Nuclear power plants and anti-matterPresentation Transcript
Anti-Matter and Nuclear Energy Created By: Joshua Williams
Nuclear Power!• Nuclear Energy provides only 20% of the United State’s electrical power• Nuclear Energy provides over 78% of power in France
Less Pollution• Coal power plants produce more radiation than nuclear power plants• Fossil are predicted to run dry in the next 50 years• Uranium and thorium are predicted to last us another 1000 years
Nuclear Reliability• Unlike fossil fuel power plants there is less chance of a shortage in Nuclear Power Plants• The input required for nuclear energy is less than that of fossil fuel reactors and has a higher and cleaner output
Nuclear Safety• 10,000-50,000 people die yearly due to repertory disease due to burning coal• 300 people are killed annually between mining and transporting fossil fuels• Between 1970-1992 10,273 people have died at plants that burn oil• To date no American has died due to Nuclear Reactors
Nuclear Safety (cont.)• Reactor cores are designed to be able to withstand earthquakes and even direct collisions with airplanes• Emergency procedures are put in place in conjunction with sensors to alert monitors to any problems
What Happened in Japan?!• Archaic System were used• Electricity was needed to properly cool down radioactive fuel rods (not used in modern plants)• Earthquake caused the plants to shut down.• After tsunami hit and knocked out the electrical grid they were dead in the water
Anti-Matter • In a nutshell Anti- matter is the positive charge of an electron • When matter and anti-matter come into contact it creates a massive explosion • The term Anti-matter was termed in 1898 • Anti-Matter was first discovered in 1932
What Can It Do?• Today it would take 180 days to get to Mars• With an Anti-Matter space ship it would only take 45 days• Anti-Matter has high potential as a fuel source
Safety• By traveling faster in outer space astronauts would spend less time exposed to cosmic radiation• Less complex systems than today• Costs less to launch because the ship is NOT weighted down by so much fuel
Drawbacks• Cost – Currently it costs $250,000,000 for 10 milligrams of positrons. – 10 milligrams of positrons would give enough energy to pilot a mission to and from Mars. – 10 milligrams is also enough to blow up earth – It currently costs $10,000 per pound of rocket fuel – The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
Pros• Uranium will last us 1,000+ years, oil will last us around 50• Nuclear power plants give off less pollution than Fossil fuel plants• It only takes 10 milligrams of Anti-Matter to get us to and fro Mars• Anti-Matter is safer for astronauts than rocket fuel is, and lighter too. More cost effective.
Cons• Nuclear Power plants generate nuclear waste that needs to decay or decompose• With nuclear power there is a risk for nuclear melt down but with safety standards and proper maintenance little probability of it occurring• $250,000,000 for 10 milligrams of Anti-Matter• It would take less than 10 milligrams of Anti- Matter to destroy the earth
How This Helps You!• With less dependence on crude oil, natural gas, and coal it would: – Help the economy – Cut down on foreign dependence – Help save the environment – Slow down global warming
A Look at Fuel Costs Now• National Average at the Pump is $3.73• High = $4.35 in HI• Low = $3.17 in WY
How Much Are You Spending?• National average is 7.5% of income spent on gas• High = 11.8% in MS• Low = 1.4% in DC
Anti-Matter not TOO far away!With current technology as stated it would cost10m to produce 10 mg of positrons. Howeverwith further research into kin technologies theusage, transportation, and housing of positronpartials would become cheaper and perhapseven allow to be used for more than just spaceships but even personal use one day in thedistant future.
Sources:• The Energy Problem-Choices for an Uncertain Future (text)• http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomen on/nuclear/procon.htm• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter• http://www.nasa.gov/