Innovations like those are aimed at saving an industry in crisis as current nuclear plants continue to age and new ones fail to compete on price with natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar. The holy grail for the future of nuclear power involves nuclear fusion, which generates energy when two light nuclei smash together to form a single, heavier nucleus. Fusion could deliver more energy more safely and with far less harmful radioactive waste than fission, but just a small number of people— including a year-old from Arkansas —have managed to build working nuclear fusion reactors.
When arguing against nuclear power, opponents point to the problems of long-lived nuclear waste and the specter of rare but devastating nuclear accidents such as those at Chernobyl in and Fukushima Daiichi in The deadly Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine happened when flawed reactor design and human error caused a power surge and explosion at one of the reactors.
Large amounts of radioactivity were released into the air, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced from their homes. Today, the area surrounding the plant—known as the Exclusion Zone—is open to tourists but inhabited only by the various wildlife species, such as gray wolves , that have since taken over. In the case of Japan's Fukushima Daiichi, the aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami caused the plant's catastrophic failures.
Several years on, the surrounding towns struggle to recover, evacuees remain afraid to return , and public mistrust has dogged the recovery effort, despite government assurances that most areas are safe. Other accidents, such as the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in , linger as terrifying examples of nuclear power's radioactive risks. The Fukushima disaster in particular raised questions about safety of power plants in seismic zones, such as Armenia's Metsamor power station.
Other issues related to nuclear power include where and how to store the spent fuel, or nuclear waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Nuclear power plants, many of which are located on or near coasts because of the proximity to water for cooling, also face rising sea levels and the risk of more extreme storms due to climate change.
All rights reserved. What is Nuclear Energy? How does nuclear energy work? Is radiation a risk? Find out the difference between nuclear fission and fusion, how uranium fuels the process, and the pros and cons of this alternative energy source.
Types of nuclear reactors In the U. Nuclear energy history The idea of nuclear power began in the s , when physicist Enrico Fermi first showed that neutrons could split atoms.
Nuclear power, climate change, and future designs Nuclear power isn't considered renewable energy , given its dependence on a mined, finite resource, but because operating reactors do not emit any of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming , proponents say it should be considered a climate change solution.
Nuclear power risks When arguing against nuclear power, opponents point to the problems of long-lived nuclear waste and the specter of rare but devastating nuclear accidents such as those at Chernobyl in and Fukushima Daiichi in Share Tweet Email. Why it's so hard to treat pain in infants. In , German scientists Otto Hann and Fritz Strassman shot neutrons at uranium atoms and discovered that a significant amount of energy was being released.
With the help of Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch, they were able to explain that what they had observed was the splitting of the atom through fission. By , physicists Leo Szilard and Enrico Fermi theorized that fission reactions could be used to create an explosion through a massive chain reaction. Szilard and a few other scientists, including Albert Einstein , wrote to President Roosevelt in to warn him about the possibility of creating nuclear weapons. The President authorized an advisory committee to begin developing atomic bombs for the US.
By , Fermi, working as part of the committee, was able to create the first man-made fission chain reaction in Chicago.
It was at this point that the Manhattan project swung into full development. The team pursued the development of two types of bombs, one using uranium as a core, and one plutonium. The project was highly secretive, and entire covert cities were built to support the project. One facility, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, used nuclear reactions to create plutonium to be used for producing enriched uranium.
Another facility in Washington used nuclear reactions to produce plutonium. The now-famous secret site in Los Alamos, New Mexico , was used by hundreds of scientists for the research and construction of nuclear weapons. The end of WWII, in , saw the first use of nuclear weapons on people. This was also the moment when the majority of the world's population, realized just how destructive this technology could be. It was before the first nuclear reactor which produced electricity was completed.
Called Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, it was based in Idaho and was cooled using liquid-metal. In , the first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, was completed, allowing the submarine to stay submerged for significant portions of time without refueling. In the same year, the Soviets completed their first nuclear power plant. Frisch then confirmed this figure experimentally in January This was the first experimental confirmation of Albert Einstein's paper putting forward the equivalence between mass and energy, which had been published in These developments sparked activity in many laboratories.
Hahn and Strassmann 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.
This suggestion was soon confirmed experimentally by Joliot and his co-workers in Paris, and Leo Szilard working with Fermi in New York. Bohr soon proposed that fission was much more likely to occur in the uranium isotope than in U and that fission would occur more effectively with slow-moving neutrons than with fast neutrons. The latter point was confirmed by Szilard and Fermi, who proposed using a 'moderator' to slow down the emitted neutrons.
Bohr and Wheeler extended these ideas into what became the classical analysis of the fission process, and their paper was published only two days before war broke out in Another important factor was that U was then known to comprise only 0. Hence the separation of the two to obtain pure U would be difficult and would require the use of their very slightly different physical properties. This increase in the proportion of the U isotope became known as 'enrichment'.
His theories were extended by Rudolf Peierls at Birmingham University and the resulting calculations were of considerable importance in the development of the atomic bomb. Perrin's group in Paris continued their studies and demonstrated that a chain reaction could be sustained in a uranium-water mixture the water being used to slow down the neutrons provided external neutrons were injected into the system. They also demonstrated the idea of introducing neutron-absorbing material to limit the multiplication of neutrons and thus control the nuclear reaction which is the basis for the operation of a nuclear power station.
Peierls had been a student of Werner Heisenberg, who from April presided over the German nuclear energy project under the German Ordnance Office. Initially this was directed towards military applications, and by the end of Heisenberg had calculated that nuclear fission chain reactions might be possible. When slowed down and controlled in a 'uranium machine' nuclear reactor , these chain reactions could generate energy; when uncontrolled, they would lead to a nuclear explosion many times more powerful than a conventional explosion.
