As the reality of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming becomes increasingly apparent many governments are investing in new technologies to produce energy without the high atmospheric carbon cost of burning fossil fuels. Reading many environmental publications you are bound to come across green technologies such as a solar power, wind turbines and hydroelectric power that could provide low carbon energy for future generations.
Although these energy sources have their critics these technologies are rightly regarded by most within the environmental and energy sectors as being a vital step for future energy production and an important maybe vital part in reducing anthropogenic global warming.
But there is one non fossil fuel source of energy often left out of such arguments and although it has at points in history provided up to 15% of the world’s electricity demands it is still a controversial and a divisive issue. I’m talking of course about Nuclear power.
What is Nuclear power?
The energy stored in fossil fuels is in the form of something we call chemical energy. As the oxygen and carbon react to form carbon dioxide the newly formed chemical bonds release energy. This energy is released as heat which we use to warm our homes and power turbines creating electricity. Although the carbon and oxygen are now bonded together they are still just carbon and oxygen in a different arrangement – the atoms themselves have not changed.
The reactions which provide nuclear energy (sometimes known as atomic energy) are of a very different nature. In a nuclear reaction the very core of the atom, called the nucleus, is altered. This means the elements at the start of a nuclear reaction are different to the products at the end. The amount of energy stored within the atom is huge, many orders of magnitude higher than in the chemical bonds between them, so nuclear power has the ability to provide a huge amount of energy. Current nuclear power stations run on nuclear fission - larger nuclei are split into smaller ones releasing energy. The alternative to this is nuclear fusion, where energy is released as smaller nuclei fuse, is still very much at the experimental stage.
Nuclear Issues
Nuclear power stations can produce vast amount of energy, easily as much as their coal powered equivalents. Not only is the energy supplied constant but worldwide reserves are large. Although the Uranium rich rock used as fuel has to be mined out the ground at considerable energy cost the process is far more carbon efficient than burning fossil fuels directly – and is somewhat equatable in terms of carbon efficiency with other “green” energy production technologies.
Of course the environmental and ecological health of Earth extends far beyond simply the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although carbon low, nuclear power can cause a large number of serious environmental issues making it a controversial energy source.
Elements that readily undergo nuclear reactions are by their nature unstable. They can emit radiation which can cause cell mutation, radiation sickness, birth defects and cancer if brought into contact with human populations. The waste and spent fuel of nuclear power stations can remain radioactive for thousands of years – meaning radioactive waste needs to be stored deep underground in secure facilities. Mining of the Uranium – the most common nuclear fuel can cause environmental damage as radioactive rocks are brought from deep within the earth to the surface where they are more likely to enter the local biosphere. Of course the recent events in the Gulf of Mexico have highlighted the fact that removing fossil fuels from the environmental is also not without serious environmental risk.
Although very rare accidents can occur at nuclear power stations such as the incident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986 – a large explosion which produced clouds of radioactive gas spreading across much of Europe which the UN suspect may have caused 9000 cancer deaths. Many supporters of nuclear power argue rightly the conditions, technology and safety culture used in modern reactors are vastly superior to those implemented 25 years ago by the Soviet Union and the probability of a large nuclear reactor accident or meltdown is extremely low. However many still cite potential accidents as a clear reason invest in other forms of energy production and avoid building nuclear reactors.
Nuclear energy in the UK
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne has recently stated that nuclear power will not get any public money or subsidies (in contrast to other low carbon energy production such as wind turbines and solar energy) despite nuclear power being potentially an important tool in ensuring the UK stays on track for carbon emissions targets. Meanwhile NGOs and other green groups are themselves divided. Some suggest that the danger of global warming is so great that is would be absurd to ignore such a potentially huge source of low carbon energy, whilst other suggest a more holistic view be taken and that the risks outweigh the benefit.
Whatever people’s opinions on nuclear fuel it is certainly a topic worth discussing. As pressure to reduce atmospheric carbon grows and energy demand increases there is a gap that needs to be filled.
Currently the Nuclear reactors in the UK supply roughly a quarter of our electricity needs, but as many are reaching the end of their operating lifespan it is an issue that may need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
