The following is my highschool Physics' final essay.
__________
The constant development in the world means that there is an ever-increasing demand of energy. Though so, other implications, such as pollution and global warming, is still a major concern. Moreover, while even Indonesia as a developing nation will need an excess of 450 billion kWh of electricity in ten years’ time, fossil fuels will also be nearly exhausted by then. Clearly, there is an urgent need for alternative energy, but one question has always been there: what?
There are many sources of green energy commonly used, ranging from hydroelectric power, solar, wind, and geothermal, which are already commonly found or is gaining use in Indonesia. Most of them still carry their disadvantages, though, which leads us to nuclear energy, which does not have such drawbacks.
Unfortunately, nuclear power is not as strongly advocated, and even overlooked in Indonesia. It is actually a very capable source of green energy, and must not be left out for its tremendous potential and feasibility. However, as a nation, we must also make a tremendous effort in preparation for it, committing ourselves to a nuclear future. To do so, we must all understand all aspects of nuclear power for electricity.
Understanding Nuclear-Powered Electricity
First and foremost, how nuclear energy is harnessed must be understood. Splitting up a radioactive atom’s nucleus, called nuclear fission (as opposed to nuclear fusion, where heavier atoms are formed), releases a large amount of energy from relative mass lost in the process. This energy is in the form of heat, which is used directly to heat water in an adjacent system into steam, which is then used to drive turbines, much like other kinds of power plants.
Compared to other power plants, this process does not produce carbon waste and greenhouse gases in any notable manner. According to Eko Adi Parmanto and Dimas Irawan from the Indonesian Nuclear Power Agency (BATAN, Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional), in their book Understanding Nuclear Power Plants (Mengenal PLTN), this cleanness is shown by France, which already uses nuclear power for three-quarters of its national grid, that managed to decrease over three-quarters of pollution since the 1980s. This is indeed a much better alternative than fossil fueled plants, which account for more around 10 million tons per year of pollution in the form of gases, soot, and runoff (27-29).
In their article, “Let’s Run the Numbers”, Mike Conley and Tim Maloney states that nuclear power plants on average produce from around 0.5 to 2 GW of electricity, comparable to large-scale plants such as fossil-fueled or hydroelectric plants. The major step-up is that unlike fossil-fueled plants, nuclear plants could generate immensely more power from a small amount of fuel, where only several tons of uranium is used yearly as opposed to millions of tons of coal.
A nuclear power plant is also independent of external factors which fluctuates its output, like sunlight and wind, which also require expansive flatlands. Robert Kennedy puts it, as taken from Conley and Maloney’s article, these will require fossil-fuel powered generators to regulate and smooth the fluctuations. Not only nuclear power will produce a consistent output, it does not require a large area, and is also less dependent on location compared to hydroelectric and geothermal plants.
Radiation, Disasters, and Safety
All of its obvious advantages aside, there is one main problem that needs to be addressed. When people think of nuclear energy, people think of disasters and bombs. Nuclear plants are most infamous for producing disasters, such as in 1986 at Chernobyl, and most recently where the Fukushima reactor experienced a leak during the 2011 tsunami in Japan. It is widely known that Indonesia is prone for disaster, but these kinds of nuclear disasters are just one in a million, which conclusively happened due to false management after investigation by their respective governments (Parmanto and Irawan 31). There is no doubt that nuclear plants is useful in crowded, power-hungry spaces like in Japan. In contrast, Indonesia even still has unused land like in Kalimantan, which is also free from natural disasters as an addition.
One more source of concern in nuclear plants is radiation. While clean of greenhouse gases, this method of nuclear fission does produce radiation and radioactive waste as its waste. During nuclear reactions, particles such as alpha particles which are equivalent to the nucleus of helium and free electrons called beta particles, or even high-energy gamma rays might be released. However, what people get wrong is that the nuclear plants themselves do not emit radiation to the outside environment. In the standard specifications of a nuclear plant, layers of lead and steel are used, then covered in reinforced concrete (Parmanto and Irawan 15). Gamma rays could only penetrate through several centimeters of lead, while the other particles are much weaker.
