You are on page 1of 10

Cruise 1 Trenton Cruise Instructor: Malcolm Campbell English 1103 November 5, 2013 Nuclear Energy: Is it Worth the Risk?

In todays world the race to find the best alternative energy source is ongoing and it seems that it will be never ending. Although there are many ways to provide alternative energy, there seems to be faults with all of them. One of the most efficient sources of energy to date is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has some problems, but it also has many benefits. Switching to nuclear energy could eliminate the need for coal, save our atmosphere and benefit mankind greatly. The idea of nuclear energy has been around since 1939 and the reality of nuclear energy was introduced in 1942 with the invention of the nuclear bomb. During peacetime after World War II, the United States and Russia changed their focus from weapons to energy. The first nuclear powered generator was completed in June 1954 in Russia. This reactor was a water cooled, graphite-moderated reactor, but this design would change over time ( Outline History). The graphite moderator was used to deflect the neutrons given off by uranium. The neutrons would then go back towards the uranium causing a chain reaction. In the 1960s the first boiling water reactor was created for commercial use. This is the design most commonly used today in which the process of nuclear fission is used to boil water creating steam. The process that was used to create the bomb was called nuclear fission, which is when an abundance of uranium atoms split apart creating energy (Nuclear Fission). The steam will then turn a turbine creating electricity. This process has been made more efficient and more reliable over time with updated

Cruise 2 technology and more understanding of nuclear fission. Although there have been many updates there are still many issues to be ironed out with nuclear energy. Coal power plants have been in use before the idea of nuclear energy and are still in use today. Much like nuclear power plants, these facilities are heating water to produce steam that will turn a turbine, creating energy., however, they require large amounts of coal to produce the amount of heat they need to power the plant. The burning of the coal produces heat which is explained by the second law of thermodynamics. Due to this law any closed-loop cycle can only convert a fraction of the heat produced during combustion into mechanical work. The rest of the heat, called waste heat, must be released into a cooler environment during the return portion of the cycle (Fossil-Fuel). The cooler environment mentioned in this law is in the form of a lake or a stream close to the power plant. This can then raise the temperature of the lake or river which is dangerous to the fish and wildlife that inhabit the area. Aside from affecting the environment in this way, coal plants also release a very large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This gas is one of the leading gases that is causing global warming. Coal facilities also produce a solid waste ash that is then usually dumped near the facility ( Fossil-Fuel). This ash contains harmful chemicals that without proper disposal can leak into lakes, underground aquifers, and can be released into the air. According to the Sierra National Club, The coal ash is dangerous enough that if someone was living in a one mile radius of an unlined coal ash dump site, they have a one in fifty chance of getting cancer (Disposal: Coal). Although there are many hazards involved in coal power plants they are still the most reliable and widely used sources of power there is to date. The access to coal is seemingly unlimited as coal is a very abundant fuel source. Due to its abundance, coal power is also cheaper than most other forms of power. Currently solar panels and wind turbines are too expensive to provide a

Cruise 3 wide spread of power that would replace the need for coal power plants. Also, unlike these expensive forms of energy, coal power plants are fairly cheap to set up and maintain. Chris, who reported in the article Safety of Nuclear Reactors says that, Coal power plants are safer than nuclear since a failure will not cause a catastrophic event. Since coal is a non-radioactive material that produces energy by burning rather than fission, there is much less of a chance for a catastrophic failure. Even if a coal plant was to fail it would only affect the immediate, surrounding area and it would not spread radiation miles away like a nuclear plant would. While other types of energy are being researched coal power is also still being researched. Although the most reliable source of power currently, research is still being done on how to make coal power plants safer and even more efficient than they are currently. Like coal power plants, nuclear power plants also have many environmental and population hazards. One of the largest oppositions to nuclear energy is the fear of a nuclear meltdown. The first major nuclear incident was Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in the year 1979. This accident was part mechanical and part human error. A light on a control panel caused the operator to assume there was too much coolant in the system. He then opened the pilotoperated relief valve, which got stuck, releasing large amounts of nuclear coolant. The end results were a release of 40,000 gallons of radioactive water directly into a nearby river ( Three Mile Island). Although this seems bad, there were not enough people who were diagnosed with cancer after the event to prove the plant was the reason for their disease. The next major incident occurred on April 26, 1986 at the Chernobyl power plant, which was located in Ukraine. The accident occurred when a power surge went through the power plant. An emergency shutdown was then attempted causing an even larger power spike. This spike led to rupturing steam lines that exposed the graphite moderator causing it to explode,

Cruise 4 sending radiation into the air. The graphite core exploded because the exposure to open air, along with the heat of the core caused the core to catch fire. At first the government tried to play it off like nothing had happened until they realized how bad the situation was. The entire city was then evacuated in the middle of the day leaving everything behind. This incident caused a confirmed thirty-one deaths and led to many birth defects and other illnesses (Chernobyl Disaster). The third and most recent major disaster occurred in Japan during the year 2011 when an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima reactor. When the tsunami hit it disabled the cooling system and also, when receding, took the plants backup generators into the ocean. Without a cooling system the nuclear reactors overheated causing them to fail. This failure leaked radiation from the reactors and caused an evacuation of surrounding areas. The only people killed in this accident were the workers who went back in to try and stop the radiation leak and shut down the reactors (Fukushima Daiichi). Although these were three major accidents, two of them could have been less tragic with better training. The Three Mile Island incident was caused when the operator opened the release valve when he should not have. The deaths in Chernobyl could have been avoided if the city was evacuated as soon as the accident happened. The third accident could have been prevented with better placement of the reactor and by making the plant more resistant to natural disasters. Accidents do happen with nuclear power, but they are very uncommon and widely spread out. There have only been three major ones since the rise of nuclear power and technology increasing and more research is being done to increase the safety of nuclear energy. Along with the thought of nuclear meltdowns, there are also many other cons for nuclear power. One con with nuclear power plants is the possibility that someone will get a hold of the plutonium used in nuclear reactors to makes bombs, not energy. The making of bombs is not a

