Nuclear_Power

The Significance of Investing in Nuclear Power Energy Carlotta Collins SCI: 207 Dependence on Man in the Environment Dr. Dariush Azimi August 15, 2011 In the last decade, nuclear energy has been used by many developed countries around the world with testing the applicability of the energy source. However, the apparent benefits have come with ramifications that have left the inventors counting losses. This is the reason why this innovation has been surrounded by various arguments that have emphasized on the need for exploring safer alternative sources of energy. Drawing examples from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown provide an analysis of the risks versus the rewards of investing in nuclear energy. The major selling point following the implementation of nuclear power plants is based on no emission of carbon dioxide. Therefore supporting this source of energy is based on the global warming threat (which results from the carbon dioxide) outweighs the potential threats such as local meltdowns in Chernobyl. The truth of this claim is yet doubtful. When everything has been said and done (between extraction of uranium and oil enriching, and constructing and operating a plant), approximately more than 0.25 million tons of carbon dioxide is produced by a 1,200 megawatt nuclear facility during its lifetime (OECD, 2007). Being factual, more than 25 million tones have been produced in entire U.S. Well, this should not sound like a lot without looking at the other side. In contrast, carbon dioxide amounting to almost 2.2 billion tons is produced annually only in U.S. from coal energy (OECD, 2007). Other pollutants are also emitted in the process. This pollution includes soot that causes lung related complications, sulphur dioxide that result in acid rain and smog, and mercury, which contaminates aquatic life (Charles, 2007). In fact, at least one death is caused by nuclear power, coal kills 4,000 (ratio of 1: 4000). The events in the Chernobyl nuclear incident in Ukraine drew a clear example of the risks that can be associated with nuclear accidents. In this nuclear energy disaster, there was an eruption to the environment of an unknown amount of plutonium, cesium, and plutonium (these are very radioactive elements). This 1986 accident resulted in instant deaths starting with 300 to more than 5 million people affected by the radiation spread (Charles, 2007). In addition, more than 4,200 people developed thyroid cancer. This was due to consuming radioactive milk. In Japan, its radioactive contaminated products found their way out of the country spreading globally. Worse still, the winds drifting because of radioactivity affected the West Coast region (Charles, 2007). The nuclear explosion at the Fukushima power plant (located in Sendai region) provides another example of the risks associated with this source of energy. Triggered by the tsunami and 8.8 magnitude earthquakes, this March 11, 2011 nuclear accident crippled the power supply from this plant. The death toll from the plant hit 1,750 by March 16 with more than 10 thousand people reported to be missing (Schiffman, 2011). The displacement resulted in more than 200,000 people moving to emergency shelters in an event that has attracted 52, 000 rescuers. Another great concern to the nuclear power is handling of radioactive waste. As soon as Uranium- which if the fuel is depleted, the disposal channels have to be very secure and safe. Supporting these claims, (Charles, 2007) insists that the radioactivity of the nuclear waste continues for thousands of years. Furthermore, storing these wastes in secluded mountains may not be able to offer a permanent solution. For instance in the US waste disposal, the Yucca Mountain repository does not provide sufficient space. In conclusion, one of the benefits cited in nuclear energy is its ability to save the world from carbon dioxide emissions, which have disastrous effects to the ozone layer. Examples from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Chernobyl nuclear meltdown highlight the catastrophic risk as one of the many inhibitors of implementing nuclear power energy. Another negative impact highlighted is that of the long time that it takes before the depletion of the nuclear waste. The nuclear energy risks are not comparable to the coal energy, which has global effects. Therefore, it is wise to recommend investing in nuclear power energy. References Charles D. (2007). Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks. In Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NuclearEnergyCSR28.pdf OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, (2007). Risks and benefits of nuclear energy. OECD Publishing. Pp. 1-88 Schiffman, S., (2011). Green Issues and Debates: An A-to-Z Guide. Sage. Pp. 23-256. Trevor F., (2010). The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation: Overview, the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, pp. 10-11.