This chain reaction provides a lot of energy, and the best part is that it does so without emitting any CO 2. krypton and barium) and ejects several high-energy neutrons that cause more uranium to undergo fission. After we do this, the uranium breaks into two smaller nuclei (e.g. To initiate the chain of reactions that supply us with energy in a nuclear power plant, we must bombard the uranium rod with high-energy neutrons. Ongoing nuclear reactions do not begin so easily. To start a fire, which is an ongoing chemical reaction, we merely need some friction. The nucleus we break apart for energy in most nuclear power plants is that of the uranium atom, specifically uranium-235 (that number indicates the total number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus). This process is known as nuclear fission. How do the atoms change? In a nuclear reaction, the nucleus of the atom breaks into several pieces and releases an immense amount of energy. Figure 1: In both combustion and nuclear fission, the particles that make up atoms and molecules are rearranged into a more stable form, which causes a release of energy. We change the atoms themselves, and the energy released is enormous. However, in a nuclear reaction, we don’t just rearrange which atoms bond to which. In a nuclear power plant, we are doing the same thing: extracting energy from atoms that ultimately gets converted to electricity. In this case, we change which atoms bond to each other and harvest the energy that is released when they reach a more stable configuration (as CO 2). In this instance, organic matter such as wood or natural gas is burned and converted into CO 2 (see Figure 1). The basis behind running a fossil fuel power plant can be illustrated by examining a typical fire. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy have similarities in the way they are extracted. In order to assess whether such notoriety is deserved, we need to learn about the physics of nuclear power and compare the statistics of its supposed dangers with that of existing energy sources. Yet there has historically been a strong anti-nuclear movement in the US, and the sentiment is still somewhat present today, as demonstrated by closures of nuclear power plants and stances held by prominent political figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The US, currently the world’s largest producer, relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its overall electricity generation. Fear for Chernobyl and Fukushima-type catastrophes exacerbate the unpopularity of going nuclear. Yet, unlike its fickle counterparts, nuclear energy is subjected to hostile attitudes adopted by a number of governments in the world which restrict the building or continual operation of power plants. In this context, nuclear energy is the main alternative energy source that works. Ideally, we’d have a source that doesn’t emit CO 2 and is consistently reliable this is known as a baseload energy source. However, it is a challenge to replace the constantly running fossil fuel power plants with sources that are intermittent. This isn’t to say relying solely on renewables is impossible or even unrealistic with some clever storage and transportation strategies. The wind isn’t always blowing days aren’t always clear and sunny. The first two are certainly alluring, attracting the investment of a lot of government money worldwide. The main alternatives are solar, wind, and nuclear. Given that, in 2015, we released 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2) from electricity generation alone, and fossil fuels accounted for over 99% of these emissions, a great place to start would be to begin replacing fossil fuel power plants with alternative energy sources. In light of all of this, the United States recently ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, which means we are committed to significantly reducing our carbon emissions. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has officially stated that climate change poses a serious national security threat. No scientific organization of national or international standing disputes this. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is extremely likely that the rising global temperature trends since the mid-20 th century is dominantly due to human activity. The United States emits an immense amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |