Should We Water the Nuclear Plant - Essay Example

Should we water the nuclear plant? Every informed person has sufficient knowledge of global warming to know its potential for mass destruction and environmental havoc. But the common man lives under the assumption that it is too big a threat for him to remediate. The society flips the responsibility of environmental protection on to the government who are seen as the only agency that is capable of providing a solution to global warming. But now the citizens of this community are provided with a chance to be active participants in the war against climate change. A decision that is of profound significance to the community, the local environment and the world is in our very own hands. The proposal of Salt River Project to set up a Nuclear Power plant is indeed one that merits great debate both for its impact on the community as well as its broader socio – economic implications. While granting energy security and employment, does it safeguard the sanctity of the ecology and ensure the protection of human lives and health? It is the purpose of this discussion to convince the reader that the aforementioned Nuclear power facility is not only beneficial but also unavoidable for the community. The amount of power generated shall fertilize a vast industrial infrastructure and boost the local economy. Further the mode of energy synthesis is widely considered as the most reliable, safest and least polluting of all methods thereby ensuring that human health and ecology is not affected. The benefits of nuclear power generation over other methods shall first be considered in some detail. The expected opposition has to be considered analytically thereby satisfying the misgivings and apprehension of the population at large. The nuclear debate is not new; in fact it is currently very much in news after the Bush administration’s atomic reformation proposals. As productive citizens of a great nation, we are committed to the economic development of our region and the controlled exploitation of its resources for national welfare. But as a community we are equally committed to the protection of the health of our citizens, our children, as well as the preservation of natural ecosystems just as nature bequeathed it to us. A power generation station is truly an asset. Electricity transforms all other resources from their unprocessed form to finished goods, lights homes and hospitals; providing the community with comfort, safety and strength. Moreover, the proposed plant shall require many trained and untrained hands; which no doubt shall translate to employment for a large number of local inhabitants. Land value shall escalate bringing in unprecedented prosperity for the population at large. Examples are plenty in US history where previously unheard of towns gained national recognition due to the construction of power plants in their vicinity. Further, nuclear power is a clean fuel. If it is supposed that the proposed plant was to be driven by coal rather than fissionable material, the advantages of the latter technology can immediately be made apparent. A full “one third of our power generation facilities are driven by coal” (Sweet). Granted that coal is cheaper but in the long run it does irreparable damage to the environment. Pollution from coal fired plants is the chief culprit for global warming. Annually, “two billion tons of Carbon Dioxide gas is expelled from these plants” (Sweet) swelling the atmosphere with harmful green house gases. Particulate matter from these plants spread across the surrounding regions infecting human lungs and other vital organs through respiration. This alone is thought to be responsible for 20,000 to 30,000 of the premature deaths that are caused annually in the United States. The process of coal extraction is further heavily devastating for the local ecosystem. The common contention against the setting of Nuclear power plants is that it stands the risk of explosion. Dubious incidents from the past such as Chernobyl and The Three Mile Island disaster are still freshly etched in public memory. It is argued that beyond complete explosions, “natural disasters such as earthquakes” (Times) and hurricanes or manmade calamities can lead to the expulsion of radioactive matter into the environment. The results of these are no less threatening to the community. Since the September 11 attack on New York, it has been suggested that “nuclear plants can be a future target for terror missions both due to its strategic significance and its potential for damage” (Times). These factors add to create a reasonable paranoia in residents particularly those that are most directly affected by such events. Further, the power production process from fissionable material creates dangerous amounts of radioactive waste (Sweet). Massive investment is made in the extraction and containment of such materials. However, all these fears are not based on reality. Where scientifically true, sufficient preventive measures have already been taken to address these concerns. As an author so explicitly stated, “Modern US reactors are so constructed that accidents of the type of Chernobyl can never occur here” (Sweet). Reactors are so designed that they shall never experience power surge of the order required to cause an explosion. The seismic stability of the area, its vulnerability to storms and floods etc are taken into consideration even before the plant is commissioned. Despite this, all nuclear power plants have so many inbuilt security devices that they are one of the safest man made constructs. Regarding fears of terror attacks from militant aggressors, it should be said that a nuclear power plant is as fortified as a military facility making it virtually impossible for malevolent agents to infiltrate and cause damage. Compared to a thermal power plant, a nuclear facility produces only two thousand tons of fissionable waste material annually. To the “two billion tons that is exhumed by thermal power plants” (Sweet), it is understandable why atomic energy stands tall among other forms of non conventional energy. Elaborate rules have been laid down for “the handling and disposal of these materials with special emphasis on its exposure to the environment” (Nuclear Energy, Just the Facts). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ensures that radioactive waste material is at all times isolated and it is not allowed to contaminate any section of the biosphere. Stringent monitoring is must for the entire area around a power plant to determine if its air, water or soil is contaminated. In the light of all this it should be said that the fears against the implementation of nuclear power are highly unsubstantiated. More importantly, unlike other forms of energy “the risks posed by nuclear power production are well understood” (Sweet). Regulatory mechanisms are already in place to ensure that strictest security protocols are followed during all stages of power production. Opposing such a technology inevitably implies promoting a less efficient technology in its place. Given the critical stage that the earth’s environment is currently in, it is no longer a matter of choice to decide the mode of energy production that the society should adopt. Nuclear power is one of the most reliable and nonpolluting of energy sources that are currently available to us. It becomes not the prerogative but the privilege of this community to host the next atomic power plant in this country. References Nuclear Energy, Just the Facts. Rockwood, D. A Letter to the Editor. In A. a. Bacon, Writing a Classical Argument (p. 7). Sweet, W. Why Uranium is the new Green. In A. a. Bacon, Writing a Classical argument (p. 407). Times, L. A. No to Nukes . In A. a. Bacon, Writing a Classical Argument. Read More