Nuclear Power

Chris Heine, Craig Helfer, Dan Conant, Seth Adams

Nuclear Power: An Introduction

The history of nuclear power dates back to the beginning of understanding atomic structure. In ancient Greece, philosophers created the idea that all matter is made up of small particles called atoms. The word atom is derived from the Greek word, atomos, which means indivisible. Over the next few centuries, scientists understanding of atomic structure grew with increased experiements. Physicist Ernest Rutherford is often considered the father of nuclear science because of his contributions to the knowledge of atomic structure. In 1904 Rutherford wrote that if the energy released from atomic decay could ever be harnessed, it would be able to produce a lot of energy. A year later, Albert Einstein developed one of his most famous theories, E=mc^2. Later, in the 1930’s, physicists Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassman all bombarded uranium with neutrons, and found some unexpected results. The resulting elements from this reaction were lighter than Uranium, and some mass was missing from the reaction. Another physicist Lise Meitner was contacted, and Meitner applied Einstein’s theory to the reaction to account for the lost mass, which was converted to energy. It was not until 1942 when the first nuclear reaction could be sustained. A group of scientists met at the University of Chicago to create the world’s first nuclear reactor. These scientists were able to have the uranium achieve critical mass and sustain a nuclear fission reaction. During this time WWII was raging on worldwide, and the early atomic research was focused on developing nuclear weapons under the Manhattan Project.

After the war, the U.S. government wanted to encourage the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The U.S. government created the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946, which then created the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. This act provided for the rapid declassification of U.S. nuclear reactor technology. This was to encourage nuclear energy development by the private sector. The U.S.’s free-market and capitalist ideals led to the development of hundreds of nuclear plants, none of which are standardized or uniform. This is considered to be one of the downfalls of the nuclear industry in the U.S. today.

There are two current types of nuclear reactions that can produce energy; nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is currently under development and has been unable to be controlled and/or sustained for energy generation. Nuclear fusion is the result of two atomic nucleii fusing together to form a heavier element, releasing energy in the form of heat during the progress. Nuclear fission is what is currently used in all reactors today. To produce energy from nuclear fission refined Uranium 235 or 238 is made into fuel pellets that are in zirconium fuel rods. These fuel rods are bombarded with a neutron which then begins the fission process. The atoms break apart due to the additional neutron, with each U238 atom first turning into U239, which becomes unstable and breaks down. Each U238 particle that breaks down releases three additional neutrons, which then go on to break down three more U238 particles. This begins a chain reaction which is what releases the heat energy from the rods. This heat energy is captured and used to boil water, producing steam and turning a turbine to produce electricity. Nuclear energy production produces two kinds of waste; high and low level radioactive waste. High level radioactive waste is considered to be the spent fuel rods, which are costly to store within the U.S. due to the regulatory policies pertaining to them under the U.S. government. Low-level radioactive waste is considered to be uranium mine tailings, and any clothing, items, or substances that may be exposed to the nuclear fuel rods. Additionally, nuclear energy production requires a large amount of water for the production of steam and to cool down the reactors and any spent fuel rods that may be on site.

Disaster at Three Mile Island

How it Happened?

On March 28, 1979, a cooling circuit pump in the non-nuclear section of Three Mile Island's second station (TMI-2) malfunctioned, causing the reactor's primary coolant to heat and internal pressure to rise. Within seconds, the automated response mechanism thrust control rods went into the reactor and shut down the core. An escape valve opened to release pressure but failed to close properly. Control room operators only saw that a "close" command was sent to the relief valve, but nothing displayed the valve's actual position. With the valve open, coolant escaped through the pressurizer, sending misinformation to operators that there was too much pressure in the coolant system.

Operators then shut down the water pumps to relieve the "pressure." Operators allowed coolant levels inside the reactor to fall, leaving the uranium core exposed, dry, and intensely hot. Even though inserting control rods halted the fission process, the TMI-2 reactor core continued to generate about 160 megawatts of "decay" heat, declining over the next three hours to 20 megawatts.

