NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANTS.   Term Paper ID:17908 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines arguments on benefits & hazards. Energy crisis, safety factors, thermal pollution, nuclear waste, meltdown possibility.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 8 sources, 10 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines arguments on benefits & hazards. Energy crisis, safety factors, thermal pollution, nuclear waste, meltdown possibility. Paper Introduction: Nuclear power plants, or using nuclear power to generate electricity, are a controversial topic in contemporary society. Proponents of nuclear power believe that the amount of inexpensive energy derived from nuclear power plants far outweighs the danger, while critics of the industry often point to the extraordinary dangers that could occur if an accident happened. For instance, imagine that a nuclear power plant is located on a natural geologic fault. The fault produces a powerful earthquake of a higher magnitude than the designers of the plant ever envisioned. During the earthquake, the reactor core is cracked, and poisonous radioactive particles are released into the air forming a dangerous cloud. As the prevailing winds push that cloud over a larger area, it drops poisonous debris over the land, killing and changing the ecological balance of the Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Duringthe earthquake, the reactor core is cracked, and poisonous radioactiveparticles are released into the air forming a dangerous cloud. Little middle ground exists between this position and the position that nuclear power is an energy source only, and a benign one compared with the alternatives (Wood, 1983, p. ." (Kaku &Trainer, 1982, p. Lewis, E. (1977). Nuclear power and itsenvironmental effects. (1976). (1976, February 9). Nevertheless, the study alsofound that there were trace levels of radioactive material in the river andconcluded that, although the levels were far above safety ranges, some ofthe radiation from the plant was "leaking" into the waste system itself(Merriman, 1976, pp. This story, antagonists of nuclear power say, is not that difficultto imagine. First, it must be noted thatthe NRC is a Federal Agency, and has the power to oversee all aspects ofthe use and dissemination of nuclear power. 51-54). For itseems, a dichotomous relationship exists between the economic and socialfactors surrounding nuclear power. J. One the one hand, the energy needs ofthe population are steadily growing; on the other hand, as people becomemore aware of the environment and their own safety, choices become evenmore difficult to make. (1989). The Diablo Canyon plant, built and operated by Pacific Gas andElectric on the California coast and just twelve miles distant from SanLuis Obispo, is, in fact, located near a dangerous fault ("A Nuclear,"1976, p. California Poll, #15 8. NewYork: W.W. 74). 55). H. 468-48 ). We have already mentioned the thermalpollution hazards, and while it is not clear to what extent the potentialis damaging to wildlife, it is almost certain that some damage will occur.Second, there is always the possibility for radiation leaks, if not overt,then into the ground water or soil. According tocritics, the plants take in thousands of gallons of water each minute,pouring it back out into the waterway that feeds it at a temperature twentydegrees or more higher than it originated. (1982). E. Berger, J. Time, 74. 135). Their study showed that the flow of warmer water tended toremain in a high central area of the river, where it was easily avoided bythose water animals who needed to do so. With such a variety of scenarios and positions being advocated, whatis one to make of the nuclear power debate? "If wedeny ourselves nuclear energy," said Philip Handler, President of theNational Academy of Sciences, "we are heading for a real catastrophe downthe road. Even geographical locations where nuclearpower is needed, pollsters and legislators are often finding that thepublic is less and less willing to utilize the option of nuclear power,preferring instead something safer (Field, 1989, p. Nuclear power: The inviable option. Indeed, thedangers of nuclear power have taken on an international format, especiallyafter the recent Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union. After the metallic materials are used as"cooling rods," within the reactor itself, they must be removed and cooled. Nuclear power and the public safety.Lexington: D.C. Merriman, D. It now appears that although initially safe, thepossibility exists that even a minor mistake could prove disastrous for theplant (Sewis, 1977). This waste, much of it with a half life of several thousandyears (it would take several thousand years for one-half of the dangerousradiation to naturally dissipate), is often stored in containers that areburied or dumped into the ocean. Gittus, J. Third, the issue of what to do withthe waste materials from nuclear power plants has plagued even the mostardent advocate of nuclear power. As theprevailing winds push that cloud over a larger area, it drops poisonousdebris over the land, killing and changing the ecological balance of thearea. Wood, W. It seems that the longer reactorsare in use, the more unstable some of the materials used in construction ofthe reactor become. Combined with the oil crisis in the late197 s, Americans became increasingly alarmed about energy, some evenpredicting doom if nuclear power was not adopted on a large scale. Nuclear power plants, or using nuclear power to generate electricity,are a controversial topic in contemporary society. (1988). 