Nuclear Power as Alternative to Classic Source of Power - Research Paper Example

? Nuclear Power Univerity The world is facing a tremendous energy challenge. The demand for energy is increasing due to the rising demand for energy from both developed and developing countries worsened by the continuous population growth which compounds the issue to look for an alternative energy source. The traditional source of energy such fossil fuel is already taking its toll on the environment not to mention that its price and supply is subject to political upheavals. Thus, there is a pressing need to look for an alternative source of energy and do away from the reliance on traditional source of energy such as fossil fuels. The necessity to create and develop new and cleaner supply of energy is both an imperative of environmental conservation and economics. The urgency of creating and developing new energy supply is urgent due to the damage wrought by the excessive carbon emission of the traditional sources of energy that caused irreversible climate change and other irreversible damage to the environment (Kelly, 2008). One alternative that is seriously considered is nuclear power. Just like any other source of power, nuclear power has its benefits and disadvantages. One of the most popular argument for the preferential use of nuclear power as an alternative source of energy is that it does not produce pollutants and thus can mitigate the effect of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emission especially carbon dioxide. It also makes energy supplies more secure as the diversification of energy source will lessen the dependency on fuel imports. It is also a cheap source of energy as one single nuclear power plant can produce tremendous amount of electricity. There are however concerns about the use of nuclear power as an alternative source of energy. Foremost to these concerns is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown just like what happened to Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. Next is the issue of the disposal of radioactive waste which can prove to be deadly when a living thing is exposed, that includes humans, animals and plants. The Chernobyl disaster demonstrated how devastating a nuclear meltdown is that the nearby town of Pripyat in Ukraine still remained uninhabited today after the 1986 disaster and made it a reason why nuclear technology should not be used. The present reality however compels a serious consideration of an alternative source of energy. At present, other sources of energy are already depleted because they are non renewable and needs to be abandoned because they pollute the environment (Armaroli, & Balzani, 2011). Nuclear power provides an excellent alternative because it does not release any pollutants to the atmosphere. Unlike the traditional fossil fuel which converts itself into carbon dioxide during its conversion into electrical energy, nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide because it is not being burned to create electrical energy (Clemmit, 2010). Energy is created in a chemical process which decomposition takes place exothermally that heats up a water to create a steam that would consequently propel the connecting turbine to create electrical energy from a stored chemical energy. This technology was already available since 1600s and may have been first used as a weapon to bomb the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Second World War (Graetz, 2011) but it was only in 1957 that it was first used as a source of energy when the first nuclear power plant was constructed at Pennsylvania when a uranium atom was discovered that could be split to produce sub-atomic particles of high energy content (Kelley, 2008). The nuclear power as a source of energy also proved to be efficient because it only requires a very small amount of raw materials to produce a large quantity of energy (Cavallaro, 2010). Raiput even estimated that it a single nuclear plant could supply energy for an entire country for a long time (2006). It is also cost efficient because it requires minimal cost in its maintenance that could last up to sixty years (the regular lifespan of a nuclear plant is 40 years but can be stretched up to another 20 years)(Weeks, 2006). Of course there are oppositions and disadvantages to the use of nuclear energy. Foremost is the fear of a nuclear meltdown and accident such as what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima, Japan. The recent accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a result of the March 11, 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquakes. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant suffered severe equipment failures that caused a series of fire in the plant leading to the release of radioactive materials in the atmosphere. Given the amount of radioactive material released at Fukushima nuclear power plant after the earthquake, the crisis level has been elevated to Level 7 nuclear crisis similar to the Chernobyl disaster that led many to doubt the safety of nuclear power plant as a source of energy. The Chernobyl disaster in April 1986 was a result of lack of safety culture and was triggered by serious mistakes committed by its plant operators. The consequence of the accident was severe. About “six percent of the radioactive content of the reactor core was released into the atmosphere (Araj, 2008, pg. 16). 31 people died from the accident and 106 more people suffered from serious radiation effects. Its nearby inhabitants of about 116,000 people were also evacuated. Another is the issue of waste disposal. The radioactive waste of a nuclear plant is very toxic that no living things can survive when exposed to it. Such, this raises the question of effective disposal because nuclear waste cannot be just dumped anywhere (Spoolman and Miller 2008). There is also the issue of economics or if a country can afford its construction. While the net effect as to cost in putting up a nuclear power plant to be efficient, the necessary initial resource outlay in constructing a nuclear plant is huge. Developing it requires a lot of money and would require a serious budget consideration. It should be incorporated in the government’s annual budget to ensure that the smooth rolling of its construction (Kelley, 2008). In addition, the money spent for the construction of a nuclear power plant will take a long time to recoup and this could take up to the lifespan of the plant of up to sixty years. Considering the possible issues in putting up a nuclear power plant, this necessitates the involvement of various political and interest groups. Its successful construction depends largely on the goodwill of various stakeholders and this makes their engagement an imperative as the best method to deal with the issue (Sains, 2001). During these involvement and engagements, the safety concerns and possible repercussions of any interest group could be addressed that would ensure that all parties are working together towards the common objective of constructing an energy source that is safe and efficient. In the United States, the expansion of the use of nuclear energy could be a viable alternative to its increasing demand for energy. At present, nuclear power plant as a source of energy only accounts 20% of its energy source and this requires diversification of energy source to ensure that there is enough supply to meet the increasing demand for energy. It has also a political implication because this would mean that United States will no longer be dependent to the Middle East for source of oil. The US engagement in conflict and war in the Middle East was primarily motivated to secure its source of oil. This has tarnished its image abroad that earned implacable enemies and made our security expenditure more expensive. Having enough nuclear power plant that would meet the country’s energy needs will no longer require for the government to look for energy source elsewhere. There is no technology today that is being used that does not have an accompanying risk and this includes the use of nuclear technology as a source of energy. Considering all the benefits of a nuclear power plant against its disadvantages, the use of nuclear energy far outweighs its risk due to its unsurpassed efficiency whereby a single nuclear plant can already supply enough power source for a small country at a much lower cost. It has no carbon dioxide emission which makes it environment friendly and an imperative in today’s changing climate that resulted from environmental degradation. Its accompanying risk while real, can be controlled and minimized with an enhanced safety measures. The present law about safety that stipulates the proper disposal of waste from the nuclear plant (Graetz, 2011) can be enhanced to beef up the security measures of a nuclear plant that would minimize if not eliminate safety risk. Instead of fearing nuclear technology as a source of energy, it should instead be developed and harnessed not only to optimize its energy output but also to be improve its safety features. The previous accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima can be avoided with an improved technology and safety measure because the flaw in design was already identified only that it was ignored that led to the Chernobyl disaster. The same situation applied to Fukushima. Experts have already identified beforehand that the safety measure of the plant was inadequate against the threat of tsunami and again was ignored. With improved technology, these accidents can be avoided if not eliminated in the future. References Armaroli, N., & Balzani, V. (2011). Energy for a sustainable world: from the oil age to a sun- powered future. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Araj, Kamal J.; Fahmy, Nabil; Sompon Chongkum (2008) Why go nuclear?. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Vol. 64 Issue 4, p14-19. Cavallaro, F. (2010). The assessment of nuclear energy costs using a fuzzy approach. Rochester, Rochester: Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/357009665?accountid=38376 Clemmitt, M. (2011). Nuclear power. CQ Researcher, 21, 505-528. Retrieved from http://0-library.cqpress.com.alice.dvc.edu/cqresearcher/ Graetz, M. J. (2011). The end of energy: the unmaking of America's environment, security, and independence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kelley, I. (2008). Energy in America: a tour of our fossil fuel culture and beyond. Burlington, Vt.: University of Vermont Press. Ollhoff, Jim. Nuclear Energy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Rajput, R. K. Power System Engineering. London: Sage Publishers, 2006. Print. Sains, A. (2001). The uncertain future of nuclear energy. Europe, (403), 26-28. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/222972441?accountid=38376 Spoolman, Scott, and Miller, G. Tyler. Sustaining the Earth: An Integrated Approach. New York: Bantam Books, 2008. Print. Weeks, J. (2006). Nuclear Energy. CQ Researcher, 16, 217-240. Retrieved from http://0-library.cqpress.com.alice.dvc.edu/cqresearcher/ Read More