The short dispute regarding the natural gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine, and the concerns of Russia cutting Turkey's gas supply, has leaded us on an excursion to seek alternative energy sources. There have been many articles, commentaries and analysis forecasting that Turkey could eventually have problems meeting its energy demands. In order to prevent this dilemma, the country needs to spend a considerable part of its budget for energy supply. In spite of this reality, there is still strong opposition against the respective nuclear energy option, which leads us to discussions of "luck of energy" and how other countries have benefited from it and those who were faced with the same constrains. ZAMAN had the opportunity to discuss the situation with experts in the hope of bringing clarity to the questions surrounding this very atomic subject, starting with the very basic question of what nuclear energy is. Prof. Lefteri H. Tsoukalas, Head of the Nuclear Energy Department of Purdue University, Prof. Richard K. Lester and Prof. Andrew Kadak from the Department of Nuclear Engineering at MIT and spokesman of the Energy Nuclear Northeast, which operates a number of nuclear energy stations across America, answered our questions. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokeswoman, Diane Screnci also gave ZAMAN her definition of nuclear energy.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy?
Tsoukalas: The principal advantage of nuclear energy is that it is very clean. It releases no emissions to the environment. I think of a nuclear power station as a “giant battery.” Commercial nuclear power is the most eco-friendly (I guess we could say “the greenest”) way to generate massive industrial grade electricity. A 1000 MW coal-fired power station burns nearly 3,000,000 tones of coal a year. Its waste includes over 1,000,000 (tons) of CO2 released in the atmosphere and on average staying there for around 400 years. CO2 has a truly GLOBAL impact. It may be emitted in the US or China but it unquestionably leads to global climate change that brings climate volatility and ecological and social hardship particularly to poorer countries which have gotten none of the benefits of its use. Tons of other highly toxic materials are also released including many radioactive substances and heavy metals which are particularly bad for living organisms. Contrast this to a nuclear generating station. Nothing really comes out. On average, 22 tons of high density metal assemblies that hold the nuclear fuel and the by-products of its use, the so-called “nuclear waste,” have to be replaced every year. The “waste” is indeed highly radioactive and has to be handled with extreme care and with the proper technology. But its radioactivity dissipates rather quickly and 95percent of what is found there can be used as nuclear fuel. It is more appropriate to call the so-called nuclear waste, a “strategic fuel reserve,” since it will no doubt be used as fuel by future generations. The technology exists to separate harmful isotopes from fuel and breed even more fuel than what goes into a reactor. In this sense nuclear power is indeed a renewable form of energy.
Lester: The main advantages of nuclear energy are that nuclear power reactors, once built, are relatively inexpensive to operate, and compared with fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas (which account for about 80percent of the world's energy supplies) they are environmentally benign, producing no acid emissions (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) and no carbon dioxide. They thus make essentially no contribution to global warming. The main disadvantages are the high capital cost, the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, and the risk that civilian nuclear technology and/or materials may be diverted to weapons uses.
Steets: Its advantages are that we do not burn coal, oil, or natural gas that emit harmful toxic gases that we breath or add to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Another advantage in the US is price stability, which is possible since nuclear power is not tied to price fluctuations caused by supply or transmission constraints as are foreign-produced oil and natural gas piped long distances across the country. While the radioactive by-product of nuclear waste can be dangerous if not handled properly, the technology for handling it is well known in the industry and can be safely managed. The biggest disadvantages are the public’s fear or hesitancy that is largely attributable to a lack of understanding of the technology and the often opportunistic political environment which exacerbates that.
Kadak: Advantages are that it is safe and very clean. US nuclear plants have proven that, as too, have nuclear plants in Western Europe, Japan, China, Korea and just about everywhere except in the former Soviet Union where they built different types of reactors which are not as safe (Chernobyl style). Disadvantages are that building a nuclear power station is more costly but the fuel costs are much less which makes nuclear energy more economic in terms of the price of electricity for the long term. The other disadvantages are the public perceptions of nuclear which need to be overcome and the need to dispose of the nuclear waste. At present many countries are making progress in disposal solutions which are known, but no underground disposal site is in operation. The leaders in this field are Sweden, Finland and the US for the first operational repository. In the mean time, the small amount of material is stored on site in storage pools or in concrete storage containers.
Is there a clear and present danger that should keep us away from nuclear energy, like the disaster we witnessed in Chernobyl?
Tsoukalas: There is great irony involved here. Nuclear energy is very safe. If properly managed, this is the cleanest and safest way we have to generate industrial-grade electricity. Nuclear energy is highly mythologized. Because the press release for nuclear technology was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it understandably invokes a lot of apprehension and fear in the public (and of course fascination). There are many forces shaping and maintaining the nuclear myth. Some are simply popular misconceptions and phobias about nuclear power that were reinforced with notorious accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Some are due to the understandable apprehension of nuclear weapons, and of course, some are due to the competition of rival industries. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident that could have possibly happened. It is very well studied and understood. Overall, we can say now, nearly 20 years after it happened, on the basis of Science, not myth, that its consequences were primarily local and rather limited. There is NO GLOBAL environmental impact from Chernobyl. At the time it was a local catastrophe, but it had absolutely no global impact. Compared to industrial accidents encountered in the chemical, mining, metals, paper, transportation or even medical industries, Chernobyl is a limited affair. Of course, we must also say, that Chernobyl like Three Mile Island, provided a lot of lessons that have improved the technology and institutional arrangements required for safe nuclear power.
Lester: Each country has different opportunities and constraints when it comes to energy supplies, so it is difficult to generalize. For some countries, for example those with large resources of oil and gas, it may not make much sense to embark on a nuclear program. But for other countries, with few alternatives, nuclear energy may be very important. To answer your question directly, there is no 'clear and present danger' that stands in the way of nuclear energy development. But of course, this is a technology that has an inherent risk associated with it and therefore needs to be managed responsibly and with care.
Steets: US commercial nuclear reactors (used for electricity production) are a different design than Chernobyl with safety features Chernobyl did not have. The plants' structural strengths and safe-design features (low nuclear enrichment levels, diverse and redundant cooling and defense-in-depth safety capabilities), robust security plans and staffing, and federal security support all contribute to the safety of the plants.
Kadak: The most clear and present danger that we are witnessing in my opinion is the prospect of global climate change which is very difficult to reverse. If you chose the right nuclear technology, the safety has been demonstrated for over 40 years, so I would not be as concerned with that as I would be about our environment which is being damaged by fossil fuel burning. Even ‘environmentalists,’ such as Patrick Moore of Greenpeace, believe that we need nuclear energy to avoid these dangers; check him out on the Internet.
Whereas we are aware of the countries that run nuclear power plants without having any problems, why do we see such strong opposition to nuclear energy (as we do in Turkey) in some countries where nuclear energy is debated as an option for energy production?
Tsoukalas: I am not well informed about the nuclear debate in Turkey and risk being way off. But I assume that the comments above about the nuclear mythology also apply to Turkey. Nuclear power is actually an appropriate option for Turkey as it aspires to become a modern economic powerhouse. The country has enormous developmental possibilities, a young and energetic population, an excellent location, great potential for being a full member of the EU, and good possibilities to contribute and benefit from a new wave of prosperity coming to the Middle East. To fulfill this promise, it must have reliable and plentiful industrial-grade electricity. The nuclear power option has to be done well within a long term perspective, but there are interesting examples for Turkey to learn from, such as South Korea and Finland. In South Korea the development of nuclear power brought enormous benefits and advancements to the whole economy of the country as well as individual industries. The Korean construction industry, for example, acquired great skills and technology for construction based on international standards by constructing nuclear power stations. It subsequently expanded in South Asia and even the Middle East and now successfully bid for contracts to build airports, roads, bridges, buildings, and seaports etc, based on that experience. In the last several decades Turkey invested considerable resources in training a number of young scientists and engineers. Although many of them leave the country and make excellent careers abroad, I believe Turkey has the ability to mobilize top quality technical talent, a prerequisite for nuclear power. Nuclear power development requires leadership and long term strategy. It takes some sacrifices, but I cannot think of anything more promising today than investing in nuclear power, particularly when it becomes increasingly clear that global oil and gas production may be reaching a peak and entering irreversible decline.
Lester: The public is generally wary about nuclear power plants, and that is appropriate. But there are also pockets of intense opposition to nuclear power and this is not based on past evidence -- in fact the safety record of the nuclear power industry has been quite good -- but rather on fears of what might happen in the future. These fears are persistent, and they are difficult to address directly, but there is some evidence that that they have diminished over the past decade or so as the global nuclear industry has continued to expand without any accidents causing significant loss of life, and as the public recognizes that other energy sources also carry significant risks. I was very recently in China, for example, where I learned that the number of deaths in that country's coal mines last year was about 6000. Moreover, this was considered a 'good' year, since the historical average has been about 10,000 deaths per year.
Steets: In the US, much of the opposition stems from an entrenched (and misguided) environmental movement that has considerable political influence which has been buttressed by terrorism fears and their willingness to exploit those fears. Had there not been a 9/11, nuclear power would be enjoying support like never before as its safety performance (judged by a federal regulator, the USNRC), environmental and price advantages, and overall efficiency gains have been remarkable in the last ten years.
Kadak: In do not know the situation in Turkey, but in the US, which has the largest nuclear energy program in the world, the public is over 60percent supportive of nuclear with hard opposition of about 15percent. The typical problem that I have seen in the public opinion is a lack of information about the real facts which are not presented either by the industry or the media, and which only focuses on the negatives and without much knowledge.
What do you think is the best option for energy production? If you make a list, what grade would you give nuclear energy?
