nuclear Power

I have decided to do a small series or posts about energy. This includes energy sources as well as energy issues. This first post will cover nuclear power. I intend to discuss the benefits of nuclear energy, as well as one or two reactor types. For that, I will contrast the common pressurized water reactor to the "reactor cooled by water and moderated by graphite" (RBMK) reactor used for the Chernobyl reactor.

Chernobyl. The name sends shivers down the spines of any who know about what happened there. Chernobyl. A nuclear power station in the Ukraine whose #4 reactor exploded, releasing nuclear fallout over a wide swath of land. It is over 20 years since the explosion and there are still issues with radioactivity. This catastrophe is, perhaps, the paradigm of what can go wrong with nuclear reactors. It might even be enough to turn someone off the idea of nuclear power completely. However, as horrific as the Chernobyl incident was, the reactor used was poorly designed.

All nuclear reactors use particles, such as neutrons, to bombard fuel cells, such as Uranium. The effect of this process is the splitting of the target atom, releasing energy and neutrons. It is a chain reaction. Some of the energy released is radiation, in the form of heat. In order to ensure the continued production of energy, all reactors use a sort of buffer, which slows down the neutron sufficiently that it has a greater chance of hitting the target atom(s). In most American and Canadian reactors, this is water. The RBMK reactor used carbon in the form of graphite. (Reactor Design)

The design technology of the RBMK reactor was nearly 45 years outdated. It was, in fact, the same technology used by Enrico Fermi in 1942. As such, there were two major design flaws. The first was the carbon used as a moderator.
It does not stand up well under high pressures. Not only that, it burns in the core when exposed to air. The burning increases the speed of the neutrons, creating even more heat. To prevent this from happened, air had to be kept out of the reactor core. The second major problem with the RBMK design was its decided lack of containment. There
was a seal designed to keep pressure in, but nothing to protect and shield in the case of an explosion.


Modern nuclear reactors, such as those used in America and Canada, are much safer than the RBMK design. Both designs are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Instead of graphite, they use water to moderate the reaction speed and efficiency. They work via a double coolant system. The water in the primary coolant system, around the core, is pressurized so that it can remain liquid above its natural boiling point. In US reactors, ordinary water is used. On the other hand, Canadian reactors use heavy water (water that contains deuterium), which is a slightly more effective moderator.

The secondary coolant system uses the heat from the primary system to turn the water flowing through the pipes into steam. That steam is then used to rotate a turbine, producing electricity in a generator. The water is then run over a condenser, returning it to a liquid state so that the process may be repeated. The only water in the system which is irradiated is that in the primary coolant system. Water used in the secondary system does not come in any direct contact with the radioactive water. Additionally, each reactor is surrounded by a steel-reinforced concrete container. This is a safety measure designed to contain the escape of radiation in the event of an accident. It is the last of a line of defenses meant to protect and reduce radioactive fallout.

Of course, it goes without saying that even the safest reactor has the possibility of malfunctioning. So, then, the question is, why even consider nuclear power? What are the benefits of it, if there are any? Well, for one, they are more environmentally friendly that coal burning power plants. Additionally, the 103 nuclear plants have consistently produced about 20% of our power output for the past decade. According to a National Geographic article, the problem with cheaper coal plants "is the two billion tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide spewing skyward every year... The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that without nuclear power playing its current role in the generation of electricity, the U.S. would spew 29 percent—190 million metric tons—more carbon than it does now."

Aside from being more environmentally friendly, reactor technology is always advancing. In a few years, designs could lead to reactors that work more efficiently at higher temperatures. Such "intense nuclear reactions at such temperatures would leave waste that, compared to today's, is less toxic and lasts for a shorter period of time." In the long run, this means storage of these materials could be handled more easily. Not only that, the fuel would not be nearly as useful to terrorist groups looking to steal it.

Other countries use nuclear power. France, for example, derives nearly 80% of her electricity from nuclear power plants. Despite China's race to build coal plants, it also has designs for several nuclear plants. India, a nation with a massive population, has a significant number of reactors, with several more that are being built. In the US, a poll found that 59% of the population is in favor of nuclear power. But what about other, less dangerous, less expensive, forms of power?

~Interminable Immediacy