It was suggested that natural uranium could be used in a uranium machine, with heavy water moderator from Norway , but it appears that researchers were unaware of delayed neutrons which would enable a nuclear reactor to be controlled. Heisenberg noted that they could use pure uranium, a rare isotope, as an explosive, but he apparently believed that the critical mass required was higher than was practical.
Like uranium, element 94 would be an incredibly powerful explosive. By the military objective was wound down as impractical, requiring more resources than available. The priority became building rockets. However, the existence of the German Uranverein project provided the main incentive for wartime development of the atomic bomb by Britain and the USA.
Russian nuclear physics predates the Bolshevik Revolution by more than a decade. Work on radioactive minerals found in central Asia began in and the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences began a large-scale investigation in The Revolution gave a boost to scientific research and over 10 physics institutes were established in major Russian towns, particularly St Petersburg, in the years which followed.
In the s and early s many prominent Russian physicists worked abroad, encouraged by the new regime initially as the best way to raise the level of expertise quickly. By the early s there were several research centres specialising in nuclear physics. Ioffe was its first director, through to But by this time many scientists were beginning to fall victim to Stalin's purges — half the staff of Kharkov Institute, for instance, was arrested in Nevertheless, saw great advances being made in the understanding of nuclear fission including the possibility of a chain reaction.
At the urging of Kurchatov and his colleagues, the Academy of Sciences set up a "Committee for the Problem of Uranium" in June chaired by Vitaly Khlopin, and a fund was established to investigate the central Asian uranium deposits. Germany's invasion of Russia in turned much of this fundamental research to potential military applications. British scientists had kept pressure on their government.
The refugee physicists Peierls and Frisch who had stayed in England with Peierls after the outbreak of war , gave a major impetus to the concept of the atomic bomb in a three-page document known as the Frisch-Peierls Memorandum. In this they predicted that an amount of about 5kg of pure U could make a very powerful atomic bomb equivalent to several thousand tonnes of dynamite. They also suggested how such a bomb could be detonated, how the U could be produced, and what the radiation effects might be in addition to the explosive effects.
They proposed thermal diffusion as a suitable method for separating the U from the natural uranium. This memorandum stimulated a considerable response in Britain at a time when there was little interest in the USA.
The chemical problems of producing gaseous compounds of uranium and pure uranium metal were studied at Birmingham University and Imperial Chemical Industries ICI. ICI received a formal contract later in to make 3kg of this vital material for the future work. Most of the other research was funded by the universities themselves. Two important developments came from the work at Cambridge. The first was experimental proof that a chain reaction could be sustained with slow neutrons in a mixture of uranium oxide and heavy water, ie.
The second was by Bretscher and Feather based on earlier work by Halban and Kowarski soon after they arrived in Britain from Paris. When U and U absorb slow neutrons, the probability of fission in U is much greater than in U The U is more likely to form a new isotope U, and this isotope rapidly emits an electron to become a new element with a mass of and an Atomic Number of This element also emits an electron and becomes a new element of mass and Atomic Number 94, which has a much greater half-life.
Bretscher and Feather argued on theoretical grounds that element 94 would be readily fissionable by slow and fast neutrons, and had the added advantages that it was chemically different to uranium and therefore could easily be separated from it. Dr Kemmer of the Cambridge team proposed the names neptunium for the new element 93 and plutonium for 94 by analogy with the outer planets Neptune and Pluto beyond Uranus uranium, element The Americans fortuitously suggested the same names, and the identification of plutonium in is generally credited to Glenn Seaborg.
By the end of remarkable progress had been made by the several groups of scientists coordinated by the MAUD Committee and for the expenditure of a relatively small amount of money. All of this work was kept secret, whereas in the USA several publications continued to appear in and there was also little sense of urgency. By March one of the most uncertain pieces of information was confirmed - the fission cross-section of U Peierls and Frisch had initially predicted in that almost every collision of a neutron with a U atom would result in fission, and that both slow and fast neutrons would be equally effective.
It was later discerned that slow neutrons were very much more effective, which was of enormous significance for nuclear reactors but fairly academic in the bomb context. Peierls then stated that there was now no doubt that the whole scheme for a bomb was feasible provided highly enriched U could be obtained.
The predicted critical size for a sphere of U metal was about 8kg, which might be reduced by use of an appropriate material for reflecting neutrons. However, direct measurements on U were still necessary and the British pushed for urgent production of a few micrograms. The first report concluded that a bomb was feasible and that one containing some 12 kg of active material would be equivalent to 1, tons of TNT and would release large quantities of radioactive substances which would make places near the explosion site dangerous to humans for a long period.
Suggesting that the Germans could also be working on the bomb, it recommended that the work should be continued with high priority in cooperation with the Americans, even though they seemed to be concentrating on the future use of uranium for power and naval propulsion.
The second MAUD Report concluded that the controlled fission of uranium could be used to provide energy in the form of heat for use in machines, as well as providing large quantities of radioisotopes which could be used as substitutes for radium. It referred to the use of heavy water and possibly graphite as moderators for the fast neutrons, and that even ordinary water could be used if the uranium was enriched in the U isotope.
It concluded that the 'uranium boiler' had considerable promise for future peaceful uses but that it was not worth considering during the present war. The Committee recommended that Halban and Kowarski should move to the USA where there were plans to make heavy water on a large scale. The possibility that the new element plutonium might be more suitable than U was mentioned, so that the work in this area by Bretscher and Feather should be continued in Britain.
0コメント