Nuclear energy: Is it really viable?

by Patali CHAMPIKA RANAWAKA

When I was reading “Albert Einstein” written by Banesh Hopman, the chapter which excited me most was the one which had described details of the invention and the experimentation of the first nuclear weapon.

It was the Italian physicist - Enrico Fermi who was first able to split the nucleus of an atom.

At the very inception, the scientists expressed their deep concern over the new discovery as they were aware of the fact that Einstein’s famous E=MC2 equation had clearly showed the kind of energy it could create when a mass was destructed. Those were the days, Italy was under the fascist regime of Mussolini and therefore, the concerned scientists were compelled to act swiftly and decisively to get down Fermi to Sweden, under the pretext of awarding him the Nobel Prize for his invention. In Sweden, Fermi, a half Jew, was given a clear idea of what was going to happen if Hitler and Mussolini get together to slaughter Jews. Horrified by the discourse, Fermi did not vacillate in migrating to the USA, where almost all the other scientists, including Einstein, subsequently found their safe heaven. However, it was not fully devoid of the impending uncertainties as the famous atomic physicist Max Plank, the founder of the theory of Quantum Physics was an ardent supporter of the Nazi Movement and there were a few other scientists who had the know-how to split the nucleus of an atom to create enormous energy by radiation.

Therefore, producing an atomic bomb in German or Italian soil at the time was a possibility. When the Nazi Army invaded Belgium, they came into possession of the Belgian colony of Congo in Africa, known as Belgian Congo, which was rich in radio active material, many scientists were alarmed, and as a result, rumours started spreading that Hitler was nearing the completion process of an atomic bomb, using radio active heavy metals like Uranium or Plutonium. The unexpected turn of events motivated the Jewish scientists to make an atomic bomb before Hitler or Mussolini could do it. While, Openheimar was at the forefront in this endeavour, Fermi, Einstein and even the famous philosopher - the author of Copenhagen Quantum Interpretation, Neils Bohr were there to contribute their share of knowledge.

However, although Bohr subsequently retracted having realized the ulterior motive of the Government of the USA, Einstein and Openheimar carried out their work dutifully. However, it was too late when Einstein heard about the carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. He was so sad and sympathetic towards Japanese for having being used them as guinea pigs, to ascertain the lethalness of the new weapon.

Openheimar, who happened to be a Socialist was later put on trial for having leaked nuclear secrets to Russia and China and he ended up as a non essentialist philosopher. Whatever the outcome it was, Hiroshima and Nagasaki operation clearly manifested the enormity of the distractive energy it could generate when nucleus of an atom was splitted.

The scientists very well knew about the two ways by which an atom manifests its instability. The first is the way by which lighter atoms get together and become stable creating energy and the second way is by which heavy atoms are split to stabilize the other atoms generating energy. The energy released by both forms of energy mentioned above is radiation and is caused by mass to energy conversion. Therefore, the destruction of a tiny mass could generate a huge amount of energy.

When lighter Hydrogen atoms get together and form Helium, it is called the atomic fusion process and the weapon it produces is called the Hydrogen Bomb. Many heavy Uranium atoms split creating Thorium or Plutonium and its process is called nuclear fission reaction and also it is a fact that energy can be created by any of these two ways. In general thermodynamic law of 19th century, it is clearly stated that energy could not be created or destructed but it could only be transferred into one form or another, such as from heat to electric energy or work done etc. However, as nuclear reactions actually creates new energy it is very important to ascertain as to how its destructive nature could be regulated and use for productive purposes of mankind. This thinking itself generated much enthusiasm, specially among the scientists, as they thought they had at last theoretically discovered an infinite source of energy which would eventually solve the energy problem. It was argued that while coal would be replaced by oil and gas, oil would be replaced by nuclear power. However, as had envisaged why did it not happen? It is a question one has to ponder.

Theoretically, one kilo of Uranium could generate energy equivalent to 6.6 Million kilo of coal. So, it would be interesting for us to have some knowledge about the working of a nuclear reactor and as far as the energy production is concerned, it is a fact that practically only nuclear fission has been possible up to date.

In Principle, fast moving neutrons (tiny atomic particles) are made to penetrate the unstable Uranium atoms and in turn they split itself into two creating many fast moving Neutrons which could split other Uranium atoms creating a chain of reaction. Each split produces a huge energy in the form of heat and radiation. So, in a nuclear reactor there is a part called reactor core where Uranium atoms are subjected to a chain of reactions which releases radiation energy (in a form of gamma ray etc.) to heat water. This radio active hot water is made to pass through a steam generator and the steam so generated propels the steam turbine. Finally, the steam turbine which is coupled with the generator produces electricity. In the reactor core there are control rods (made up of Cadium) which could absorb additional neutrons controlling the chain reaction and the steamed hot water is then condensed and it passes through a cooling tower. This technology was somewhat modified by various countries and the most popular one is the pebble bed reactor used by Germans and CANDU System used by Canadians. Having extensively researched, the Japanese and French Governments have modified these reactors.

There are 437 active nuclear reactors around the world producing power and it is estimated that they produce 372 Giga Watts of energy. The USA has 104 reactors, France 59, Japan 53, Russia 31, South Korea 20, Canada 18, India, China, Germany 17 each, and 30 other countries own at least one each. It is reported that 52 additional plants are under construction in 14 countries where 16 are from China, 6 from India, 5 from South Korea clearly showing the quench for more energy for emerging economies. However, the USA led super powers are trying to stop the spreading of nuclear reactors all over the world sighting security threats posed by nuclear proliferation.

When I was attached to the Open University as a consultant, I could remember our Senior Professor Arjuna Zoysa, having made me aware of some interesting facts pertaining to nuclear plants. He told me as to how during his stay in England (1980) the attempts made by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to privatize nuclear plants in England had failed due to non availability of buyers. It is a fact that nuclear plants do not produce net energy and according to the professor it was the reason why Margaret Thatcher had failed in her endeavour. Nuclear plants need much energy for their construction, running and regulatory system than what is being produced. Due to these reasons the Governments are compelled to subsidize their nuclear plants heavily and as a result they are not considered profitable to open competitive market under liberalization. Inspired by the advice given by the Professor, I went deep into the subject of the economy of nuclear plants and in the process, I found how C.F. Chapman had already calculated the energy contained in nuclear plants and the energy needed for their construction, running and regulating and having concluded that they do not produce net energy.

In the field of nuclear plants, the owner countries are faced with a few constraints, the first important factor being is its cost. The construction cost of a large scale nuclear plant which produces approximately 800Mw in 1970s was 400 Million US$, while its cost in 1990s was 4000 Million US$ showing an increased cost of 15% per annum.The second important fact was its low plant factor. Due to the inevitable long shut down period, the power generation had to be carefully regulated.

Its capacity factor was 50% showing that needed a 2Mw plant to provide 1Mw of electricity. However, the plant capacity factor has now been increased to 90% which is considered to be a significant improvement. Another important factor was the disposal of radio active nuclear waste. When it was first reported that Sri Lanka should consider installing a nuclear plant, it was the eminent Judge Professor Weeramanthry who had to warn that it would need at least 25,000 years to neutralize nuclear waste from such a plant. Presently these waste are sealed and dumped in deserts or sea and one cannot rule out the possibility of these wastes causing serious problems to mankind in the future. The western theory on many important issues is “postpone addressing the problem, the future will solve them”. Anyway, some countries are now following France where a high cost reprocessing technique is being adopted to dispose nuclear waste.

The fourth factor is its accident - prone nature which may cause havoc.

The first such accident reported was from a three square mile island in Pennsylvania and the worst accident reported up to date was from Chernobyl where 4,000 people lost their lives and 150,000 lost their living places. Even after 25 years of this calamity, it is reported that the radiation cause by it is still active in certain parts of the world. India has already commissioned three nuclear plants in the southern part of the country which is close to Sri Lanka.

When locating these plants India must have definitely taken into consideration the required security measures and also the missile range of Pakistan and China. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of Sri Lanka being an unfortunate victim in event of any accident happening to those plants in India. When I met the Italian Environment Minister in 2007, I learnt that Italy had totally rejected the nuclear option due to its accident prone nature. In view of the growing energy demand, India had been compelled to turn towards the nuclear option based on the controversial USA - India nuclear agreement. One developing factor in this regard is that India’s effort to go in for the use of Thorium as their primary energy fuel. In my capacity as the Minister of Natural Resources, I am fully aware of the fact that we have good monazite and other Thorium rich mineral resources which could be made use in the future for our energy needs.

Contrary to the arguments of some researchers that nuclear energy emits Co2, it is generally acknowledged nuclear to be an energy which does not emit Co2 unlike fossil fuel burning which leads to climate change. It is estimated that 1Kw of energy from nuclear power may contain 1 - 288g of Carbon whereas, coal contains 966-1050g, Solar CST 13g and wind 9g respectively. This clearly shows that nuclear is not so carbon free as it is generally known to be.

The other disadvantage pertaining to the generation of nuclear energy is that it needs a considerable quantity of water. To generate 1Mw power of energy it needs 2002-3915 liters of water, for coal 1485-2475 liters and gas 531-904 liters respectively. However, solar or wind practically needs no water. The actual requirement of water maybe much higher. For cooling purposes over 100,000 liters are required to produce 1Mw hour, although 2000-4000 liters are required in the closed loop process. Due to these reasons it is evident that nuclear plants are forced to shut down during droughts and periods of water shortages.

Nuclear fission is still being experimented and up to date there is no clear evidence to prove that this process could be used as a power generator. There are proposals from many countries for installation of nuclear plants in Sri Lanka and as a result, Cabinet of Ministers have given its nod for a comprehensive study on the subject. Advantages over disadvantages and merits or demerits on the subject have to be thoroughly discussed as we cannot warrant Chernobyl type accident to happen in Sri Lanka. After all, we have to keep in mind that we are a small country, with a high popular density.

(The writer is Minister of Environment and Natural Resources)