The Environmental Risks Associated with Nuclear Power - Term Paper Example

NUCLEAR POWER Introduction Nuclear power is the power energy that connects and harnesses the powerful forces that usually hold together the atom nucleus. The nuclear power plant gets its energy from the physical processes of fission of the uranium atoms. This plant is effective as either cannot release the gases into the atmosphere such as the sulphur, carbon, nitrogen and other gases or byproducts of combustion like ashes that may cause a climate change, ozone layer destruction, acidization of rain, large cities contamination and the greenhouse effects (OECD, 2007). The nuclear plant produces electricity by boiling water into steam, which turns the turbines in order for the electricity production. The nuclear power has both the advantages to the environment and the people as well as the disadvantages to it, which will be lightly in the paper. Discussion Nuclear power has various benefits that are more useful to the human use. Some of the benefits to the environment are that the nuclear power does not cause some of the hazardous effects to the greenhouses effects such as the green house gas emissions and the pollution of air. This is because during the generation of electricity the nuclear energy fails to release the hazardous gases to the atmosphere such as the carbon, nitrogen sulphur and other gases that affect the greenhouse and the atmosphere. The nuclear power is a reliable source especially in the production and generation of electricity. This is due to the no- intermittent power source that it can continuously produce power constantly and throughout it is reliable. In the United States, generally it does produce the highest nuclear power and uses it for electricity generation. It is also a reliable source because it supplements other source of energy production that may not be sufficient in supplying to the whole nation. Following the abundance of the uranium deposits that are more, commonly available the nuclear power production becomes easier. This is because only a very small amount of uranium that is used in the production of electricity and given that uranium is easily available then the nuclear plant will always run. Canada produces much electricity from the uranium deposits since it is one of the world’s largest uranium producers (U.S. Council for Energy Awareness & Nuclear Energy Institute, 1993). Another benefit that nuclear power possesses is that it is has very less impacts when generating electricity especially in the local environment the land and the atmosphere. This is because during production the nuclear power plant releases fewer affluent into the water and on land especially under the normal generation circumstances. Though it may pollute the pollution is too less to make such a great impact. It is worth noting, as much as the nuclear power benefits the human in production of electricity and being a reliable source, it has some of the adverse effects that are pollutant to the environment. This is due to inadequate and unsafe disposal of the nuclear waste (Poinssot, & Geckeis, 2012). The nuclear power in extremes creates harmful radioactive wastes that is the used uranium and unfortunately there lacks a safe methods and precautions to dispose of the wastes. Technology is never left behind and people are always looking for an alternative when such a situation arises. To try in covering up this mess that can be very dangerous, Canada deals with this in a way that not very effective but for some time it may do a good deal. The current method that they use in dealing with this nuclear waste is by putting the waste into a canister or in a concrete cylinder and then they submerge it into a pond. The pond is mainly for this purpose only and not until forty or fifty years as the radioactivity commences to decay that, they bury that waste underground. This is a very risky process to the humans because the half-life of the radioactive is 250,000years (Poinssot, & Geckeis, 2012). This means that until that period is over the radioactive is very dangerous to the human lives and to the environment as well, if it happens to be exposed. During the generation of electricity some serious issues may be encountered especially the exposure and safety issues. Recently, the nuclear power plants usually apply the improved technologies and use the stricter regulations of safety. This greatly reduces some of the risks that may be encountered and prevents the future risks that may be imposed but this does not mean that the risks are done with but the potential of a serious catastrophe may be inevitable. However, they have just reduced these big upheavals since in the past the nuclear incidences and accidents have resulted to some serious illnesses, death and the environment is damaged extremely. The impacts also continue for generations and may not only affect the destinies of those affected but other people who are not aware of these big impacts. For example, Chernobyl nuclear plant located in Ukraine accidents caused very many deaths and was the worst accident ever to happen. It is a routine for the nuclear power plants to emit continuously some low level of radioactive. This in turn normally causes cancer especially to the nearby communities. Not only the radioactivity but also the plant can emit other materials that are hazardous to the environment (NATO, 2008). The mining of uranium is unsafe and destructive even during its transportation. The mining exposes the humans as well as the environment to the radioactive, which is a grievous risk to the human and animals. The mining of the uranium is destructive and it destroys the area that it is being mined causing land damage and environmental pollution. It also contributes to water pollution during the mining process as the effluents are deliberately released routinely into the water also the contaminated water spills. This leads to water and a waterway poisoning thus it is a big threat to the humans and the local environment as well. In addition, the GHGs as they are associated with the nuclear power production cycle entirely in constructing of the generation plants will require the fossil fuels, which do release the GHGs. This is similar when the mining of the uranium for these nuclear plant when it is enriched, transported and more so in mining of the uranium. The GHGs in turn causes the greenhouse effects through the emission of the gases, which later leads to the global warming of the atmosphere (Harrison, & Hester, 2011). These impacts negatively to the human lives, the plants, and the environment with various changes that affects the whole ecosystem, climate just to mention a few. Unfortunately, though uranium is an available source of the power generation it is a non- renewable source. It may not be used in large amounts when producing electricity and only very small amounts that are required throughout the year since the nuclear plants are usually refueled once a year. The unfortunate bit is that there are very small amounts that are in the atmosphere and since they are non- renewable then once they are gone there are gone forever without replace. The operations of a nuclear power plant usually require large water quantities and even in the discharge of the thermal process. This is due to the cooling effect needed for the plant during the operation as well as in creating steam to the turning of the turbines that will require a lot of water. Another risk that may be prevalent in this kind of process is that the water that has already been used in the process that is during