Nuclear Plant Safety - Research Paper Example

 Nuclear Plant Safety Introduction Nuclear power plants have become well-known as cost-effective sources of energy. However, from severe nuclear catastrophes observed in the international setting and at home, the disadvantages of nuclear reactors have been proven to surpass the advantages. The instances observed in Japan today and the previous Chernobyl catastrophe in Russia are just some of the worst nuclear meltdowns experienced in the international setting. There are over 112 nuclear plants already established in the United States (Greenwald, 1991) and some of these plants have already experienced malfunctions. There are different reasons for the use of nuclear power as energy sources but there are more reasons to stop their operation, if not, reduce their use. This paper will provide a background on the history of the use of nuclear power in the United States. Some incidents that display the disadvantages of nuclear power plants will also be presented. In the end, a conclusion will be provided. The History of Nuclear Power in the United States Oil, natural gas and coal were traditionally used as sources of electricity but the scarcity of these resources has led people to search for other sources. One of the main concerns of the government then was that these scarce resources have become expensive. Furthermore, the use of coal, fossil fuel and oil were reported to emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, which is a substantial greenhouse gas. Nuclear power was primarily used for weapon production. The atomic bomb was the prime weapon, which makes use of nuclear power. The atomic bomb is integrated in a hydrogen bomb. The hydrogen bomb functions in three distinct stages: first, the atomic bomb explodes through a fission reaction; a second bomb, which is composed of lithium and deuterium undergoes a fusion reaction; then, a third explosion occurs when the uranium component undergoes a fission reaction (Caldicott, 2006). The first casualties of hydrogen bombs were the Japanese. In the Second World War, the United Stated deployed two atomic bombs – one in Hiroshima and the other in Nagasaki. The bombs were reported to have caused the death of more than 200,000 Japanese people (Caldicott, 2006). After the Second World War, other countries were able to produce nuclear bombs. In the end however, countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the hope of disarming all nuclear weapons; whereas nations without nuclear weapons would not be able to develop such weapons (Caldicott, 2006). The treaty is an important agreement to hinder the detrimental and destructive effects of nuclear bombs. Due to the treaty, the use of nuclear power went into a limbo until it was used as a source of electricity. This energy source was believed to be cheaper than other sources such as coal and fossil fuel as it produces higher wattages of electricity. From then on, constructions of reactors continued until 1978. To this day, there are about 112 nuclear plants built within the United States (Greenwald, 1991). Some of these plants have already encountered certain malfunctions. Disadvantages of Nuclear Power Plants In March 28, 1979, the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant in Pennsylvania experienced a near meltdown. This was the worst nuclear accident experienced by the United States. “Scientists determined that a jammed valve had caused cooling water to drain from the reactor core” (Presutti, 2011). As a result, the fuel core became uncovered and then it overheated, causing a partial meltdown. About 120,000 people were evacuated. Fortunately, only a small amount of radiation was able to escape from the facility. The Reactor that almost resulted to a meltdown was permanently shutdown though a part of TMI nuclear plant is still operating. This incident allowed for a more serious review of the nuclear policies in the United States and also halted the approval of establishments of more nuclear plants (Presutti, 2011). The TMI incident was attributed to lack of training of staff, equipment malfunction, and human error. These reasons are perhaps also attributed to every nuclear disaster, including the Chernobyl catastrophe. But in the United States still, a nuclear plant at Alabama was almost destroyed just because electricians chose to use a candle to check for drafts (Patterson, 1986). The candle set fire to cable insulation, causing one of the major disasters in 1975. In another plant in Rancho Seco, California, a technician made the mistake of dropping a light bulb into the control panel of the nuclear plant (Patterson, 1986). The bulb short-circuited the electrical supply of the plant, causing instruments to malfunction. The input from the instruments to the plant computer was scrambled causing the computer to start and stop pumps as well as to open and close valves (Patterson, 1986). The disaster did not lead to major evacuations. However, the people of Sacramento, California successfully voted for the shut down of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant. It was reported that apart from the near-meltdown experienced in the plant, the plant was not working as effective as it should. It was reported that the plant was only able to produce about 40% of the expected electricity (Trippett & Hollis, 1989). As a result, electricity rates doubled. Thus, the preached cost-effectiveness of nuclear plants was shattered in the Rancho Seco nuclear plant. With regards to cost-efficiency of nuclear plants, it is known that the cost of Uranium is also high. Uranium is used as the fuel of nuclear