Approximately one-third of the TMI-2 reactor was exposed and began to melt. By the time operators discovered what was happening, superheated and partially radioactive steam built up in auxiliary tanks, which operators then moved to waste tanks through compressors and pipes. The compressors leaked. The steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation. No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found.

The Outcome and Lessons Learned

President Carter Leaving Three Mile Island

The local population of 2 million people received an average estimated dose of about 1 millirem--miniscule compared to the 100-125 millirems that each person receives annually from naturally occurring background radiation in the area. Nationally, the average person receives 360 millirems per year. No significant radiation effects on humans, animals, or plants were found.

A number of technological and procedural changes have been implemented by industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to considerably reduce the risk of a meltdown since the 1979 incident. These include:

Plant design and equipment upgrades, including fire protection, auxiliary feed water systems, containment building isolation, and automatic plant shut down capabilities.

Emergency preparedness, including closer coordination between federal, state, and local agencies.

Plant performance analysis by senior NRC managers who identify plants that require additional regulatory attention.

Performance- and safety-oriented inspections.

Establishment of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operators, an industry-created non-profit organization that evaluates plants, promotes training and information sharing, and helps individual plants overcome technical issues.

Disaster at Chernobyl

What Exactly Happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant?

On April 26th, 1986, disaster struck in the form of a nuclear accident at a power plant in the Ukraine. Large quantities of radioactive contamination were released and spread to Western USSR and as far as Europe. This accident was, and still is today, considered to be the worst nuclear accident in the history of mankind.

The whole catastrophe began on the 26th during a typical systems test on reactor number four of the plant. Once a sudden power outage occurred, workers at the plant sensed immediate danger. Because of this, they initiated an emergency shutdown, thinking that this could only help the situation. They were indeed wrong. The emergency attempt only spiked the power outage. Due to this lack of power one of the reactors burst open, leading to several violent explosions. A fire soon ignited (because of the chemicals) and smoke started to leave the plant, carrying radioactive material with it into the air supply. The polluted air traveled great distances, contaminating areas mostly in Western USSR but also making it to parts of Europe. Out of all the affected areas, no one saw worse than Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine.

Because of this detrimental accident many began questioning how capable the Soviet was in terms of running nuclear power plants. This disaster put a definitive halt on nuclear advancement for the Soviet, and even worldwide as critics examined just how safe these plants were.

What was the Aftermath like at Chernobyl?

The accident at Chernobyl left nearly 250 people with acute radiation sickness, or ARS. Out of those many almost 30 died a few months later because of the ARS diagnosis. Though many still believe that the exposure can lead to radiation induced cancer, no studies have revealed this to be absolutely the case. Some also connect the radiation exposure to serious mutations, both in animals and in the children of those who have been in contact with the radioactive materials.

Rivers, including the Pripyat and Dnipro, seemed to become immediately contaminated after the disaster. Because of this, strict attention was placed on safety levels of the drinking water, as well as the contamination in the fish population.

In addition, several trees, located relatively close to the Chernobyl plant, turned a reddish color and died soon after. This area has been titled the “Red Forest.” Also, animals whose habitat was indeed this forest suffered as well. A serious amount of radiation was found in those that were hunted (also a problem for the food source of the population), some of which even stopped reproducing.

Japanese Nuclear Disater at Fukushima

What Exactly Happened at Fukushima?

On March 11th, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami named Tohoku hit Japan. The chain of events that followed immediately changed the feelings on nuclear power. After the earthquake occurred, there was a release of radioactive material along with a series of equipment failures at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. This plant consisted of six boiling water reactors preserved by the Tokyo Electric Power Company. This was indeed the largest nuclear accident in Japanese history, and theorists believe it to even be the second largest in the history of the world, behind only Chernobyl.

What Went Wrong at the Plant?

