The Future of

Power Generation
BY JOEY ZHOU

Introduction
Throughout mankinds fifty thousand year history, humans learned to make energy their servants. The discovery of fire
allowed humans to access an immediate source of heat. Harnessing the energy of animals and slaves to harvest fields,
boosting crop yields. Sails on ships used wind power to transport humans from place to place. Then came the industrial
revolution, the new fossil-fuel based technologies advanced mankind like never before. Human population and
standards of living in industrialized states increased exponentially. By the end of the 20 th Century, most of the global
population relied solely on fossil fuels. Petroleum powers the transportation industry, while coal and natural gas fuels
power generation. However, as the consumption of fossil fuel increased, so did environmental degradation. Burning
fossil fuels release large amounts of greenhouse gases, causing global warming. In response to the negative
environmental impacts of fossil fuels, researchers began looking for new ways to generate energy for society. The most
efficient form of clean energy involves nuclear power. Unlike other clean energy sources, its large power-generating
capacity is able to meet the demands of large cities and countries, while also running on a plentiful fuel source.
Despite these benefits, nuclear energy come with many risks such as nuclear meltdown and the disposal of radioactive
waste products. This report evaluates the environmental effects of nuclear energy and proposes a solution to a more
sustainable, safe and clean energy source.

What are fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels are fuels formed by the decomposition of buried dead organisms. It
can take the form of petroleum, oil, and natural gas.

The combustion of fossil fuels can be used to produce a significant amount of

energy per unit weight.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), it is estimated that

in 2010, the worldwide energy consumption by fossil fuel based sources was over
80%

So What?

The burning of fossil fuels raises serious

international environmental concerns.

Combustion of fossil fuels emit greenhouse

gases and other harmful air pollutants that
enhances the effect of global warming,
contributes to acid rain and gives rise to
other environmental issues.

Ever since the industrial revolution, the

amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the
burning of fossil fuels rose exponentially.
Accounting for more than 90% of greenhouse
gas emissions.

So What?

Air pollutions of fossil fuel particles cause negative health effects

when inhaled by humans and wildlife.

These health concerns may include respiratory illness, asthma,

bronchitis, and cancers.

The burning of fossil fuels also releases radioactive materials into

the atmosphere.

According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, In 2000, about

12000 tonnes of thorium and 5000 tons of uranium were
released worldwide from burning coal (Cleveland). The amount
of radioactivity released in 2000 is hundreds of times greater
than the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown accident.

So What?

Furthermore, fossil fuels are considered to be a

non-renewable energy source.

At the current rate of consumption, fossil fuels will

be completely depleted by the end of this century.

If we step up production to fill the gap left

through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the
coal deposits we know about will only give us
enough energy to take us as far as 2088 ("The
End Of Fossil Fuels)

Nuclear Energy

Fossil fuel burning is a global-scale issue due to massive

amounts of emissions of greenhouse gases and other
toxic air pollutants. Mitigation of these effects can be
accomplished by the large-scale utilization of nuclear
power. Unlike power plants that utilizes fossil fuels,
nuclear reactors produce little greenhouse gas emissions.

In a recent paper published by the National Aeronautics

and Space Association (NASA), their quantitative analysis
on the effects of nuclear power on human and
environmental health concluded that nuclear power
nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of
[greenhouse gas] emissions globally between 19712009 ("National Aeronautics and Space Administration).

Nuclear Energy

NASA also compared the toxic

pollutants of fossil fuel plants
compared to nuclear reactors,
evidence showed that although
natural gas burning emits less fatal
pollutants [] than coal burning, it is
far deadlier than nuclear power,
causing about 40 times more deaths
per unit electric energy produced
("National Aeronautics and Space
Administration).

Nuclear Energy

Contrary to popular belief, the fuel source

uranium 235 for modern nuclear reactors is
unlikely to run out within the next five billion years
assuming current rate of consumption.

With over four million tonnes of natural

uranium-235 in the Earths crust, and some 44
million kilowatt-hours of electricity produced from
one tonne of natural uranium ("World Nuclear
Association) Physicist Bernard Cohen suggests
that [reactors], fueled exclusively by natural
uranium [] could supply [the world] energy at
least as long as the sun's expected remaining
lifespan of five billion years ("Nuclear Power
Proposed as Renewable Energy).

Nuclear Energy

Compared to other clean renewable energy sources, nuclear energy is perhaps

the most economically efficient and environmentally friendly method of energy
generation.

For hydroelectric power, building large dams by flooding fields can displace
large populations of people and local organisms. Not to mention the massive
ecological costs of dam construction and maintenance demands.

Solar energy is the least efficient out of all renewable energy sources. The
power density, or watt per square meter of solar cells is miniscule, resulting
huge area usages with minimal energy production. On top of that, it is only able
to generate electricity during daylight hours. Also, it solar cells uses exotic
materials such as cadmium tellurideand copper indium gallium selenide that
limits its mass production.