Cruise 5 very likely scenario, but the chance is always there especially with nuclear power going global. North Korea was under suspicion of doing this, but there was no exact proof against them. Due to this risk the International Atomic Energy Agency has been created to monitor the worlds nuclear facilities and make sure that no country is using their plants to make weaponized plutonium. Nuclear plants also produce radioactive waste, which then must be stored in a safe location. This is currently done by taking the waste deep underground into mines or caves. This, however, subjects the operator moving the waste to the radiation. This exposure to radiation the operator may potentially develop cancer. Along with radiation, excess heat is a byproduct of nuclear fission. This heat that is produced is then sent through a cooling tower or a lake. The water used in cooling towers is then dumped back into a nearby lake. Although there is not an excess of contaminants in the water the heated water can fluctuate the temperature of the lake causing environmental side effects, much like coal power plants (Environmental Impact). Nuclear energy does have some cons, but it has many pros that make it an important source of alternative energy and even a possible replacement for coal power plants. Nuclear energy is better due to the fact that it is safer for the surrounding population. Unlike coal, the waste created by nuclear energy is less likely to cause deaths. The Sierra National Club claims that over a 50 year period there is a chance of one compared to the thousands of deaths coal ash would cause from seeping into the ground, contaminating water supply. This is not due to the fact that coal ash is more toxic than the waste produced by nuclear power plants, in fact nuclear waste is more dangerous. However, the storage methods of nuclear waste keeps it from affecting hardly anyone, while coal ash is stored improperly by plants even though there are standards that are supposed to be met. Most plants simply do very minimal precautions in order to save money for their operations (Disposal: Coal).

Cruise 6 Nuclear energy, compared to coal, is also much better for the environment. The use of nuclear energy cuts out the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Enriched uranium produces about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal (Economics Nuclear). With this much energy being produced carbon dioxide emissions would be cut down by large amounts. Since so much energy is being produced from a small amount of material, less material would be needed. With less material being brought into the plant, all the operations involved to obtain and transport these materials would be lessened. . The only down side to the environment that nuclear energy creates is that it releases hot water back into lakes a streams. Coal power plants also do this, therefore neither one is better for the environment in this aspect. Nuclear power is also still under development, meaning nuclear power can still be made more efficient and the effects on the environment could be lessened even more. Although nuclear energy seems to be better than coal already, there is still research being done and new technology being put into place to make nuclear power plants more effective and safer for the environment. According to the World Nuclear Association, as new plants are being built or old plants are being updated they are being fit with many levels of damage control. Plants are now being built with higher quality designs and they are also installed with equipment to prevent operational errors. This equipment would have helped prevent the incidents that occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Also testing is done periodically to ensure that all equipment works properly and that it will not fail. In order to prevent leaking of radiation, systems have been put into place that will contain the radiation in case of an emergency. The World Nuclear Association has grouped all of these topics into three categories, prevention, monitoring, and action. These categories will help prevent future meltdowns and other incidents from occurring or affecting the surrounding population.

Cruise 7 In addition to precautions for the outside world there have also been upgrades in the working for conditions for those who work at the plants. Most of the manual labor has been turned over to machines so that workers are no longer exposed to radiation. Although labor is done by machines laborers are still needed to run and control the machines so jobs would not be lost. Laborers would also be needed to maintain and perform the tests needed to ensure all equipment was running properly. In order to protect these laborers there are certain intervals of time that a worker can be in a radiation zone (Safety of Nuclear). The laborers are also in a specialized suit that will help protect them from the radiation. With all of the updates being performed in nuclear power plants, the safety is increasing greatly, allowing nuclear energy to continue to move forward. The World Nuclear Association claims that, America is currently the worlds leader in nuclear with 30% of production. There is also 100 reactors in use and three more in construction. It is predicted that by the year 2020 another six reactors will be under construction (Nuclear Power). This shows that again nuclear energy is on the rise. If America continues the change to nuclear energy I believe many other countries will follow. All of this growth relies on the government and Americas government may even be able to encourage other countries that nuclear energy is a great idea and should be implemented. Nuclear energy is still under much research and is criticized more than other forms of alternative energy, however it seems to be the best bet for a cleaner future. Coal is a stable source of power, but the effects on the environment and the overall costs are much worse than the effects and costs of nuclear energy. The use of nuclear energy can lower the costs of energy bills and it would be beneficial towards making life better. It seems that the world agrees that nuclear energy is the way to go as it is expanding globally; with sixteen countries that receive a quarter

Cruise 8 of their power from nuclear energy. Hopefully many other countries will jump on board and the skeptics will start turning into believers.

Cruise 9 Works Cited "Chernobyl Disaster." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "Disposal: Coal Ash Waste." Sierra Club National. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "The Economics of Nuclear Power." Nuclear Power Economics. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "Environmental Impact of Nuclear Power." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 "Fossil-fuel Power Station." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "How Does Nuclear Energy Work?" ENEC :. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "Nuclear Fission." Nuclear Fission. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. Nuclear Power in the USA. World-Nuclear. World Nuclear Association. 22 November 2013. Web. 04 December 2013. "Outline History of Nuclear Energy." History of Nuclear Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors." Safety of Nuclear Reactors. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2013. "Three Mile Island Accident." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

Cruise 10

You might also like