Nuclear Power

Over the years, nuclear power plants were built or have been built to generate electricity form the nuclear power for the purpose of saving world's resources.  Then, the danger of the nuclear power can not be ignored as well.  The most horrible nuclear accident in twenty-five years in Japan, Fukushima Daiichi, 2011 has forced people to consider such issue seriously.  That accident displaced fifty thousand people's houses the moment the radiation emitted into the air, soil, and the ocean.  Later on, the results of the examination of the radiation turned out that it is forbidden  shipments of vegetable and fish.  Thus, even though some people approve the constant construction of nuclear power plants, I tend to oppose nuclear power plants as concerning of its radioactive waste, reactor safety, and huge costs.

 

        First of all, the biggest problem with the nuclear power plants is the radioactive waste generated during the production of energy, which, to every people, is an undesirable and dangerous by-product.  The radioactive waste produced from nuclear power plant is harmful because it is almost impossible to dispose of without destroying or harming the environment.  As long as the emissions of the radioactive materials from nuclear power plants are released outside of the power plants, they go into the air, water, and soil; thus, they are influential to all living things in the environment and are detrimental as well.  Moreover, solid waste products generated from the nuclear reactor that are radioactive too, cause long-term problems.  In this point of view, radioactive nuclear wastes are usually put inside tangible constructions and buried under the ground because by this manner, it is found to be efficient at containing radioactivity.  Then, these locations to contain radioactivity must be taken care of for thousands of years to make sure that the toxic wastes are not set free by mistake as that could contaminate the whole planet.  The action described above all actually, would be an endless process unless there are better ways to get rid of those radioactive waste.  Because, by the time the radioactivity from today's nuclear wastes are poured down, there would be new radioactive waste to dump from tomorrow's nuclear plants, posing the fact that the radioactive and dangerous remaining lasts for thousands of years, and eventually making them virtually a permanent hazard.  In short, nuclear power plants are damaging toward the environment in the perspective of their radioactive wastes. 

 

        Second, a nuclear accident that resulted in controlling and manipulating the reactors wrongly would be happened easily.  The danger here is that the heat the reactor produced would go beyond the ability of the reactor coolant to contain, causing the nuclear reaction.  Typically, a cooling system is created to remove the heat from the core of the reactor and transport the heat to another area of the nuclear power plant, where the boiling energy can be constantly produced electricity or did other work.  In other words, the hot coolant is used as a heat source for a boiler, and the steam from that  boiler powers is under the pressure; then, one or more steam turbine driven electrical generators.  Sometimes, the heat of the reactor would get out of control.  And, this could cause system failures, and then the radioactivity would be released into the environment.  Even worse, according to Edwin Thomas, "the reacting nuclear material burns or melts through its containment vessel into the ground, and then into the water table.  This would throw a huge cloud of radioactive steam and debris into the atmosphere.  Accidents of this type have the potential to release radioactivity over an immense area."  Similarly, Stephanie Cooke reported that "the reactors themselves were enormously complex machines with an huge number of things that could go wrong."  Having a look into the terrible nuclear accident occurred at Three Mile in 1979, which resulted from an unexpected chain reactions of many mistakes.  In other words, one reaction affected another one until the reactor itself cooled down.  To find out the reason, Charles Perrow (1984) in his book Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, concluded that " the failure at Three Mile Island was a consequence of the system's immense complexity. Such modern high-risk systems were prone to failures however well they were managed.  It was inevitable that they would eventually suffer normal accident. Therefore, we might do better to contemplate a radical redesign, or if that was not possible, to abandon such technology entirely."  In brief, according the reasons illustrated above, reactors are considered dangerous either in the view of how they work or how they are manipulated.

       

        Third, the expense is very high as concerning the construction of the nuclear power plant, the life time of a nuclear reactor, and the way of generating electricity.  Building the nuclear power plant is the first huge cost.  According to the 2005 federal Energy Policy Act, several larger subsidies should be included when concerning of building a nuclear power plant.  For one thing, two billion would be paid to companies for any costs on getting the license and replacing new reactors, which the money could buy six reactors.  And, that payment includes days of the delay by Nuclear Regulatory Commission or litigation.  For another, almost eighty percent of the cost of a nuclear power plant is from loaning.  Then, if three nuclear power plants are unable to pay their debts, six billion dollars, due to Congressional Budget Office's calculation, would be the total cost.  Still another, in the first eight years of the nuclear power plant's operation, five hundred and seventy million would be provided for liability insurance and tax credit.  The other one is that two hundred and ninety million for research and development.  In other words, the construction would not be financially feasible without those subsidies.  Besides, nuclear reactors' life time are short and break down easily, and they are costly to be replaced.  Usually, a nuclear reactor only lasts for about forty to fifty years, so it is extremely productive.  According to a staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he reported that "building a new 1,000 megawatt (MW) reactor could cost up to $7.5 billion."  In the view of that fact, it is horrible to imagine how incredible the expenses will be if reactors break down one by one.  Moreover, the nuclear power is considered to be more expensive when generating electricity.  According to the United States Department of Energy, when all costs are factored in, nuclear power costs an estimated $59.30/MWH.  This is expensive when compared to other means of generating electricity, such as, clean wind power is $55.60/MWH; coal $53.10/MWH; and natural gas $52.50/MWH.  In short, due to the previous-mentioned aspects, the expenditure of the nuclear power is tremendously high.

       

        In conclusion, it is obvious that although nuclear energy remains one of the most important technologies of the present, the many drawbacks might make it be replaced in the future.



References

1. Prabhakar Pillai (2012). Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Power.  Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-and disadvantages-of-nuclear-power.html

2. Edwin Thomas (n. d.). Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Technology. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.ehow.com/about_4741367_advantages-disadvantages-nuclear-technology.html#ixzz2DzvgwYsL

 

3. Wikipedia (2012). Nuclear power plant. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_facilities

 

4. Robert Vaux (n. d.). Advantages & Disadvantages on Nuclear Power. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.ehow.com/about_4780053_advantages-disadvantages-nuclear-power.html#ixzz2DzvMPTZV

5. Wikipedia (2012). Template:Nuclear power plant safety. Retrieved December 18, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nuclear_power_plant_safety

6. the_man101 (2006) Retrieved December 3, from http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070522054924AAJ35tD

7. Ridlington E., T. Telleen-Lawton, and J. Neumann (2007). The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor. Baltimore: Maryland PIRG Foundation.