When the earthquake began two of the reactors, five and six, were in “cold shutdown” mode because of necessary maintenance concerns. Reactor four had even been de-fueled. However, the remaining reactors were only capable of shutting down automatically after the earthquake. After the shutdown the emergency generators began to run a very essential electronic control system as well as a reactor cooling procedure, or at least attempted to do so. The Fukushima plant was meant to have top notch security, as a “seawall” capable of withstanding a 5.7m tsunami bordered the facility. The only problem was that when the waves arrived at the plant, they were measured at heights of 14m, leading to a seawall failure, and a flooded nuclear plant. This flood annihilated the entire electrical control system, meaning, all power needed to cool down the reactors was lost. Thus, the lack of cooling triggered an extreme case of overheating of reactors due to the decaying of fission products left remaining pre-accident. From there on reactor after reactor began to face either core meltdowns or containment damage. Even those reactors, 5 and 6, that were in “cold shutdown” began to overheat. Eventually, after predictions of radiation leakage, workers and those located close to the plant were ordered to keep a 12 mile distance from the plant. Though many eventually escaped to safety without damage, others suffered radiation exposure. After the phenomenon was somewhat “over” generators were restarted to cool reactors five and six (those that were still overheating but manageable to contain). However, due to excessive damage (through floods, fires, and explosions) the machinery used to cool reactors one through four remained unusable. Radioactive leaking into the water made it impossible for any imaginable repairs to be made on these four reactors.

Environmental Effects

The samples (from different sources, food, water, etc) from up to 50km away from the plant were tested by science officials and the results were extremely alarming. What the radiation levels told the science ministry of Japan was that the releases of radioactive material found from Fukushima were at the same alarming magnitude of Chernobyl. Immediately after these tests were found to be inconclusive the food supply grown within the radius of determined radiation was banned and kept from consumers. In addition, officials recommended that the intake of tap water be limited (if used at all). Though this accident at Fukushima was ranked at a level of 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, it was done so by Japanese officials which some believe to be hiding the truths. Critics believe that this accident should be measured closer to the level of Chernobyl.

Whats Being Done to Fix the Situation

Immediately following the disaster, the Tokyo Electric Power Company made little efforts in coming up with a strategy, more specifically, how to stop the overheating reactors and how to make sure this problem remains contained. However, after a few weeks following the disaster TEPCO issued a plan for the future. The plan included a few key elements. First, in about nine months they planned to get back to the “cold shutdown” stage for some of the reactors. Next, in about three months they planned to indeed fix the cooling machinery. In addition to these two “promises”, TEPCO stated that they would create special covers for some of the more damaged reactors, create more containment units for radioactive water, and also build fences that would limit ocean contamination.

Economics of Nuclear Power

Input Costs

The cost of the construction of a brand new nuclear facility ranges from 5 to 17 billion dollars, depending on the number of reactors, as well as the nation building it. United States facilities are more expensive, due to high safety standards. Although uranium is radioactive, and a high level of international security must surround it, it is no different from any other commodity, and has a market. Like all markets, Uranium prices fluctuate. In 2005, the average price for a pound was twenty dollars. In 2007, the price rose to 113 a pound. Yet, by 2008 the price had dropped to 59 dollars a pound. Sources range the price of fuel as 17 to 28 percent of total operating costs, depending on the price of uranium that year. A difficulty with fuel is that many of the reserves lie in politically unstable old Soviet Union nations such as Kazakhstan, as well as African nations, including Namibia and Niger. This makes the market incredibly unstable, and it becomes even more unstable with Uranium reserves estimated to support 2% growth over 70 years. Due to the rapidly declining uranium reserves, in 2010, 45% of all nuclear fuel came from recycled Soviet warheads.

Consumer Costs

The cost to the consumer of nuclear power is more expensive than traditional fossil fuel. Nuclear power costs roughly $59.30 per megawatt hour, while coal is a much cheaper $53.10 per megawatt hour (2006 estimates). The additional costs to nuclear are due to the high start up costs of building a facility, as well as the safety concerns surrounding nuclear. Interestingly, there is an additional cost to nuclear that stems from the government. In the United States, coal and fossil fuel power plants are subsidsed anywhere from four dollars a megawatt hour, all the way up to seven dollars per megawatt hour. To contrast this, nuclear recieves less than one dollar of subsidies per megawatt hour, further driving up the cost. However, in 2008 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a carbon tax of $45 per ton of carbon emissions would raise fossil fuel energy costs to the point where nuclear would be at a competitive level. In early 2011, economist Benjamin K Sovacool stated that "when the full nuclear fuel cycle is considered - not only reactors but also uranium mines and mills, enrichment facilities, spent fuel repositories, and decommissioning sites - nuclear power proves to be one of the costliest sources of energy".