Wind energy is unreliable for the fact that it depends on intermittent wind
currents to turn its turbines. It also poses as a hazard to local wildlife (birds,
bats, etc.) and can take up huge amount of area to implement.

Nuclear Meltdowns

Despite many benefits of nuclear energy over fossil fuel based

energy, the biggest concern with nuclear power generation is the
devastating risks of reactor meltdowns. Meltdowns of nuclear
power plants results in severe environmental contamination that
may last for decades to centuries. Furthermore, disaster cleanups can cost up to tens of billions of dollars.

Nuclear Meltdowns

In March 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused damage to

the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan that lead to
explosions and partial meltdowns. Radioactive isotopes were
released from the reactor containment vessels, which resulted in
the displacement of 50,000 households in the area. Radioactive
material also leaked into the air, soil and sea that led to bans on
shipments of vegetation and fish. Furthermore, the contaminated
area was reported as being over 25 times above the safe limit of
ionizing radiation dosage. To this day, water is still being poured
into the damaged reactors to cool the melting fuel rods.

As The Economist reports, years of clean-up will drag into

decades. A permanent exclusion zone could end up stretching
beyond the plants perimeter. Seriously exposed workers may be
at increased risk of cancers for the rest of their lives... ("When
the Steam Clears)

the devilishly difficult cleanup there is expected to take 40plus years and cost tens of billions of dollars. Some 160,000
evacuees still live in temporary housing, having lost their
livelihoods and land to the contamination, which may render
some of it unfarmable for centuries to come (Schiffman, 2011)

High-level Radioactive Waste

Another downfall of nuclear energy is the storage of nuclear

waste. Spent fuel from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 contain
countless numbers of carcinogenic isotopes. These radioactive
waste products is hazardous to most forms of life and the
environment.

Naturally, radioactivity decays over time, though it can range

from a few weeks to millions of years for radioactive waste to
decay to a safe level.

High-level Radioactive Waste

The current approach to managing these waste

products is to isolate and confine these
products to a disposal facility for a sufficient
period of time until it no longer poses a threat
to the environment.

Not only does this take up a relatively large

area, but it can be lethal to nearby wildlife
should the waste be improperly stored.

The waste also has to be carefully guarded and

monitored to prevent terrorists from obtaining
these materials to nuclear weapons.

Final Solution Liquid Fluoride

Thorium Reactors

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

There are many types of nuclear

reactors, but they all suffer from the risk
of meltdown and the production of large
amounts of radioactive waste products.

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR

for short) amplifies the benefits of a
standard Uranium-fueled reactor, while
abolishing the risks involved in the
energy generating process.

LFTR meltdown is impossible with the

emergency freeze plug which allows
the liquid core to flow into an energy
dump tank in case the reactor overheats

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Furthermore, LFTRs produces considerably

less radioactive waste products because
energy is almost completely extracted from
thorium.

Theoretically, a LFTR plant would generate

thousands of times less nuclear waste than
tradition uranium-fueled reactors

Of the waste products produced by LFTRs,

83% of the waste are safe within ten years
and the remaining 17% will become safe
after 300 years.

On top of that, LFTRs can also be used to

burn current waste from most of todays
nuclear power plants.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

LFTR also provides many economic

benefits over tradition UraniumFueled Reactors.

Because LFTRs have a greater

energy production capability and
the fuel source being four times
more common than uranium, the
total cost would be 25-50% less
than a traditional nuclear reactor.

One ton of thorium can produce as

much energy as 200 tons of
uranium

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Conclusion

In conclusion, nuclear energy serves as a

vital energy source for the future. It is
clean energy source that produces little
carbon emission. It is safe when operated
under the right conditions. It is
sustainable, as the Earths crusts will
provide more than enough fuel for future
generations. The safety risks associated
with nuclear energy can be mitigated by
advancements in nuclear reactor
technology. The liquid fluoride thorium
reactor design is one of many ways to
make nuclear energy as the most viable
energy source for the future. Nuclear
power will revolutionize society.

Works Cited
Cleveland, Cutler J. "Fossil Fuel."Fossil Fuel. The Encyclopedia of Earth, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"The End Of Fossil Fuels."Our Green Energy. Ecotricity, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"The Energy From Thorium Foundation."The Energy From Thorium Foundation. The Energy From Thorium Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar.
2015.
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration."NASA GISS: Science Brief: Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"Nuclear Power Proposed as Renewable Energy."Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
Schiffman, Richard. "Two Years On, America Hasn't Learned Lessons of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster."The Guardian. The Guardian, n.d. Web. 3
Mar. 2015.
"Thorium-based Nuclear Power."Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"When the Steam Clears."The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 26 Mar. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"World Nuclear Association."Nuclear Fuel Cycle Overview. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.