WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR NUCLEAR POWER?

Japan's nuclear disaster is far from over. The situation has gotten so bad that large amounts of contaminated water have been dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Why did they do that? To make room for even more radioactive water. Imagine what this will do to Japan's world-famous fish market. Bans on Japanese goods will severely hinder any economic recovery. People are reminded of the dangers of nuclear power, and many are deciding the energy is not worth the risk. Many countries, the most notable being Germany, are seriously reconsidering their support of nuclear power.

Radioactive waste is accumulating by thousands of tons every year. Right now most of it is stored on-site with power plants, and there is no plan laid out to store the waste for millennia. This problem will only become more controversial as more people learn about it.

If other alternative energy sources—like wind and solar—become more widely and efficiently used, then the need for nuclear fission power can be reduced. More likely, fission will remain an important source of energy in the foreseeable future, and its nonstop output will maintain its utility.

Eventually nuclear fusion power will be a viable option for alternative energy. There are several methods of attaining fusion being pursued around the world, and this multifaceted approach increases the likelihood of success. Fusion has been achieved, but the problems lie in sustaining a fusion reaction for a long time and harvesting enough energy to make a profit. Perhaps someday, in the far future, fusion will replace fission, and we will have a cleaner, safer way to meet our energy needs.

NUCLEAR (FISSION) ENERGY—TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT?

Using nuclear reactions to produce electricity is a weighty endeavor. On one hand, there is a lot of around-the-clock energy that can be utilized. On the other hand, there are grievous risks associated with radioactive materials, and the recent catastrophe in Japan has brought these risks back into the public eye. Controversy has plagued the nuclear power industry since its beginning, and it shows no sign of being resolved.

At the heart of a typical nuclear power plant is the reactor which contains radioactive metal, such as uranium-235 (U-235). On the atomic scale, U-235 atoms break apart to form atoms of lighter elements. At the same time, gamma rays and free neutrons are expelled. That is the process of radioactivity. The neutrons can bump into other U-235 atoms and cause them to break apart, forming a chain reaction. On a human scale, metal rods glow and give off a lot of heat. Water is exposed to the radioactive metal to absorb the heat. Once the water is brought to its boiling point, it is passed through turbines which produce electricity. But the same radiation that boils water can kill humans or cause disease. Extensive containment structures and strict safety protocols are used to protect people and the environment from exposure to hazardous radiation. These measures also make nuclear power tremendously expensive.

Just one nuclear power plant can cost several billion dollars to build and requires billions of dollars every year for operating and fuel costs. Once built, however, a plant can produce electricity at the rate of less than three cents per kilowatt-hour. The energy is so plentiful that a profit can be made. Even so, it may take more than a decade to pay off the initial cost. While building a nuclear power plant is more expensive than hydrocarbon-burning power plants, nuclear fuel is cheaper than fossil fuel in the long-run. Fuel rod provisions need to be renewed about every other year, whereas coal or natural gas supplies must be replenished continuously. What happens to spent fuel rods?

Over time a fuel rod gradually becomes impure with fission products that hinder the nuclear chain reaction. When the fuel rod cannot profitably heat water it is removed from the reactor. Since it is still dangerous to living things, it must be stored until radiation levels have diminished—that can take a long time. Take, for example, a given amount (say 100 kg) of plutonium-239 (Pu-239) which is very hazardous. Pu-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years. That means after so many years you will have half as much (50 kg) Pu-239 as when you first measured it. The rest has become fission products, like free neutrons and uranium-235. But U-235 is also radioactive, and it has a half life of over 700,000,000 years! Some countries recycle their fuel rods by separating the fission products from the still-useful elements. This is very expensive and dangerous, but it reduces the amount of nuclear waste. Anything that cannot be reused has to be stored which worries many people. There is the ever-present possibility that terrorists might steal the radioactive waste or some radioactivity might leak into the environment. If radioactive material got into the wrong hands, then it could be used to make a “dirty bomb”. A dirty bomb is a way of intentionally exposing people and the environment to radiation without the need for a mushroom cloud. The only way around this would be to launch the waste into space, but there is a big risk of rocket malfunction. Then you might have an accidental dirty bomb. No matter what you do, there are risks, fears, and costs tied to nuclear waste.

People have good sense to fear radioactivity, and Japan's current situation is a clear example of the danger of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants in Fukushima Prefecture have suffered major problems since the earthquake and tsunami on March 11^th. Some radioactive material has been released, and right now Tokyo's tap water is considered unsafe for babies. If not for their diligent efforts, the Japanese people would be in much more danger. They are returning electricity and water to the plants and gradually cooling the reactors, but their work is far from finished. Had a full-blown nuclear meltdown occurred, much more radiation could have escaped. The fuel rods would have become hot enough to melt themselves and the vessel around them, releasing large amounts of radiation and heat. But if Japanese workers continue to gain control over the situation, then radioactive contamination should be quite limited. Still, the cost of cleaning up, decommissioning the plants, treating people for sickness, and other necessary acts will be huge. We should not forget the psychological consequences. People can be frightened by this event, and that will affect the future of the nuclear power industry. Also, the demand for products such as iodine pills and Geiger counters is increasing. Hopefully Japan will fully recover, and perhaps people the world over will engage in conversations about atomic energy. Do you think we should be using nuclear power? Please leave a comment.

