Maybe you guys will agree...I have found many of my professors to be really terrible at teaching. I guess it probably comes with the territory of being a physics major, or truthfully it probably comes with the territory of any technical field. I don't want to give the impression that they were not good at presenting the information: they have been (usually) experts at doing that.
Let me give you an idea what I am talking about. Imagine yourself as a student who has the background to understand everything you need to know for the lecture you are attending. Lets say you have have learned all the math and physics required to understand the material that is about to be presented. Now the professor walks in and begins to give a brilliant lecture on "quantum confinement." You understand exactly what he is teaching and you now know all about the subject, but then you then realize that you are in a nanotechnology class and you have no idea how quantum confinement has anything to do with the nano world. It is kind of like giving an axe to a man who has never seen trees before. Or maybe instead of building a man a fire to keep him warm, starting him on first in hopes of keeping him warm for the rest of his life.
The question that we have to ask is "why?" In this case, why is everyone all up in arms about nuclear power? If nuclear power is such a danger and so expensive, then why are we wasting our time arguing about it and promoting it? There must be a reason for this, so what is it?
Nowadays, "going green" is all the rage and therefore we hear a lot about nuclear power being zero emissions. This is a good aspect of nuclear power, but there is a much more fundamental reason to chose nuclear power. Put simply, nuclear power is by far the most bang for the buck of any power source. Many would argue saying the nuclear power is very expensive and that is why we are not building new plants. Well, the fact is that this argument is very misleading. I don't want to get too much into policy here, but one must know that nuclear power is not expensive because of the materials or construction costs. Permitting is by far the most expensive part of a new plant's construction. After construction, nuclear power has been called "too cheap to meter." If you need a little more proof, I will direct you to a post on Rod Adams' blog called "Atomic Insights." This is a great blog for learning about nuclear power and I will probably be referencing it often.
So why is nuclear power the best bang for the buck? Well the answer lies in my last couple posts. Fission fo course! If you need an explanation on what fission means, check out my last couple posts, not that they are any better than sitting through the disconnected lectures of my professors... The nucleus is a source of tremendous energy. When we split the atom, we release this energy.
To get an idea of exactly how much energy, let us first look at a combustion reaction such as the burning of coal. This reaction is what is known as a chemical reaction, meaning that it deals with the exchange of electrons. The stripping of electrons can only release the amount of energy that the electron has while orbiting the nucleus. This is typically on the order of 1-2 electron volts. This is a technical unit, and its meaning is not important to make my point, so bear with me.
Now prepare yourself to be totally amazed. The fission of a Uranium-235 nucleus results in the release of roughly 200 mega electron volts, or 200,000,000 electron volts. Yes, a single fission reaction releases one to two hundred million times more energy than a combustion reaction!
So what does this mean? It means that we can retrieve huge amounts of energy from a very small amount of fuel. As an example, the new Virginia class nuclear submarines will run their entire lifetimes without ever having to be refueled. To further prove the point, the first nuclear power submarine, the USS Nautilus, traveled 62,500 miles on a single Uranium core. A diesel submarine traveling the same distance would consume the equivalent of 2,170,000 gallons of diesel oil! Don't believe me, check it out.
So what is the point of educating on nuclear power? If this doesn't portray its importance, I really don't know what will. Is the argument over nuclear power worth fighting? I think so. Nuclear power? Yes please!
The One Responsible
- Aaron Ackerman
- Aaron is an engineering student at the Colorado School of Mines working on a masters degree in nuclear engineering. Also, he is a member of the Unites States Navy and will be a nuclear engineer on US Navy submarines when finished with his education at the School of Mines. Aaron's undergraduate background is in physics.
6 comments:
I hope you go into more about US nuclear policy issues in future posts because I think that that is what is really holding the US back from nuclear power. Additionally, I like how you included some figures on how the energy produced by coal compares to fission. I knew it was more, but I didn't realize it was that much more!
Your font doesn't show italics very well =(
That truly is a massive amount of energy. For comparison. For those of you that know what antimatter is, if you let an electron and an anti-electron annihilate, you only get about 1 MeV. An atom would get much more, but you get the point, nuclear gives a TON of energy in a natural process. Great post Aaron, but I definitely agree with J.D. that policy seems to be the major issue. I look forward to more posts!
Maybe I'm the dumb one here, but it's not clear to me what your post is about. It starts off with a rant about teaching that is devoid of relevant context, but then uses this as a metaphor for railing against those who don't like nuclear power. But you must like nuclear power because it provides the most "bang for the buck"!
I'm not anti-nuclear by any stretch, but I'm confused by the ranting tone here and am not sure who you are arguing with. Perhaps engaging in a meaningful but respectful dialogue with someone who has a decent argument to make about nuclear would be more useful. Or, you can continue to fight with straw men. But that's not a great dialogue or form of public engagement.
Jen, this post is actually my attempt at trying to frame the issue. I think maybe I do it better when I am not trying so hard, as this did make so much sense in my head when I wrote it. It still does make sense in my head, but that happens a lot and other people don't get it.
What I am getting at here is that we are often trying to be taught something without knowing why we are being taught about it. In this, I am trying to establish why there is such a pronuclear side. It is important that people learn about nuclear power because it has so much energy potential. That is the reason for such a large push toward nuclear power. Now that I have established this and you guys know why I am writing about nuclear power, I feel like I can better make my point.
I am not trying to fight with any straw man, but simply get across why we care about nuclear power. The rant at the beginning was trying to get people to open their eyes to the bigger picture of it all. Does this make sense, or am I still fighting with a straw man?
Yeah, I don't get the opening rant against teachers either. How is that connected to the nuclear option? It was great presentation of information on the amount of power generated, but maybe a stupid person such as myself would further benefit from the ideal if a tangible metaphore were presented, i.e. how long would the average US house be able to utilize electricity with one fissioned nucleus, etc. Still, very helpful info 'Fo Course'!
Post a Comment