The workers inside are also quite safe. A maximum of 5000 mRem of radiation per year per person is recommended by the United Nations, while workers only experience around 500 mRem (Parmanto and Irawan 16), well within safety limits if regulated properly. Another insurance is in the form of regulated regular checkups, and long leaves are mandated if a worker is exposed to too much radiation. The five deaths to power plant workers in the United States are only caused by construction accidents. This is certainly a safer option compared to over half a million deaths annually from pollution-related illnesses in China (Conley and Maloney).
Nevertheless, a method of disposing radioactive waste must be ensured. Ronald Reagan once said, “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant could be stored under a desk,” which is true as a nuclear plant only has around 30 tons of waste a year, but disposing it carelessly is certainly unsafe. The most important consideration is where to put the waste and certainly the government is still researching. However, Indonesian researchers already are aware of the proper procedures of safely filtering encasing depleted nuclear fuel, and deposit facilities are also under planning (Parmanto and Irawan 26-27).
Feasibility in Indonesia
The final piece to ensure is the feasibility of nuclear energy in Indonesia. Simply put, Indonesia has the capability for self-sufficiency and support. A World Nuclear Association (WNA) report, “Nuclear Power in Indonesia”, reveals unused deposits in Kalimantan and near Bangka-Belitung amount to around 53 thousand tons, which will last a very long time, besides being a valuable export. When these reserves run out in a century to come, methods of synthesizing new fuel would already have been common.
Nevertheless, research is ongoing, mostly by the BNN. They report that nuclear plants are already proposed in North Sulawesi and in Central Java, with a small test reactor planned in Serpong, both made with assistance from Russian contractors (Parmanto and Irawan 34; WNA). Critics point out that nuclear energy is certainly is not cheap to research in light of the recent economical crisis. However, once running, it is much more cost-effective than other alternative energy. Upon large-scale use in the national grid, nuclear energy would be much cheaper, as much as one-tenth the cost of new green energies such as solar and wind power (Conley and Maloney).
Another raging debate is about the that nuclear weapons is the humane side of the deadly possibilities of nuclear energy. Nuclear weapons have already been used against humans, and it is of utmost importance that nuclear energy is never used for mass destruction ever again. However, as long as the government keeps check in its projects, this problem could be avoided altogether. There is very little an upstart in nuclear energy such as Indonesia may do in the world stage, after all, as Indonesia has signed the international agreement of non-proliferation in 1980 and further in 1999 (WNA).
Though the national seventy-two percent acceptance for nuclear energy, there are still demonstrations opposing nuclear power (Parmanto and Irawan 37; WNA). BNN already have underwent measures and is already socializing in locations nearest to the proposed plants. However, this may not be enough, and socializing needs to reach high school students, who may understand the full power and impact of such an energy source.
Nuclear power has a very large prospect in Indonesia. It is as powerful as other green energy and is also more cost-effective, without producing any carbon waste. People’s fears are simply paranoia; properly managed nuclear plants are as safe, or even safer, than other types of power plants. Indonesia could make this project feasible, but it is still the government’s responsibility to keep looking for safe disposals, check on the socialization, and stay peaceful.
We are still far away from a nuclear utopia. However, considering the alternatives, perhaps it is wise to risk this venture, as writer Martin Cruz Smith said, “. . . because normal human activity is worse than the greatest nuclear accident in history.” Power from nuclear fission must be embraced, not shunned, at least until nuclear fission is achieved.
REFERENCES
Conley, Mike and Tim Maloney. Let's Run the Numbers: Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar. 17 April 2015. http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/. 16 January 2017.
Parmanto, Eko Adi and Dimas Irawan. Mengenal PLTN dan Prospeknya di Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional, 2007.
World Nuclear Asociation. Nuclear Power in Indonesia. August 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/indonesia.aspx. 15 January 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment