Research Journal

Melissa Carsner Professor Holly DeGrow Research Journal July 23, 2009

1) Mcleish, Ewan. The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. NewYork: The Rosen Group, (2008): 22-36.

22 The half-lives of different radioactive elements vary enormously, literally from seconds to billions of years. U-238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, whereas U-235 has a more modest half life of 704 million years. Different isotopes of plutonium have shorter half-lives, between 88 and 37,600 years. It is obvious, then, that material with a long half-life will remain radioactive for longer than material with a shorter half-life.

23 This book is explaining the difference in “half-life” and “level of radiation” as being opposite of each other. So, if something has a short half-life (meaning it will lose its radioactivity quickly) then it has a very high level of radiation. The author states that the radioactivity of fuel falls very rapidly because of its high level of radiation, but that U-238 and U-235 have half-lives of millions or billions of years because they are decaying much slower and giving off very little radiation.

30 The author is claiming that Chernobyl was an over exaggeration as far as death and destruction are

concerned. He explains that less than 60 people died as a result of the Chernobyl accident, many of whom were trying to contain the damage immediately after the explosion. And there have been no recorded birth defects as a result of radiation exposure. This book is describing the half-lives being so different between uranium and plutonium, making it sound as though maybe using one versus the other would be safer, however, I wonder if there is realistically a difference to us? When compared to 4.5 billion years, 37, 600 years may not seem like much, to me however, it still seems like a long time to have deadly toxins buried on our planet. Is there a realistic difference between these time variations? So fuel has a higher level of radiation than Uranium or plutonium? I need to figure out the relevance of radiation levels as it pertains to human and planet health.

Could this be true? Will have to check some other sources. Also, didn’t a huge area (like miles upon square miles) get evacuated, and the people who once lived there still cannot return??

33 “All technologies carry risk-nuclear power is no exception. Its probably true to say that more coal miners are killed in a year than have ever been killed in nuclear accidents.

cents per kilowatt-hour. Offshore wind is 6-8 cents, onshore wind is 3-5 cents, and coal and gas fired plants are around 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

This is a good quote for giving some perspective on numbers of deaths in relation to energy related jobs etc.

I would be interested in finding comparisons to other forms of energy as well. Saving money isn’t always everything, but it is a puzzle piece in the big picture!

36 The cost of nuclear power (including decommissioning) is 4-6 2) The Thomson Corporation. Fueling the Future Nuclear Power. Farmington Hills: (2007): 19-56.

19 “In 1939 German Scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman showed that fission not only released a lot of energy but that it also released additional neutrons which could cause fission in other uranium nuclei and possibly a self-sustaining chain reaction leading to an enormous release of energy.” 27 This page displays a pie chart from the Nuclear Energy Institute breaking down the percentages of public exposure to Radiation being as follows: Radon in Nature=55%, Internal (body)=11%, Medical Xrays=11%, Terrestrial=8%,

Cosmis=8%, Nuclear Medicine=4%, Consumer products=3%, and Nuclear Power Plants=<1%. 52 After the disasters of 3 mile island and Chernobyl, organizations were created to monitor nuclear power plants. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations closely monitors all of the nuclear power plants in the United states and identifies any aspects that are not up to its standards of excellence.

Need to get definition of Fission

Interesting to see were radiation is coming from, however, how much

56 Terrorist attacks on Nuclear power plants are a realistic possibility for the following reasons: symbolic character, killing large areas of people, and the collapse of electricity for a large group of people.

does “half-life” and amount of radiation come into play here?

But what are the consequences for not being up to standard? Aside from the obvious?

Wouldn’t terrorist be afraid of the radiation reaching them?

3) ”Nuclear Fission.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008.

Definition of Fission: Subdivision of Heavy Atomic nucleus, such as that of uranium or plutonium, into two fragments of roughly equal mass. The process is accompanied by the release of a large amount of energy. Fission may take place naturally or may be induced by the excitation of the nucleus with a variety of particles.

Atomic energy: Energy that is released in significant amounts in processes that affect atomic nuclei, the dense cores of atoms. It is distinct from the energy of other atomic phenomena such as ordinary chemical reactions, which involve only the orbital electrons of atoms. One method of releasing

nuclear energy is by controlled nuclear fission in devices called reactors, which now operate in many parts of the world. How does this produce large amounts of energy? When does this occur naturally?

