Nuclear Energy: Will It Rise Again? |ChemFam #48|

Greetings to everyone! In the face of an ever-accelerating global energy demand and the pressing need to address the existential threat of climate change, the prospect of nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. As the world transitions away from fossil fuels to cleaner and sustainable alternatives, the potential for nuclear power to play a pivotal role in the energy landscape cannot be ignored.

The concept of nuclear energy is not new, and it has been a subject of both fascination and trepidation since the first nuclear fission reactions were harnessed during the mid-20th century. The promise of abundant and nearly limitless energy seemed within humanity's grasp, but tragic accidents, such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, cast a shadow over the industry and fueled public apprehension. Yet, as the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensifies, nuclear power is emerging as a potent contender for sustainable energy generation.

The only source of nuclear energy currently available depends upon the neutron-induced fissioning of heavy atomic nuclei, most commonly those of the uranium isotope with a mass number of 235, to produce radioactive fission products, an average of 2.5 more neutrons and an astounding amount of energy compared to an ordinary chemical reaction. A typical example of such a fission reaction is

Drawn via ChemDraw by @splash-of-angs63

A nuclear reactor operating at a constant power supply is to serve as a heat source to produce steam used to generate mechanical energy. The basic component of a nuclear power reactor is shown below. The pressurized superheated water circulates through the hot reactor core in an enclosed loop (to prevent escape of radioactive contaminants). Heat from this superheated water is used to convert water to steam in a particular heat exchanger. The rest of the power plant is more or less like a conventional fossil-fueled plant with a steam turbine coupled to a generated the steam from the steam turbine being cooled to provide water for the heat exchanger.

There is an adequate supply of uranium. Only 0.71% of natural uranium is fissionable uranium-235, and uranium to be used for fission must be enriched in this isotope. In principle, the remaining 99.28% of uranium that consists of uranium-238 could be converted to fissionable plutonium by absorptions of neutrons in breeder reactors. Plutonium is actually generated by uranium-238 absorbing neutrons in a conventional nuclear power reactor and after the reactor has operated for a few months after refueling, a large fraction of its energy output comes from plutonium generated in the reactor.

Source

A big problem with nuclear power reactors is the radioactive fission products generated when the uranium nucleus splits apart. These products remain fatal for thousands of years, so the spent fuel or the fission products secluded must be put in a secure location. So far, efforts to settle upon an appropriate nuclear waste repository have met with such opposition that a permanent site is not yet in operation. In the meantime, spent fuel is stored temporarily under water in containers located on the reactors’ premises. This is because the short-lived wastes that are responsible for most of the radioactivity in nuclear fuel on freshly removed from a reactor decay rapidly, and after a few years of storage only a small fraction of the original activity is present.

Another problem with nuclear reactors is their decommissioning. A possible solution is to dismantle the reactor soon after it is shut down using devices operated by remote control. The various parts of the radioactive reactor are then disposed. Another possible solution or approach is to allow the reactor to stand for 30–100 years before dismantling, by which time most of the radioactivity has decayed (and the people responsible for the reactor initially have died). A third option is to burry the reactor in a concrete structure.

Two notable accidents have dealt a serious damage to the future of nuclear energy. The first, and much lesser of the two has occurred on March 28, 1979, when Metropolitan Edison Company’s nuclear reactor located on Three Mile Island in the Susquehanna River, 28 miles outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, lost much of its coolant which resulted in overheating and simultaneously partial disintegration of the reactor core. Radioactive gases such as xenon and krypton gases were released to the atmosphere and some radioactive water got into the river. The problem was rectified and the reactor building sealed.

Source

Again in April of 1986 a reactor of inherently dangerous Soviet design blew up in Chernobyl, which is now part of Ukraine. Officially, 31 people were killed, but the death toll was probably many more, especially when delayed effects of exposure to radioactive materials are considered. This damage to this incident was so sever that food, including reindeer meat in Lapland, was contaminated as far away as Scandinavia, thousands of people were taken out, and the entire reactor building was entombed in a massive concrete structure. The reactor that blew up was one of the other four units, the last of which was reportedly not shut down permanently until the end of 2000!

Given the cruelty described above, why would reputable scientists even advocate development of nuclear energy? The answer is, simply, carbon dioxide. With massive world resources of coal and other nonpetroleum fossil fuels, the world has at least enough readily available fossil fuel to last for a century. Evidence is increasing that the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion will lead to global warming accompanied by effects such as rising sea levels that will submerge many coastal cities. Human beings do know how to design and operate nuclear reactors safely and reliably; indeed, France has done so for years and gets most of its electricity from nuclear fission. So, it may be that nuclear energy is far from dead and that humankind, reluctantly and with great care, will have to rely on it as the major source of energy in the future. A new generation of nuclear power plants is waiting to be built that have the desirable characteristics of passive stability. This means that measures such as gravity feeding of coolant, evaporation of water, or convection flow of fluids operating automatically provide for safe operation of the reactor and automatic shutdown of the reactor if something goes wrong. New designs are also much more reliable with only about half as many pumps, pipes, and heat exchangers as are contained in older power reactors.

Nuclear Fusion

The fusion of a deuterium nucleus and a tritium nucleus relkeases a lot of energy as shown below, where Mev stands for million electron volts, a unit of energy.

Drawn via ChemDraw by @splash-of-angs63

This reaction is responsible for the enormous explosive power of the “hydrogen bomb.” So far it has eluded efforts at containment for a practical continuous source of energy. And since physicists have been trying to make it work on a practical basis for the last approximately 50 years, it will probably never be done. (Within about 15 years after the discovery of the phenomenon of nuclear fission, it was being used in a power reactor to power a nuclear submarine.) However, the tantalizing possibility of using the essentially limitless supply of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, from Earth’s oceans for nuclear fusion still give some investigators hope of a practical nuclear fusion reactor.

Source

Nuclear fusion was the subject of one of the greatest scientific embarrassments of modern times when investigators at the University of Utah in 1989 announced that they had accomplished so-called cold fusion of deuterium during the electrolysis of deuterium oxide (heavy water). This resulted in an astonishing flurry of activity as scientists throughout the world sought to repeat the results, whereas others ridiculed the idea. Unfortunately, for the attainment of a cheap and abundant source of energy, the skeptics were right, and the whole story of cold fusion stands as a lesson in the (temporary) triumph of wishful technological thinking over scientific good sense.

Conclusive thoughts

The revival of nuclear energy represents a significant crossroads for humanity's energy future. The decisions made in the coming years will profoundly impact the global trajectory of emissions reduction and sustainable development. Whether nuclear power will be embraced as a critical component of the clean energy portfolio or relegated to history books as a missed opportunity hinges on our collective ability to confront the complexities and uncertainties surrounding this controversial but potentially transformative energy source.

We shall meet again :)

---

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

---

Britannica

Apkmattrab

World nuclear association

---

Read My Previous Blogs:

---

Soaps: An Essential and Effective Cleansing Agent |ChemFam #47|

SCRAP Giveaway | Terracore | Draw #5 |

Chemicals in Food : Debunking Myths and Ensuring Safe Consumptions |ChemFam #46|

Unveiling The Secrets of Antiseptics and Disinfectants |ChemFam #45|

What are Antimicrobials and Antimicrobial Drugs? |ChemFam #44|

Therapeutic Action of Different Classes of Drugs |ChemFam #43|

Introduction to Drugs and Drug-Target Interaction |ChemFam #42|

Scientists Analyze a Single Atom With X-Rays For The First Time |ChemFam #41|

Can We Slow Down Aging? |ChemFam #40|

Studying The Cluster Compounds: The LNCC |ChemFam #39|

Biochemistry of Calcium: Role of Calcium in Muscle Contraction |ChemFam #38|

Biosynthesis of Fatty Acids: De Novo Synthesis of Fatty Acids |ChemFam #37|

Hapticity and The Eighteen Electron Rule |ChemFam #36|

An Introduction To Organometallic Chemistry |ChemFam #35|

Applications of Zeolites: The 3D Molecular Sieves |ChemFam #34|

Properties of Zeolites: The 3D Molecular Sieves |ChemFam #33|

Zeolites: The 3D Molecular Sieves |ChemFam #32|

PS The thumbnail image is being created by me using canva.com by using template image from Wikimedia

---

---

Thanks for stopping by :)