Storage Costs

The storage of radioactive waste is another cost to consider with nuclear power. In the United Kingdom, it is estimated to cost 3,300 USD, per cubic meter of low level radiation waste, and high level radiation waste is ranges between $110,000 and $330,000 per cubic meter, depending on the severity of the radiation and the conditions of its storage. For reference, one reactor creates roughly 12 cubic meters of high level waste annually, and 48 cubic meters of low level waste.

Costs and Benefits

Costs

Long-term waste storage problem has not been solved yet.

It is currently not as economically feasible as more traditional forms of electrical generation due to extensive safety regulation, which will increase after the Fukushima accident is resolved.

Decommission costs

Does not have the infrastructure support a large portion of the United States Energy Consumption

It has the potential to be the most dangerous energy source

It has negative health affects on workers

Expensive start up costs

Benefits

It is a renewable energy source.

It does not produce carbon dioxide, thus it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

It does not produce air pollution.

It wont cause acid rain.

If no accident, it releases less radiation than coal combustion, but more than oil,natural gas, and alternative energy sources.

Interview with Professor Luetzelschwab

Do you think Nuclear Power will play a significant role as a power source for the future in the US?

Most definitely. With the concern about global warming (is there a connection between all the tornados in the country recently and global warming??) and the fact that solar and wind are nice, but have limitations as base-load sources, nuclear will have a place in the mix.

I know you talked back in March about there being radiation all around us and that people just get worried seeing a nuclear power plant and they think it is so dangerous, Do you have any suggestions for how we can educate the United States about radiation exposure and the dangers and misconceptions of the Nuclear Power industry? I know I learned a lot from your talk about radiation exposure so I think some way to tell people about it would help the industry.

After TMI there was lots of talk about the demise of nuclear power – everybody was frightened by the prospects of radioactivity everywhere (thanks to dear old Walter Cronkite) and thought it was terrible. Chernobyl was much worse, and the cries came out again, but not as strongly, possibly because it was so far away from the US. Now, Japan has a situation worse than TMI, but not as bad as Chernobyl, and the cries are again somewhat muted. I think that time has been the big factor. People looked around and saw that in fact there were no pile of dead bodies from TMI, there were a definite number from Chernobyl, but not as large as from many natural disasters, and when the Japanese situation is finally resolved, I doubt that there will be any dead bodies from radiation. We scientists can talk all we want about how radiation is not as bad as most people perceive it to be, but it just takes time for people to see that the effects are not as bad as expected.

This parallels two past introductions of technology (that I know of). When Edison proposed that people put electricity into homes for lighting, many protested that electricity was too dangerous. Some even electrocuted animals in the park to show the dangers of electricity. Now we accept electricity in our houses as a necessity, even though several hundred (411 in 2001 – isn’t Google nice!) die each year, many people are more concerned about nuclear producing this electricity and the production is less hazardous than the product it produces. Likewise, people protested the introduction of trains into downtown Philadelphia. But, after time, people accept a new technology and move on. I would say that nuclear is about at the stage where the public is mostly willing to accept the risks for the benefits of nuclear power.

How economical is Nuclear Power? Can it be more efficient, can subsidies be better? What things would improve the Nuclear Power industry to make it more profitable while still keeping it safe.

The cost of producing electricity from nuclear power in present plants is about the same as other sources (par with coal, slightly more than natural gas, and less than oil). The major cost of nuclear power is the cost of the plant. The fuel costs are much less than fossil fuels, but the cost of the plant is much more than for fossil fuels. If the new generation plants can be standardized (as they did in France), then costs of building plants would be less. The major costs of the plant are the safety features – lots of shielding, secondary systems in case a primary system fails, etc. In my opinion, if coal plants were subjected to the same rigorous health safety standards as nuclear plants, the price of coal-generated electricity would be the highest. By this I mean near zero emissions other than CO2.

How much will the new safety standards affect the industry? Will it not make it economical anymore? I’m not sure what new safety standards might be coming down the line. The next generation plants have many features that address situations like TMI and Fukushima. However, from Fukushima it looks like there needs to be serious thought given to cooling fuel storage areas in case of an emergency.

In the TMI accident that you dealt with back in 1979, what was the greatest challenge in solving and fixing that problem?

The major problem at TMI was mis-information about what was happening in the plant. Once the operators figured out the real situation, things settled down to focusing on keeping water circulating in the reactor.

What did you and the nuclear power industry learn from the accident? Is that the only major accident caused by human error, excluding Chernobyl obviously. (you said that was doomed to explode happen because the people running it were careless)

The operating panel needed revision with indicators showing what was actually happening and not what should be happening. (i.e., the indicator indicated that power to the pressure relief valve was such that the valve was closed, but in actuality, it wasn’t.) In general, there needed to be more emphasis on what is called “human engineering” which is how operators interact with the controls.

As far as I know, all nuclear accidents have been caused by some form of human error. You can look up information on Windscale, England (1957) and Kyshtym, USSSR (1957). People at Chernobyl weren’t necessarily careless, they just didn’t have a mentality to maintain systems properly.

Is there a future for Nuclear Power in this country? or is the industry dead. (To me and probably you the idea of nuclear power seems so good but the world nuclear in general really sounds dangerous to people and makes them worried)

There is still a future for nuclear power in the US. Several new plants are in various stages of license application and that has not changed recently.

Works Cited

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commision. "Background of the Three Mile Island Accident." August 2009. 29 April 2011. <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html>

Key, Marcus. Class Lecture. Energy Resources. Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa. 13 April 2011

Professor Luetzelschwab,John. Personal Interview. 29 April 2011

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. 2011. Publication. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. Available: www.ne.doe.gov/pdffilers/history.pdf

Terry Macalister (10 April 2008). "Westinghouse wins first US nuclear deal in 30 years". London: The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower. Retrieved 2008-04-09.

What's behind the red-hot uranium boom, 2007-04-19, CNNMoney, Retrieved 2008-07-2

UxC Nuclear Fuel Price Indicators (Delayed)". Ux Consulting Company, LLC. http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx. Retrieved 2008-07-02.

Benjamin K. Sovacool (January 2011). "Second Thoughts About Nuclear Power". National University of Singapore. p. 5-6. http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-briefs/201101_RSU_PolicyBrief_1-2nd_Thought_Nuclear-Sovacool.pdf.

"Management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste". Europa. SCADPlus. 2007-11-22. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l27048.htm. Retrieved 2008-08-05.

Nuclear Energy Data 2008, OECD, p. 48 (the Netherlands, Borssele nuclear power plant)

Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity. Congressional Budget Office. May 2008. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/05-02-Nuclear.pdf. Retrieved 2009-08-03

"Timeline of Fukushima Nuclear Accidents; As of 23:52, 19 March (JST) - Earth Changes and the Pole Shift." Earth Changes and the Pole Shift - Information and Discussion about the Earth Changes and the Pending Pole Shift. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/timeline-of-fukushima-nuclear>.

"Nuclear After Japan: Allison Macfarlane | Inside NOVA | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 05 May 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2011/03/nuclear-after-japan-allison-macfarlane.html>.

"TEPCO Announces a "Roadmap to Restoration" at Fukushima Dai-1 - IEEE Spectrum." IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Web. 06 May 2011. <http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/tepco-announces-a-roadmap-to-restoration-at-fukushima-dai-1>.

"Chernobyl | Chernobyl Accident | Chernobyl Disaster." World Nuclear Association | Nuclear Power - a Sustainable Energy Resource. Web. 06 May 2011. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html>.

"Fukushima and Chernobyl - Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer." REVE - Regulación Eólica Con Vehículos Eléctricos -. Web. 06 May 2011. <http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=11393>.