BUOYANT COMMUNITIES

With over six billion people living on Earth, cities are becoming more crowded every day. One way of treating this problem is to expand onto the oceans, not just land. After all, three quarters of our planet's surface is covered with water. Centuries ago the Aztecs lived on artificial islands, so why not people in the twenty-first century? Dubai made the now-famous palm tree islands—man-made islands shaped like palms when viewed from above. A man-made island concept, the “lilypad city”, is another solution.

The lilypad city would be a self-sufficient floating metropolis. Residents would enjoy ocean views and a community removed from the mainland. The whole structure floats so it can drift around the world, gradually accumulating a globally diverse population. Imagine traveling from New England to Great Britain without leaving your house. Your entire neighborhood casually wonders from one major coast to another. Floating cities would be perfect for people who love to travel, and they could give emergency residence to coastal flood/tsunami victims. With so much more area than land, the seas should have plenty of room for “seasteaders”. Perhaps we will populate the oceanic frontier before we more thoroughly explore the “final frontier”.

An interesting complication arises with this situation: independence. When groups of people live on international waters, they can, and have in the past, decide to become micronations. With sufficient resources a floating city can form its own government and try to be internationally recognized. Many people have wanted to do just this—starting fresh with a politically clean slate. In the future, groups of like-minded people might simply build floating cities or islands and start new governments, experimenting more freely with power structure than today's slow-changing developed countries. A floating micronation would have the luxury of choosing its geographic neighbors. When mainland political/economic conditions become undesirable, a floating city can move to a more desirable shoreline. When a city moves somewhere else, it takes its consumers—and their business—with it. In much the same way that cruise ships cause economic booms in coastal communities, floating cities could become a source of competition in the tourism industry. Ground-based cities might cater their economies to the tastes of wandering metropolises in order to attract the cultural and monetary exchanges that follow. If the floating cities could be made to interconnect with each other, then popular ones could grow larger by combining with others. If your city likes the government, economy, culture, etc. of another one, then you can physically join with it and form one city that is twice as large. Then floating nations' existences and sizes are determined by the free market system. Maybe, eventually, a new country would emerge with a government that functions better than any in the world today.

If floating cities will ever catch on, there are some serious obstacles to overcome. The first problem is the huge initial capital needed to build such a city. As mentioned on Create your Cosmos, cities like Hong Kong and Dubai are well suited for this job. Another problem is protection. If a group of people renounce their mainland citizenship to become a micronation, then who do they call on when attacked by a hostile country or pirates? What about storms? Hurricanes, tsunamis, and other oceanic phenomena would pose real risks for structures not built to withstand them. Are the potential benefits worth the risks?

SUCH NICE WEATHER WE'VE HAD LATELY

I can imagine a lot of people have been wishing for less snow lately. The desire to control the weather is not new; in fact it is ancient. Rain dances have long been used in cultures around the world. Various deities have been deemed responsible for weather. Praying or sacrificing to these gods were ways of trying to influence the forces of nature. To this day, we are still trying to gain power over the elements.

The most common way of purposely affecting the weather is cloud seeding, or enhancing water droplet formation. Various materials, such as silver iodide, are dispersed into the atmosphere and cause water vapor to collect and form water droplets. If there is enough water vapor present, then rain should soon occur. The effectiveness of this technique, however, is not always accepted. Other ways of impacting weather have been devised, but many people are skeptical of them. Perhaps with today's advanced weather monitoring technologies we will soon be able to definitively test methods of weather control. If we can observe a phenomenon more precisely, then we should more clearly see any effects our actions have on it.

Is it a good idea to govern our atmospheric conditions—disrupting nature's harmony? If one town forces rain to fall, then the next town will be deprived. A hurricane that is steered away from one coastline will probably devastate another. In the wrong hands, these capabilities could be far more destructive than life-saving. This prospect has been seriously considered enough to be illegalized. Do we really want the power to direct the paths of storms?

WILL URBAN TRANSPORTATION EVER CHANGE?

For decades cars have been the primary method of personal transportation in cities. Owning a car is an element of American life that symbolizes freedom and independence. We cherish the personal power to travel when and wherever we please. In high traffic areas, however, cars cause danger, slowdowns, and noticeable pollution (both air and sound). These problems should be significantly reduced by decreasing the number of vehicles in a given city while maintaining the same number of people being transported. Imagine bigger vehicles that can hold at least a couple dozen people apiece. Have a driver that goes to everyone's destinations on a regular basis. Better yet, engineer the vehicles to use something else than fossil fuels. One obvious problem: people like the freedom and independence of owning and driving their own cars.

Cities like Chicago have made good progress employing buses and trains to improve the movement of people from place to place. Yet there are still traffic jams, vehicular collisions, and the ever-present stench of engine exhaust on the streets. Many technologies have been developed to diminish these issues. Using hybrid, electric, and hydrogen-fueled cars can effectively cut back pollution. Some devices dramatically increase the range of “walking distance”. Bicycles have long been an environmentally friendly and personally healthy option for getting from A to B. Modern computing power is sufficient to coordinate personal vehicles throughout a city, preventing collisions and ensuring accurate navigation. Having computers at the wheel might be the next transportation revolution. But will it happen? Will people ever relinquish their ownership for efficiency while in the city? Will urban transportation ever change, and if so, when?