A Nuclear Power Plant Proposal for Eaton Corporation - Research Paper Example

A Nuclear Power Plant Proposal for Eaton Corporation A Nuclear Power Plant Proposal for Eaton Corporation Introduction A nuclear power station generates electrical energy from the process of nuclear fission, or the disintegration of atoms. The resultant controlled reaction generates a vast amount of heat that is used to boil water. As it boils, the water produces steam that drives turbines that produce electricity. There are a hundred nuclear power plants in the United States, spread over 31 states(U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014). Combined, these plants generate approximately twenty percent of the country’s electricity and about 8.5% of its total energy (U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014). Nuclear power confers several benefits over electricity that is generated from fossil fuels. In spite of these benefits, no new nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. since 1996. This paper proposes the development of a nuclear power plant by the Eaton Corporation. While there are a number of environmental and safety concerns over nuclear power plants, their benefits far outweigh the costs. Benefits of Nuclear Energy Nuclear power has several clear advantages over fossil fuel that currently accounts for the bulk of the nation’s energy. Nuclear energy produces an insignificant amount of carbon dioxide and no sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (Comby, 2001). These gases are produced in large quantities when fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity or other forms of energy. Carbon dioxide plays a part in global warming while nitrogen oxides form acid rain that is responsible for corroding man-made structures such as buildings. Besides the gases, compared to fossil fuels, nuclear reactors produce very small quantities of waste. For instance, about a ton of coal is required to generate the same amount of energy as a gram of uranium. Correspondingly, nuclear waste is a millionth of the waste generated from fossil fuel. In addition, if the nuclear reactor is well-designed, the nuclear waste is confined throughout the power generation process. Nuclear power has been produced commercially for half a century now. It has proven to be safe (Comby, 2001). To date, there have occurred only three major nuclear plant accidents: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, USA in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 in present-day Ukraine and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan in 2011. Of the three, the TMI was the worst: the entire core of the reactor melted completely. Fortunately, almost all the radioactivity that was released was confined within the reinforced concrete structure that contained the reactor. The amount that escaped into the surrounding was insignificant so that no was seriously irradiated or died. To analysts, the TMI accident provided a model for nuclear safety: the core of the reactor melted down yet no one died or was seriously injured – all because of the reinforced concrete reinforcement(Comby, 2001). Learning from the story of TMI, coupled with the technological advancements and the safety requirements of the new federal law, Eaton Corporation could easily revolutionize nuclear safety. Uranium, the primary source of nuclear power, is virtually inexhaustible (Comby, 2001). It is said to be found everywhere in the earth’s crust, although major deposits are found in Australia and Canada (Falk, Green, & Mudd, 2006). It is estimated that if the price of uranium were to be increased tenfold, a hundred times more uranium would be extracted and sold. Another four billion tons of the mineral is said to be dissolved in sea water and is recoverable. Besides the abundance of uranium, a nuclear power plant is compact (Comby, 2001), occupying no more than the average football stadium and its parking lot. By contrast, a solar farm, a wind farm and growing biomass each require a large tract of land. Compared to fossil-fuel-generated electricity, the cost of nuclear power is stable and predictable (Comby, 2001). By contrast, the cost of hydroelectric power may fluctuate with the season and the volume of water. The predictability of the cost of nuclear power is an advantage to both the corporation and the consumer. Nuclear reactors are ideal for providing base-load power (Comby, 2001). Over the years, the time it takes to refuel the reactor has been increased while the time it takes to refuel has declined. All these improvements mean that the reactor is available for power generation for most of the time. The improvements have been greatest in the U.S. where they have been equivalent to adding one reactor a year to the existing stock. To demonstrate their reliability, most reactors are designed to last for forty years. Many are reaching their age of decommissioning in a good condition and have had their lives extended for twenty years. In the light of growing demand for power to sustain our highly industrialized economy(U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014), the reliability of nuclear plants make them an attractive alternative to power generated from fuel fossils. Concerns over Nuclear Power Plants and their Mitigation In recent decades, several nuclear power plants have been planned in the United States yet none has been built (U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014). One major ongoing concern that has hampered the development of new nuclear power plants is the safe isolation and disposal of waste from nuclear reactors and reprocessing plant. The waste is radioactive and capable of retaining their radioactivity for decades after they have been disposed. Over the years, consumers have paid billions of dollars through their electricity bills to finance a government programme for the disposal of nuclear waste. Since 1982, the Department of Energy has been charged with managing radioactive nuclear waste. The Department had plans to build a nuclear waste handling facility in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the Obama Administration has since cancelled the plans. Moreover, the March 2011 nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi plant following an earthquake and tsunami, governments around the world are rethinking their safety regulations for both existing and proposed nuclear plants. In response to the safety concerns, the federal government enacted a new law in 2005 that seeks to revive the construction and commissioning on new nuclear plants (U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014). Among other provisions, the new law proposes safer designs for nuclear reactors. The new legal framework creates a conducive business environment that the Eaton Corporation must take advantage of. In so doing, however, the Corporation must bear in mind the cost implications of new design requirements that the new law proposes. On their part, in order to reduce the risk presented by nuclear waste, the corporation can reprocess the waste. Currently, this is not the practice in the United States: nuclear plants simply store away used fuel. Elsewhere, the used fuel is sorted to separate the 3% or so of radioactive materials and heavy elements to be cast in glass for safe and permanent storage. The remaining 97% that largely comprises plutonium and uranium is recycled into new fuel that is returned to the reactor to generate more energy. Conclusion Nuclear power has several advantages over electricity produced from fossil fuels. It is clean, safe, compact, reliable, competitive, and inexhaustible. In spite of these benefits, no new nuclear plant has been built I the U.S. since 1996, though many have been planned. The inertia in the industry is largely due to concerns about the safety of the people in and around the nuclear plant and the environment. However, the case of TMI, from which Eaton should learn, demonstrates that a nuclear plant can be optimized for safety. In addition, the new federal legislation on nuclear plant safety stipulates clear design requirements to enhance safety. By learning from TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi, Eaton Corporation is better placed to raise the bar in nuclear plant safety. References Comby, B. (2001). Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. Paris: TNR Editions. Falk, K., Green, J., & Mudd, G. (2006). Australia, uranium and nuclear power. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63 (6), 845-857. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2014). Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Read More