Issues and Pointers in Nuclear Energy Usage - Report Example

Issue Analysis: Nuclear Power Plants and Global Energy of Introduction Nuclear power provide cheap sources of energy for people in nations and communities around the world. The main advantage of nuclear power is that it generates energy with little or no pollution. However, nuclear power is somewhat dangerous because it can lead to major disasters and threats like the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters which provided some radioactive emissions. In other instances, like the case of Iran, nuclear energy can provide an avenue for uranium enrichment which can be used for warfare and mass destruction. In line with this, there are two contrasting views about the development of nuclear power. Hence, there is the need for a critical review of the use of nuclear power for energy. This paper will therefore evaluate the use of nuclear energy in nations from three paradigms: 1. Neoclassical/Conservative; 2. Mixed/Liberal and 3. Radical Issues and Pointers in Nuclear Energy Usage There are many advantages for using nuclear energy. Moore identifies that “.... there are 439 nuclear plants operating in 31 countries today and are producing clean, reliable and reasonably priced electricity for hundreds of millions of people” (2012, p7). This indicates that nuclear energy produces low emissions and it gives off affordable and reasonable volumes of energy to a large number of people around the world. Due to the cleanliness of nuclear energy, it appears to be more advantageous and much more preferable to other forms of energy (Sweet, 2013). This makes it better and more reasonable for nations and governments to focus on producing nuclear energy rather than relying on other high emission sources like fossil fuels or coal. However, nuclear energy has its downside. Bodansky identifies that most nuclear reactors and plants generate huge levels of waste that needs to be disposed off (2007). These disposals come with major environmental concerns and issues that can prove to be highly problematic. Additionally, there is a strong risk of accidents which could prove to be very dangerous. Bodansky identifies that if a major nuclear power plant explodes, it can destroy millions of lives instantly and also cause radioactive emissions that can be harmful to floral and fauna lives tens of thousands of miles away from the spot of the explosion. This is illustrated by the fact that the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine could produce radioactive emissions as far away as Ital which had major issues and problems for the living and the unborn. This creates major dilemmas for governments, organizations and consumers. This is because, each of these units have various expectations and requirements based on their needs and expectations. Governments will produce lower emissions if they use nuclear power anywhere in the world. This will present them as positive and responsible users of energy since they will have lower net pollution levels. China for instance is known to have some of the most polluted cities like Beijing which have days where there is virtual darkness during the day due to too much carbon emissions into the atmosphere. If China is to use nuclear power, this will be reduced and their image as a high net polluter could be averted. However, governments also face major risks if they establish nuclear power plants. This is because in situations where these power plants explode, governments stand to lose a lot. An example is the case of Japan which lost millions of dollars in shut-down operations due to the scare of the Fukushima plant exploding. This is because in cases where there is a logical reason to believe that a countrys nuclear power plant is about to explode, the nation and the government will have to take reasonable steps to protect human lives. This could mean halting operations of several aspects of the economy. Consumers on the market also see things a bit differently. Where nuclear power is used, consumers will have to pay very little for energy. As compared to petroleum which has prices that fluctuate due to the offer prices of oil exporting nations, nuclear power provides fairly lower prices and costs for consumers. Thus, consumers on the market will prefer to have lower prices and pay less for their energy. However, where nuclear power plants go wrong, the nuclear energy could destroy individual lives and harm the livelihoods of millions of consumers and potential consumers. This could include people who have no connection or linkage to the nuclear power generators. Organizations like those that produce nuclear energy stand to gain higher profit margins, because they will surely have to produce energy at lower prices and sell at relatively higher prices that could guarantee higher profit margins. However, there is a downside of such entities becoming extremely distressed in cases where there are disasters because such disasters could come with major obligations that will affect the profitability of such organizations significantly. In spite of these positions relating to stakeholders, there could be a further critique of the position of stakeholders in relation to nuclear power based on various philosophical positions. This could include various aspects of ideologies that provide different frameworks and aspects of viewing the situation. Neoclassical/Conservative Approach The neoclassical approach and view of philosophy and economics indicates that affairs and views must be evaluated on the basis of the forces of demand and supply (Sussman, 1997). This position is presented by Adam Smith and other thinkers who theorized that commercial transactions can go ahead if and only if they are legal. Thus, if a transaction goes on and there is nothing that bars it from being carried out in a free market economy, then the people behind it can go ahead and carry it out without issues. In effect, everything in a neoclassical or conservative atmosphere is to be regulated by the invisible forces of demand and supply. Thus, everything has to be determined by the market forces of the community or society. In this case at hand, nations can develop nuclear power plants if they want to. In that sense, organizations and businesses within the country can set up systems and structures of providing nuclear energy if and only if the nations laws do not contravene developing them. And as long as there is demand for such nuclear energy and the businesses can continue to produce energy without hindering any existing laws that are in place, then the transaction can go ahead and businesses can produce nuclear energy to willing buyers. To this end, the forces of demand and supply will ensure that the energy provided will continue or not. As long as there is a sufficient market and the organizations producing them are satisfied with the returns, as compared to the capital expenditure, the production of nuclear energy can continue and the state has no right to intervene in this. The most extreme point the state can go to in trying to control the affairs of nuclear energy-producing firms is to try to regulate them by coming up with rules and regulations on how they must operate. And since there