the plant operation is then released back into the environment after having cycled in the plant. This is also known as thermal discharge. The water released back may alter with the local body of water temperature and may cause harm or even a serious risk such as death of the aquatic lives (Harrison, & Hester, 2011). The water contamination in the nearby rivers, lakes and streams and inclusively the water supplies from the ground may greatly affect the environment. The nuclear power plants are extremely costly and expensive and take such a long time before they complete. For instance, the Darlington plant located in Ontario took more than ten years before it could complete and was very expensive at around $15 billion before it could complete. Another estimate was created by Florida power and lightning company for them to create a new reactor plant that had a price tag that ranged between $12 to $19 billion dollars in only a single project (DiBella, & Sloan School of Management, 1993). This is very expensive and considering the peoples economy is not that rich the people are likely to be burdened in raising the amount of this tax. Heavy impositions of tax on the people will cause more suffrage to them as this is not a one- day process to be completed rather it takes a long time that could be more than a decade. The disposal of the nuclear waste is also very expensive. For instance, Canada gives an estimate that in the disposing of the waste it will need an estimate of about $24 dollars just to dispose of its waste from the nuclear plant. Apparently, two major risks associate with the nuclear power. These are classified into two such as safety and security risks. A safety risk is the serious grievous accidents that may be at the site of the nuclear power plant that could release large amounts of the dangerous and the hazardous radiation that is very destructive to the environment and cause serious consequences. It also increases highly the risks of contacting cancers to all the people who may be exposed to the radiations and the people within the locality. This affects the quality of people working as they must stay overly protected all through which may be boring at other times. Another risk that is more prevalent is the security risk that usually involves terrorist attacks and sabotage risks that is associated with the nuclear power plants. Other risks that are under the security risks is the stealing of the nuclear materials in order to make the nuclear weapons. These risks are very sensitive and once such a plant can be stolen, it would lead to serious fall of the company. Not only the fall of the company but keeping in mind that the poor citizens are still the people to get buying another just makes the situation harder. This risk too is a serious havoc to the environment especially if there happens to be a terrorist attack, this means very many deaths would be encountered and more lives would be at risk as a result of the radioactive emissions. More so the environment would be unsuitable for both the plants life and the human lives. Insecurity of any of these plants would also be a great menace to the nation in general. Therefore, it is a mandate rule for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to try as much in reducing some of these risks through the enforcing and making of the rules that the nuclear power plants will have to follow. UCS usually follows the mandate rules closely and other times it does criticize the performance of the NRC especially in protecting the people. Some of the solutions that are necessary in making of the nuclear power safer are supposed to be implemented to ensure that the people and the environment are also very safe for them. The policy makers dwell on some of the solutions that will help in the end. Therefore, the UCS urges the NRCs to implement some of the following solutions The NRCs ought to do a better job and a more consistent one in ensuring and enforcing the nuclear safety rules. They should enforce the rules and take an affirmative action to the people and the companies who may fail to correspond as required by the rules and regulations. A heavy fine should be imposed on any of them who would violate the laws (Greenberg, 2013). The spent nuclear fuel that commonly is thrown into the pools and allowed to accumulate in the pools should as soonest possible be removed to the dry casks in order to reduce the risks and such accidents that may be caused by them. The more the accumulation of the nuclear fuels into the ponds may cause a hazardous risk that is both harmful to the environment and the bio-life present in these surroundings. The removal of these accumulated wastes as early would reduce the chances of the effects of the radioactivity into harming many people by causing of illnesses and the death of the aquatic life (Petrangeli, 2006). The security at the power plants should be enhanced in order to reduce the risks that are associated with the sabotage and any successful attacks that may be prevalent in the area. The early prevention and protection of these sites with heavy guarding of the place will be of effect since even the neighbors in the locality will feel secure. Again, less chances of restarting the process that was so much expensive will not be there. The reprocessing program as it creates serious risks of the materials theft that are later used in the processing and making of the weapons the United States should thus not pursue the reprocess. This is for the security of the nation as well as the nuclear waste problem is also reduced (Lillington, 2004). The reviewing and creating of the nuclear program will always attract the terrorists who may want to take the advantage of the reprocess and may attack the area or still the materials, which they would use in the processing of the nuclear weapons. Conclusion In conclusion, the nuclear energy has various impacts to the environment. The nuclear energy despite of being a source of electricity, the uranium is non-renewable and so it may just serve for a short duration. The hazardous effects to the environment if only necessary precautions are taken into consideration then the environment could be destroyed and destructing of the activities would be more common. References DiBella, A. J., & Sloan School of Management. (1993). Advantages and disadvantages of the French nuclear power system. Cambridge, MA: Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Greenberg, M. R. (2013). Nuclear waste management, nuclear power, and energy choices: Public preferences, perceptions, and trust. London: Springer. Harrison, R. M., & Hester, R. E. (2011). Nuclear power and the environment. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. Lillington, J. N. (2004). The future of nuclear power. Oxford: Elsevier. NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Environmental Change and Human Security : Recognizing and Acting on Hazard Impacts, L. (2008). Environmental change and human security: Recognizing and acting on hazard impacts. Dordrecht: Springer. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (2007). Risks and benefits of nuclear energy. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Petrangeli, G. (2006). Nuclear safety. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. Poinssot, C., & Geckeis, H. (2012). Radionuclide behaviour in the natural environment: Science, implications and lessons for the nuclear industry. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness., & Nuclear Energy Institute. (1993). Nuclear energy. Washington, DC: U.S. Council for Energy Awareness. Read More