Right after the Second World War, the steadfast attention of the scientific community has been involved in the idea of extreme cheapness and inexhaustibility of nuclear energy. As though in a counterbalance to horrors of new war which use of the nuclear weapon could cause, the future of nuclear energy was in every possible way embellished for creation of an image of the world, prosperity, and abundance that should win general applause.
The history of nuclear energy has not justified the hopes of its adherents. Almost half a century later, after the first electric lamp, the orders for nuclear reactors in the developed countries practically do not exist. In the USA since 1978, there was no order for the construction of the nuclear reactor, and the orders for their construction, made in the period from 1974 to 1978, have been canceled. Even in France, the bastion of nuclear engineering where on nuclear reactors it is made about four-fifth of all electricity, now recognizes that stations with natural gas with the combined cycle are more economical than nuclear reactors.
In 1986 on the example of Chernobyl, it was possible to see awful, having a greater area of scope, and, substantially, irreparable consequences of the serious failures of nuclear reactors. Each design of a civil nuclear reactor comprises the probability of such catastrophic failures though their probability, and also special mechanisms, of course, can differ from design to design and from country to country.
In spite of the fact that hopes of adherents of the use of atomic energy substantially were not justified, the majority of the governments of the countries of the world do not wish to refuse its use, apparently. This unwillingness represents the complex phenomenon, and discussion of this question is beyond the given work. Partially it can be the result of the sensations which have developed in many non-nuclear developing countries. The strong influence is made by the idea that nuclear energy is a symbol of modern “high” technologies.
After the idea about nuclear energy as “so cheap, that it will not be necessary to measure its price,” defenders of nuclear energy approve that it could become the basic factor in the business of reduction of emission in the atmosphere of polluting substances, in particular to the dioxide of carbon bringing the essential contribution to global warming was is killed by the severe validity, the nuclear industry for a logic substantiation of necessity of the existence has taken on arms the idea of protection of an environment and non-distribution. However, the ecological consequences of the extraction of uranium and radioactive waste, which are the integral components of technology, are ignored. It is necessary to note also that the problems connected with the use of mineral fuel and with atomic energy are simply non-comparable.
In the first years of the Cold War, many adherents of nuclear energy offered that manufacture of military plutonium was used for subsidizing power stations. After the end of the Cold War, the nuclear industry made applications that the atomic engineering can help “to reforge the swords” as superfluous plutonium from the dismantled nuclear warheads could be used for the manufacture of fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. However, the realization of such a program would lead to the creation of the financial and physical infrastructure for the transformation of plutonium into “commercial” goods with all consequences following from here, as that is the problem of non-distribution, questions of ecology and price.
For the decision of safety issues, the nuclear industry has begun and continues the promotion on the market of the second generation of commercial nuclear reactors, some of which even have been named by their supporters “with internally inherent safety.” The Safety issue, in general, is establishing as public skepticism in the occasion of applications of representatives of the nuclear industry has noticeably increased after failures on Three Mail Island and in Chernobyl.
However, irrespective of reliability of statements about security from failures with uncontrollable emission of radioactive waste in an atmosphere, statements in spirit “with internally inherent safety,” not being supported by weighty maintenance, have rhetorical value more likely. Though it is represented theoretically possible to create reactors that will differ a greater degree of safety in comparison with already existing, it is impossible to consider safety as the feature internally inherent in various technologies. All reactors offered till now possessed some potential for the most serious failures (Caldicott, 2007).
Now there are many of the best and safe sources of energy. Time has come to refuse nuclear energy. We are obliged to replace false propagation “atoms in the peace purposes” with the program “energy in the peace purposes,” which can make the well-being of the modern generation compatible with the protection of safety and an environment for a life of the future generations.
Meanwhile, two main directions precisely are outlined in the peace application of nuclear energy. The first direction is based on the use of an opportunity of creation of artificial radioactive atoms which on the chemical properties can be identical to atoms of the most widespread elements, as for example, carbon, phosphorus, etc. As is known, it is widely used in biology and chemistry where, applying so-called “marked,” the essence of the mechanism of some of the major biological and chemical processes is possible absolutely new to find out atoms by.
In spite of the fact that this work while is limited to cleanly scientific results, nevertheless their value for practice is very great, deeper understanding of existing processes always opens an opportunity to direct them in a correct way. It is necessary to remember that biological processes underlie agriculture, animal industries, medicine playing a paramount role in our culture.