Tsoukalas: The modern global system has developed since the early 1900s on the premise that economic growth will bring the benefits of science and technology to all people in the world. Great progress has been made in the last hundred some years, maybe not as balanced and even as the world expected, but still a lot remains to be done and we now have ever growing numbers enjoying the benefits of modernity and in so doing, bring prosperity and opportunities for all. The premise of global economic growth, however, has been predicated on our ability to grow the global energy supply. In practical terms, the collateral for global growth has been our ability to grow the supply of oil (petroleum). We now see, however, that the global production of oil faces great geological (depletion) challenges and may not be able to grow much beyond current levels, no matter how much effort we apply. This is a well studied phenomenon known to geologists as “Hubbert’s Peak,” after the American geophysist Marion King Hubbert, who discovered it several decades ago. It really has to do with the finite nature of hydrocarbons and the idiosyncrasies of depletion processes. I am afraid that the world is quite unprepared for global Hubbert’s Peak. At the moment, it appears, although seldom stated as such, that the main mitigation strategy for this historic crisis is to use military means. Nuclear power represents a sound alternative to this. It will take a lot of leadership but the development of global nuclear power may be our best antidote to war and conflict brought about by the geological limitations of fossil fuels. We need all forms of energy to satisfy the world’s quest for prosperity. But for countries with a good pool of top technical talent, economic dynamism and good potential for institutional development, I would rate nuclear power as the best option.
Lester: This is not a very good question. Every energy source has advantages and disadvantages, and those advantages and disadvantages depend very much on the particular circumstances of the application. Are we talking about Anatolia or Manhattan or Cyprus, for example? But the basic message is that the world will need every available energy resource, including nuclear, if it is to meet the rapidly growing demand for energy without inflicting intolerable environmental damage.
Steets: Today, I would give nuclear the top grade, followed by hydro, natural gas, coal (with strict environmental restrictions), and oil. The alternative methods (wind, solar), needless to say, would rank at the top if their reliability and capacity were greater (much, much greater).
Kadak: Nuclear energy would clearly be my number one choice for electricity production since it is safe, clean and a concentrated source of power not requiring a lot of land, such as wind or solar power. Solar has applications for low grade heat and wind only in circumstances where reliable power is not needed or in isolated locations. It really boils down to economics, and right now, the economics of nuclear energy are quite favorable compared to the alternatives.
Do you see some alternative energy sources that may replace the nuclear one in the short term, and what could happen in the long term?
Tsoukalas: Again, we do need all forms of energy. Hydro is the best form of renewable energy. Wind and solar are promising and we should use more of them as well as bio fuels for transportation. In sunny countries, like Greece and Turkey, for example, it is such a great and practical option to heat water with solar energy. But because of thermodynamic and economic considerations most of these options do not scale up to the needs of modern industrial-grade electricity. Unfortunately, in the context of a major energy crisis, some renewable means of generating electricity may be the first to disappear, since they are quite expensive and inherently small scale. In the long term, Hubbert’s Peak will force us to do more with less. The real challenge will be to do this and still have in place a prosperous global economy. Our young people, armed with knowledge of science, will have to come up with new technologies to help us address this challenge. For example we can bring into our energy systems a lot more smart information technology (smart sensors, microprocessors embedded in our home appliances, etc) in order to increase efficiency and minimize waste to the absolute thermodynamic minima. I have little doubt that nuclear power will see significant application as the world’s growing source of primary energy.
Lester: If the world is to have any chance of avoiding very significant economic and environmental harm from global climate change, it seems inevitable that we will have to have a significant increase in the amount of nuclear power over the next few decades. Without nuclear energy, the numbers simply don't add up, and the massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions that result would very likely cause major economic and environmental disruption. In the longer term -- by which I mean several decades to 100 years -- we may well have renewable alternatives that would be preferable to nuclear power (as well as coal, oil and gas) and that would be available on the necessary scale. But on a shorter time scale -- i.e., by mid-century -- there is essentially no possibility that these alternatives would be able to fill the gap that would be left if the world were to abandon nuclear today.
Steets: None are available in adequate amounts to replace nuclear for a variety of reasons in the short term (cost, capacity and technological limitations, reliability, local opposition), and in the long term should replace older fossil plants rather than the nuclear plants.
Kadak: Long term energy sources are hard to predict since they depend on technology developments and economics. At present, no short term alternatives exist that are economic. I know some countries in Europe are building high priced wind mills as a political gesture but the consumers are paying high prices for it either in taxes or electric bills.
How is nuclear energy acquired?
Nuclear energy is a way of creating heat through the fission process of atoms. All power plants convert heat into electricity using steam. At nuclear power plants, the heat to make the steam is created when atoms split apart – this is called fission. Other types of power plants may burn coal or oil for heat to make steam. The fission process takes place when the nucleus of a heavy atom, like uranium or plutonium, is split in two when struck by a neutron. The “fissioning” of the nucleus releases two or three new neutrons. It also releases energy in the form of heat. The released neutrons can then repeat the process. This releases even more neutrons and more nuclear energy. The repeating of the process is called a chain reaction. In a nuclear power plant, uranium is the material used in the fission process. The heat from fission boils water and creates steam to turn a turbine. As the turbine spins, the generator turns and its magnetic field produces electricity.
Diane Screnci, American Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spokeswoman
Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
30 January 2006, Monday
Click here to read the interview on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to main menu
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder