Electric Engineering - Case Study Example

Electric Engineering Introduction More than half a century now, nuclear energy has been producing commercial electri in various countries. Though highly regarded as an alternative source of energy to electricity, these hopes have in the past twenty years diminished due to the dangers associated with this form of energy (Squassoni 10). Evidence from across several countries indicates that the general production of nuclear energy is gradually losing ground and people are now turning to more environmentally friendlier renewable sources of energy. For instance, as projected by the international energy agency, it is expected that by the year 2030 the global production of nuclear energy would reduce to only 10 percent from its current state of 14 percent. In spite of the decreasing trend of nuclear energy across the world, the climate change pundits are of the opinion that the nuclear energy is the way to go because it is greenhouse gas free (Yusuf 3). In fact, there is a huge debate concerning the future of nuclear energy because of these mixed fortunes. Whereas there those rooting for the furtherance and expansion of nuclear energy because of its friendliness to the environment, there is another clique opposing it based on the dangers involved in its production. Based on this existing debate about the future of nuclear energy, this research paper will be concerned with the following objective: The paper will explore some existing facts about nuclear energy and then discuss whether this source of energy has a future or not. Nuclear Energy’s Impact on Climate Change The push for the continued expansion of nuclear energy originates from those who lobby for the desire to have an alternative source of energy, which does not lead to global warming. Yusuf (12) argues that it is because it being friendlier to the environment that makes it a favorite for those who advocate for nuclear energy. This normative view has been accelerated by the ever-growing urgency to combat the sources of global warming. A plethora of recent studies has indicated the need for drastic and immediate reduction in carbon gas emissions to the atmosphere. Yusuf (13) argue that in order to make the atmospheric quantity of carbon dioxide stabilize at 500 parts per million, there must be a reduction of global emissions by 50 percent by the mid-century. Though not explicitly outlined as a source against countries can obtain credits under the Kyoto protocol, nuclear energy is considered by its proponents as a non-carbon-emitting source of energy. Comparatively, the entire process of the nuclear chain production produces around 10 to 25 grams of carbon dioxide gas, which is around 20 to 60 percent less than the gas produced from fossil fuel chains. Coming to the climate change count, it is asserted by some scientists that its merits are indisputable. Those who root for nuclear energy argue that the projections that the increase in nuclear energy would only decrease global carbon emissions by a small margin as misplaced. Further, they argue that no matter how small the reduction of carbon emissions is, the general impact the environment is positive. In the same vein, those who root for fossil fuels argue that the demerits of the nuclear energy by far outweigh any positives. Unique Safety Requirements In comparison to fossil fuels, the nuclear technology comes with unique safety issues, a breach that presents serious impacts on the lives of human beings including the environment. For instance, the reactor core damage in nuclear plants is one source of very serious impacts to human lives. As evidenced in the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, where about 155,000 people were reportedly died, the reactor core damage can cause fatal accidents to people. However, there have been recent improvements in the reactor core; there is evidence that this has not prevent further accidents from occurring. For instance, there have recent accidents reported in the United States and India since the year 2000. Anderson opines that the chances of a mishap would drastically rise if the nuclear renaissance were to materialize. MIT study reveals that with an increased number of nuclear reactors, the chances of the reactor core damage will remain to be considerably high (Holt 5). The second potential danger of nuclear energy comes from used fuel found at the back end of the reactor. The production of nuclear energy is designed in a way that the nuclear-fuel cycle releases radioactive waste products that remain so for thousands of years. Efforts to recycle these radioactive wastes are said to present even a greater risk to lives than the wastes themselves. Though there are measures to prevent the leakage of radioactive elements to the environment, it is believed that these elements would still find their way out due to some slight errors. Any slight leakage of radioactive elements would cause enormous damage to the environment. Further, a safety issue comes because of elaborate waste disposal requirements. Whereas interim disposal procedures such as temporary storage as well as transportation adds to safety hazards, the actual danger comes from the general lack of a proper solution to the disposal of reprocessed and reactor wastes(Holt 5). The Risk of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation Highly linked to the issues concerning nuclear accidents, is the chilling prospect of the proliferation of the nuclear weapons that comes along with this technology. The current evidence towards the threat that comes as a result of the proliferation shows that the debate towards the sustainability of nuclear energy is far from over. As with accidents, every stage of in the production of nuclear energy presents a unique health risk. To start with, the nuclear fuel is proved to highly susceptible. For instance, uranium from nuclear energy can easily find its route to the production of deadly weapons. Evidence shows that if not well managed, the threat for nuclear weapons can lead to mass destruction to millions of people across the world. Transportation of nuclear energy is another way that the proliferation risks are increased Khan (5)contends that as the global system of nuclear energy increases in both diversity and size, there is a real danger in the diversion of nuclear energy along the route. More worrying is the commercialization of fast reactors and the associated fuel refabrication and reprocessing facilities. Khan (5) argues that the nuclear proliferation has become the number one security issue in the world. Further, the non-proliferation debate is now increasingly shifting from the traditional verification and safeguards to the stopgap arrangements. Now the blame is placed on the treaty of non-proliferation that allows member states to produce indigenous nuclear fuel cycles and giving them the right of entry to civil nuclear technology. The prospects for a universally accepted solution to the current proliferation problem remain to be bleak. The challenge is that on one hand, those who believe in the non-proliferation are convinced that attempt to reshape the NTP will put the entire regime at high risk. On the other hand, the present regime has proved to be infective because those who chose to remain outside the construct of the system successfully did so. Remaining within the purview of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the current option being pursued is to pick and select those countries that are perceived to be responsible and those countries that are perceived to suspect. After successively grouping these countries based on responsibility and irresponsibility, responsible countries would then be allowed the chance to be privy of the benefits of nuclear exchange while ‘suspect’ nations are denied the chance of enjoying the same. Though there exists a plethora of proposals that both attempt to deal with challenge of technology diffusion-proliferation, all of them still end up forming a world made up of nuclear ‘have nots’ and ‘haves’ (Yusuf 12). Even the most exciting proposal of creating a multilateral nuclear reprocessing and supply hubs, it would still deny the developing countries of the traditional fuel-cycle and as a result increase the acquisition of fuel costs drastically. The realization of difficult of the task at hand has led to the present pessimism concerning the future of nuclear proliferation. In fact, even the most optimistic purviews are of the opinion that technological buffers will unable to stop proliferation from occurring. Public Sentiment towards the Nuclear Industry The proliferation and safety concerning the nuclear energy go past international conventions and state policies. The public outlook is an equally significant variable that affects the future of nuclear energy. There is a plethora of well-published sentiments towards the nuclear energy industry. In particular, the public outcry following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accident attributed to the slump of the nuclear energy industry in the 1980s. Though today the public opinion varies from one country to the other, the common opinion from most countries is that they are very cautious of nuclear energy. In a global opinion that was commissioned in 2005 by the IAEA, showered that though white citizens are willing to let the operation of nuclear plants to continue, they remained skeptical of the health concerns that are related with this industry. In the case of Europeans countries, it is clear that public opinion has led to a significant drop of nuclear plants in the recent years. In fact, according to (World Nuclear Association) most European countries do not consist of any plans of launching new nuclear energy in the foreseeable future. Currently, most Europeans are looking into plans of phasing out the existing nuclear plants replacing them with alternative sources of non-renewable energy. With the global world in concuss about the adverse effects that can be associated with nuclear energy, this sector has continued to witness a big slump in the recent times and it seems to be like so in the coming years. Conclusion The interplay witnessed in the future determinant variables of the nuclear industry, seems to lead to a myriad of irreconcilable conundrums. It is a considered opinion of this paper that the nuclear power will only have a future if those governments where nuclear energy is still expectable would play a stronger role in effectively facilitating the private investment and ensure there is total safety to the public as well as the environment. A comprehensive analysis by this paper is that it is difficult to allay all the fears that come with nuclear technology. India, china, South Korea, U.S, Japan and Russia are some of the countries that continue with the production of nuclear energy. Nevertheless, all of these countries face some degree of impediments. Specifically, it is very difficult to attain the nuclear renaissance dream. So, based on the current issues surrounding the nuclear energy it is very possible to witness a continued slump in the nuclear energy all over the world in the coming years. Work Cited Anderson,R. Nuclear power: Energy for the future or relic of the past?. 27th Feb. 2015. B.B.C. 21st April 2015. < http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30919045> Holt,M..Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues. 2014. Viewed 21st April 2015. Khan,S. Japan’s Nuclear Energy Debate: A Year After the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis. 2012. Viewed 21st April 2015. Squassoni, S. The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States. 2012. Viewed 21st April 2015. < http://fas.org/pubs/_docs/Nuclear_Energy_Report-lowres.pdf> World Nuclear Association. The Nuclear Debate. 2013. 21stApril 2015. Yusuf, M. Does Nuclear Energy Have a Future? 2008. Viewed 21st April 2015. Read More