is no purely Capitalist nation, these regulations can exist. However, aside such rules, a firm can produce nuclear energy as long as consumers exist. And in a strictly or idealistic nation, the neoclassical theory indicates that there must even be no regulations and people can produce nuclear energy. Heilbroner identifies that this neoclassical approach is the basis for Capitalism and Capitalism is dependent on the acquisition drive and what producers wanted (1999). Secondly, Capitalism encouraged the dictation of trend and actions based on the realities of demand and supply. Thirdly, Capitalism places the society under the guidance of two main systems, the public and private system. They compliment each other and they operate to attain some kind of synthesis in the society. Radical View: Marxism Marx and the radical thinkers of the 19th and 20th Century believed that the origin of profits was the provision of surplus value. The radical thinkers believed that the normal neoclassical view meant workers being exploited and abused by business owners to make profits (Roberts and Feiner, 1992). Thus, there was the need for a system of production and making money that protected the labourers and ensured that their interests and expectations where guaranteed. The philosophy of industrial capitalism meant that workers could come together and produce synergistic efforts that will yield optimal output. This would lead to excess results that could be spread for the best interest of all the workers in order to provide them with the best livelihoods possible. The Marxist ideology meant that total sales could be increased by seeking and creating new markets in order to control the price and authority. This supported the centralization and control of prices and transactions in a given sector (Roberts and Feiner, 1992). Once this was achieved, there was the need for the reduction of the total cost of materials and machinery. This would be complemented by reducing the total wages and salaries given to workers. In effect, there could be an increase in the prosperity of all the members of the community and life could be much better and more enhanced. Based on this radical thinking, it can be said that a nuclear power station could act as a system of increasing sales and reducing costs of materials and production. Therefore, if that is the case, then the Marxist ideology supports the view that nuclear power stations must be built if and only if it can help to improve the lives of a large number of people in a given society. Hence, the authorities in question will have to find ways of building and maintaining their own nuclear power stations to produce energy. In a real-life situation, it is a Marxist government that can control prices and affairs in an economy. Thus, in a Marxist setting, it is only the government and the authorities of the state who can authorize the creation and building of nuclear power plants. In that situation, it is incumbent upon the nation or state to ensure that reasonable care is taken to ensure the safety of the nuclear power. This is because the ultimate end of the state is to provide the best results and the best circumstances for the nation and the people. Hence, the nation will need to take all necessary steps to ensure that the power plants are safe and do not pose threats to the people. As long as this is guaranteed and people are put in place to prevent the abuse of nuclear power plants, a Marxist government could authorize a centrally planned nuclear power plant to produce energy. This is meant to improve the livelihood of the people in such a centrally planned nation. And it will seek to reduce cost of production and improve prosperity in the nation in question. Mixed/Liberal This ideology is a blend of the neoclassical approach which supports pure capitalism and the radical approach which was steeped in socialism and communism. The root of the mixed/liberal school of thought is steeped in the Great Depression of the interwar period where the strict adherence to Capitalism led to serious financial crisis in the United States and Western Europe. Thus, in reaction to the effects of pure conservative capitalist ideas put forward by Adam Smith, the likes of John Maynard Keynes and Schumpeter arose with the hope of “fixing Capitalism” by producing some degree of moderation (Krugman, 2009). This implies that a nation will have to preserve the elements of Capitalism, but in the process, the government and Central Authority will have to step in where necessary and regulate the markets and improve the lots of all members of the society. In applying this to the scenario at hand, it is clear and apparent that the evils of nuclear power is problematic for nations. This has far-reaching circumstances and consequences. Thus, the mixed or liberal point of view indicates that instead of leaving the entire nuclear power production in the hands of the Central government as Marxism suggests, a nation will have to consider bringing on the private sector to assist in the production of nuclear power. This will ensure that there will be efficient use of resources and the maximization of efforts because government control can produce slack and the misuse of resources. On the other hand, it has been identified that a neoclassical approach will mean any citizen in the country can set up a nuclear power plant and distribute nuclear energy as long as they have the resources. This is a recipe for disaster because as more firms control these nuclear powers, there could be inefficiencies and the abuse of power and authority. This could lead to the dreaded issue of nuclear accidents and the like. Therefore, a mixed/liberal approach will see a blend of public and private sector partnership that will provide the best results. This will involve the use of both public control and oversight through laws and regulations and also preserve the interests of members of the private sector who will be allowed to participate by way of investments and the control of their investments. Recommendations From the case analysis, it is apparent that the liberal/mixed approach is best. This is because any of the two other extremes could lead to so much issues that can cause the nuclear power plant to lose its appeal and primary purpose. A Marxist approach to nuclear power plants could lead to inefficient structures that will lead to the poor management of power structures. A pure neoclassical approach could cause inefficient entities to operate and this could lead to disaster. Thus, a mixed approach based on a private-public partnership is likely to yield the best results for nuclear power generation. References Bodansky, D. (2007) Nuclear Energy London: Springer. Heilbroner, R. L (1999) Worldly Philosophies New York: Simon and Schuster. Krugman, P. (2009) “How Did Economists Get it so Wrong?” The New York Times September 6, 2009. Moore, P. (2012) “Benefits and Role of Nuclear Power” Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Roberts, B. And Feiner, S. (1992) Radical Economics London: Springer. Sussman, G. (1997) Communication, Technology and Politics in an Information Age. London: SAGE Sweet, W. (2013) Kicking the Carbon Habit New York: Columbia University Press. Read More