plants. Thus, large quantities are needed to fuel one reactor of a nuclear plant alone. The cost of Uranium is also continually increasing today. This is reportedly due to an anticipated end of weapons Uranium stockpile (Hopf, 2004). On the other hand, pro-nuclear power activists argue that nuclear power plants have no carbon dioxide emissions as compared to other energy sources such as coal and oil. Thus, it is alleged to help reduce global warming (Sims, Rogner & Gregory, 2003). While this may be true, nuclear wastes are nevertheless more toxic for people and the environment. According to Ewing, Weber & Lian (2004), the nuclear fuel cycle produces tons of plutonium and actinides. These may be used for weapons proliferation but their disposal is still very problematic. It has been proposed that the actinides will become amorphous after a thousand years or less. However, studies have found that these products do not truly become amorphous and these remain in very high doses in the environment (Ewing, Weber & Lian, 2004). Even with new conversions dedicated for these nuclear wastes, storage and disposals of actinides will have to require tens to hundreds of years or tens to hundreds of thousand years (Ewing, Weber & Lian, 2004). This grave realization of dilemmas in disposals of nuclear wastes should be a prime concern of the government. It is well-known that nuclear wastes are commonly dumped at sea. This presents severe geologic effects. Furthermore, the radiation effects of these materials also pose problems to health and the environment (Ewing, Weber & Lian, 2004). In the international setting, the current incident in Japan has also shown the danger that natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis pose to nuclear plants. The damage in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan was instigated by the earthquake and not simply by technical malfunctions and human errors. To put it bluntly, the disaster in Japan was a result of both natural disasters and technical malfunctions. Reactors are said to have been designed in a way that if one reactor fails, another reactor should be able to contain the problem (Black, 2011). However, the damage brought about by the earthquake as well as the tsunami may have caused all the Reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant to shut down. As a result, Japanese officials have scrambled to solve the problem. For over a month, the disaster in Japan’s nuclear plant is still being dealt with and assurances of stability are still unheard of. The disaster has also led the Japanese officials to allow the dumping of millions of radioactive waste at sea, which could probably affect neighboring countries. Conclusions The following discussions regarding the safety and efficiency of nuclear power plants have revealed that the disadvantages do outweigh the advantages that power plants pose to the society. Regarding safety concerns, nuclear plants produce millions of toxic wastes, which take hundreds or thousands of years to degrade or decay. These toxic wastes are being dumped in geological reserves causing damages to the environment. Thus, the health implications of these toxic wastes are also undeniable. With regards to efficiency, certain nuclear power plants may not be as cost-effective as predicted. For instance, the Rancho Seco plant in Sacramento produced only 40% of the expected electricity and thus, the electric rates doubled. Uranium, the fuel of nuclear plants, is also reportedly increasing in cost. This leads people to question the cost-efficiency of nuclear plants. Finally, simple mistakes in nuclear plants caused by human error can cause death to millions of people. The dangers of nuclear plants are then very grave. No further nuclear plants were approved to be established in the United States since 1978 and no power plants should further be approved. Even with the proposed advantages of nuclear plants, the gravity of the effects of a possible disaster should be of more concern than their proposed cost-efficiency. References: Black, R. (2011). BBC News - Uncertainty surrounds Japanʼs nuclear picture. BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12723092. Caldicott, H. (2006). Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming Or Anything Else (p. 222). USA: Melbourne Univ. Publishing. Ewing, R. C. (2004). Nuclear waste disposal—pyrochlore (A[sub 2]B[sub 2]O[sub 7]): Nuclear waste form for the immobilization of plutonium and “minor” actinides. Journal of Applied Physics, 95(11), 5949. doi: 10.1063/1.1707213. Greenwald, J. (1991). Nuclear Power: Time to Choose. Time Magazine. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/910429.cover.html. Hopf, J. (2004). World Uranium Reserves . American Energy Independence. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx. Patterson, W. (1986). Chernobyl: Worst But Not First. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 43-45. Chicago. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=ngYAAAAAMBAJ&pgis=1. Presutti, C. (2011). Three Mile Island, 32 Years Later | USA | English. Voice of America News. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Three-Mile-Island-32-Years-Later-118705544.html. Sims, R. E. H., Rogner, H.-holger, & Gregory, K. (2003). Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation Sims, R. E. H. et al. Energy Policy, 2003, 31, (13), 1315–1326. Energy Policy, 31, 1315-1326. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6701(04)93161-X. Trippett, F., & Hollis, R. (1989, June). Shutting Down Rancho Seco - TIME. Time Magazine. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957975,00.html. Read More