How do the reactors create this release of energy via fission? Aside from energy what if any are the other by-products of nuclear fission?

4)

Kidd, J.S., and Renee A. Kidd. Quarks and Sparks the story of Nuclear Power. New York: Facts on File,( 1999): 30-97. pressurized-water reactor, was rated at 250 million watts of power.

30 When Nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi is conducting laboratory tests in 1932, he learns that when heavy atoms such as Uranium are irradiated with neutrons, more neutrons arose from the collision(a multiplier effect). Along with an increased number of neutrons, there was a release of energy. 91 In the 1950s scientist began brainstorming alternative/peaceful uses for nuclear power. Proposals included using nuclear energy to power naval submarines, nuclear propulsion system for large aircrafts, or mining or the construction of canals or underground storage. 94 The first nuclear reactor built to produce electricity via steam was in Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and produced enough electricity to activate four lightbulbs. 97 During the late 1950s through the 1960s reactors were designed to produce less than 400 million watts of power. In 1963 the largest commercial reactor built in New York, a

Was the energy released a by-product of the splitting of the atom or because of the increased number of neutrons? Is the increased number of neutrons harmful?

Did scientist understand ,at the time, the level of danger involved with using nuclear energy? Perhaps that is why many of their ideas never came to light?

I just think this is a cute and cool factoid!

What is the significance of these numbers? How many watts does it take to power a city etc.?

5) 240.

Butler, Declan. “Nuclear power’s new dawn.” Nature May 20, (2004): 238-

238 The author describes a possible future of a reactor that is operating at temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, stating that in today’s time, this would be cause for panic. 238 “Nuclear power is not a source of carbon dioxide, and with emissions soaring, and global energy demands predicted to double by 2050, the nuclear option is finding its way back onto the table.” 238 A group of ten nations(called GIF) have joined scientific forces to brainstorm and test prototypes for some new generation reactors that they believe will be safer. While today’s water-cooled reactors can operate around 300 degrees Celsius, all of the new concepts are designed to run at temps of 510-1,000 degrees C.

239 Four of the six prototypes not only produce electricity but hydrogen as well. Only one of the four would be able to operate without having to depend on the controversial reprocessing of plutonium waste. 240 Reprocessing waste is controversial because it separates out a key ingredient used in advanced nuclear weapons. The US has refrained from reprocessing this waste and has discouraged other nations from processing it as well. This reprocessing is attractive because it could cut the final amount of waste produced. 96% of spent fuel consists of uranium and plutonium, meaning only a small amount of waste would be left over.

How does this compare to today’s

Can Hydrogen be used as a source of

operating temperatures? What is the

electricity as well? Why is reprocessing

significance in wanting to be able to

plutonium waste controversial?

operate at higher temps? What has been happening to the Intersting

waste if it hasn’t been reprocessed? Is that what is in all of the containers buried at nuclear waste sites like Hanford? If the waste is reprocessed, does it make it better for the environment?

6)

Wald, Mathew. “Is there a place for Nuclear waste?” Scientific American Magazine August 2009 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-a-place-for-nuclear-waste

“The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest nuclear waste dump in the Western Hemisphere and a major Northwest environmental issue. It is a serious long-term threat to the Columbia River, which Oregon depends on for power generation, farm irrigation, fishing, transport and recreation.’

Sounds great, so why would Obama cancel plans for storing waste here? Has any research been done to find out if this man’s ideas could be a reality?

President Obama has cancelled plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas where the federal gov. has been trying to create a storage facility for 22 years. In New Mexico, the Director of Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center at New Mexico State University, believes that this desert would be the perfect place for burying nuclear waste because the salt seeps into cracks in the rock and seals it in. He states “permeability is not just very low, but zero”, and “you couldn’t engineer something this good.” Nuclear waste does not cascade from storage lagoons as billions of gallons of toxic coal waste did in Tennessee in December 2008. And unlike carbon dioxide, it doesn’t disappear into the atmosphere. How has this affected our local environment? I would be interested in learning both the negative and positive outcomes of having the Hanford nuclear site. I would also like to learn a bit more about the spillage of waste that happened there.

Why / why not, would they store waste here? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

How does something like this happen and no one blinks an eye? Why are we as a society ok with longer term deadly waste from other sources of energy, but we have a closed mind to nuclear energy because of its negative aspects?