Nuclear energy vs. Coal energy.

1. Nuclear energy vs. Coal energy. A Presentation by James Murphy.

2. How does nuclear power work? Nuclear power uses the fuel uranium with the isotope of 235 to heat water and drive steam turbines. Naturally occurring uranium usually has the isotope of 238 which makes it non-fissionable, so the uranium is enriched in an enrichment plant which separates the fissionable uranium from the unfissionable uranium (depleted uranium), the uranium then undergoes the fission process that breaks it up releasing large amounts of energy and the waste that is created afterwards is contained and placed at the bottom of a large pool.

3. Safety of mining. Coal mining over the years has been a dangerous affair. In the industrial revolutions children worked in the mines to earn money just to stay alive and cave ins and rock falls were common which killed many. As technologies have improved coal mining is still a dangerous task. Although most rock falls can be contained and child labour is forbidden, miners have the problems of dust and gas inhalation which leads to lung disorders in the future. There have been more deaths in coal mines then there have been in uranium mines but with modern technology improving, fatalities have decreased, in developed countries. Uranium mining is considered dangerous because of the possible ‘severe’ radiation poisoning that could be acquired while working down there, of course anything that the media says is usually biased. Radiation is continuously monitored by ‘mini Geiger counters’ so to speak. Hardly any miners have died in uranium mines as opposed to coal mines. Ranger uranium mine-

4. Safety of waste disposal. In Australia all our waste from coal burning goes into the atmosphere as CO2 which adds to the problem of climate change. A solution that the Australian government has proposed is clean coal technology. It works by pressurising the CO2 into a liquid, this liquid is pumped into aquifers and stored there (this is known as Geosequestration). However there are a few problems with this method of waste management 1. This technology isn’t fully compatible and may not be available for many years yet. 2. Faulting activity could disrupt the containment aquifer and allow the CO2 to leak out and 3. These containment aquifers may not be available. Despite the possible problems the Australian government wants to keep the coal industry alive and will keep funding this project. Dealing with radioactive waste is more simple. The waste is sealed in containers and then buried underground near the plant while the spent fuel rods are placed in a pool located in the plant itself. Members of the general public don’t like having nuclear waste buried “in their backyards” and tend to complain and protest about it but radioactive waste is much easier to contain compared to liquid CO2.

5. Economics of running both types of power plants. Coal burning power plants compared to nuclear plants are cheap to build yet expensive to run. To run a coal plant, coal has to be purchased and with prices of fossil fuels skyrocketing by the day coal has become more expensive. With the addition of a carbon pollution tax, this adds to the costs which means higher energy bills for the public. At the end of the power plants life, there is a cost to decommissioning it because the plant has to be dismantled. Running a nuclear plant on the other hand requires certain capital to make it run efficiently (eg. Fuel rods) and this doesn’t come cheap. Running costs include the uranium itself (according to UX consulting, uranium is estimated at 75 US dollars a pound), the enrichment of the uranium, security and waste disposal. Decommissioning a nuclear plant is more complex because the radioactive materials that are contained in the plant (eg. Spent fuel rods) need to be dealt with in a manner before the plant can be dismantled. Entombing the plant may be a better option but is a costly procedure.

6. Greenhouse emissions. According to a 2007 news story on catalyst, in Australia alone, we burn 250000 tonnes or more of coal per day. If we’re burning all that coal then that means this country is releasing tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every single day. Mining the coal and transporting it produces CO2 as well which adds on to the stockpile in the atmosphere. Uranium produces no greenhouse emissions when used for power generation. However uranium mining requires power so the coal power plants are producing more power, the trucks that transport the uranium use petrol which produces CO2 when burned. If the uranium is being exported then the ship or plane it’s being transported by requires a lot of fuel so more fuel burned, more CO2 produced.

7. At the Australian Earth sciences convention in Perth in 2008, Dr Ian Lambert explained that in 2007, Australia exported 10232 tonnes of uranium. Some people are questioning these exports especially to countries such as India and Russia who still have nuclear weapons in their possession. People around the world are intimidated by nuclear weapons and are uneasy about where exported uranium goes due to the rise in global terrorism. However the construction of nuclear weapons isn’t related to nuclear power unless the electricity is used for enriching the uranium for military purposes. Coal on the other hand has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons unless the electricity produced by it is involved with the construction of the weapon in question. Proliferation of nuclear weapons.