136). (1989). Thus, the economic benefits of nuclear power plants take on both asocial and cultural significance. 7). S. Glasstone, S., & Jordan, W. What is especially changing in the 198 s, say many experts, is thefact that many individuals are becoming even more aware of the issue andare demanding a say in the decisions about placement, or even theviability, of nuclear power plants (Berger, 1977, p. However, it is just this claim than many opponents find unpalatable.In fact, the four major arguments against nuclear power plants show that interms of safety, environmental pollution and waste, and the possibility ofmeltdown make the use of nuclear power, given the current technologicalwisdom, a dangerous and unwise option. Since the containers are metallic, thepossibility of leaks or rusting are of concern. Norton. Heath. (1979). In contrast: For those who see nuclear power not just as an energy source, but as a symbol of disturbing trends in society, no amount of nuclear safety is enough, and nuclear safety issues are only a vehicle for opposition. 162). Even in its brief thirty yearhistory, the NRC has attempted to attain and maintain certain standards.However, "it seems there must inevitably be a tension between the demand tomake a new product commercially available and the demand to dullyunderstand the implications of large-scale commercial use before it isused" (Rolph, 1979, p. Bennet, D. . Field, M. Kaku, M., & Trainer, J. Proponents of nuclearpower believe that the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), a remake of theolder Atomic Energy Commission, is both powerful and sufficiently educatedto establish safe and effective controls on the industry. The Chernobyl accident and its consequences.London: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Theirony is that Americans continue to demand cheap energy, but are reluctantto embrace alternate technology. Nuclear safety - risks and regulation.Washington, DC: American Enterprise for Public Policy Research.----------------------- 1 The fault produces a powerful earthquake of ahigher magnitude than the designers of the plant ever envisioned. This desire to have a say in the nuclear issue stems from manysources, but none so rampant as the claim that has been leveled at nuclearpower plants for causing thermal and radioactive pollution. Asa power source then, some still see that safety measures can be effectivelyenforced and nuclear power plants can be made to function for a ever"energy-needy" population, albeit, not without expense and precaution(Bennet, 1989, pp. H. New York: JohnWiley. C. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt. Nuclear power: Both sides. [There will come] a day when we will simply not have enoughenergy to meet the nation's needs" (Kaku & Trainer, 1982, p. Thus, the issue becomes one of emotion, and no amount of governmentalregulation will alleviate the fears many have of the subject.Nevertheless, as we will see later in this paper, the NRC has a fairly goodtrack record in proportion to the number and seriousness of theenvironmental and social hazards from nuclear generating plants. The rods themselves are radioactively unsafe, as is the liquid used tocool them. For instance, imagine that a nuclear power plant is located on anatural geologic fault. Rolph, E. (1989, August 1 ). Nuclear power and thermal ecology. (198 . This is exactly what happened at Chernobyl, and althoughthe situation was contained, it still caused enormous ecologicalconsequences. In the 198 s however, nuclear power has become an even greaterpolitical issue that has been thrust into national prominence. Even asmall plant operating normally has the potential to damage from 1 to 2 people per year - without an accident. La Grange Park: American Nuclear Society. NewYork: Dell. (1983). The issues involved, moreover, tend to emerge in several polararguments. D. References Bailey, C. New York:Wiley. But, where does the safety factor fit in? 14-26). A nuclear horror. One of the most often quoted, and clearest, benefits of nuclearpower is one of economics. Thus, the debate continues. The aftermath of Chernobyl: History's worstnuclear power reactor accident. Many utility companies remained steadfast, believingthat it was an absolute necessity to establish a new and renewable sourceof inexpensive energy for an increasingly urban American population. Nuclear power reactor safety. Sharp increase in opposition tooffshore oil drilling, majority opposes building more nuclear power plants. The Elements of nuclear power. If this were to happen in a more populace area, the humanand ecological costs would be enormous, and no amount of safety precautionscould prevent natural disasters from contributing to such a scenario(Glasstone & Jordan, 198 ). (1977). YaleReview, 65(Spring), 468-8 . For example, thehealth and safety effects of a coal generating plant can be severe. As the public's awareness aboutnuclear power grows, and the scientific and industrial with it, many of theoriginal platitudes have turned into fear. What manyphysicists believed to be true about nuclear power in the 196 s has provedto be unreliable in the later decades. 15 8). America needs an inexpensive source ofenergy, one that is not directly dependent on foreign relations or the whimof the international market. Finally, the most diredanger of nuclear power plants is that of a complete meltdown in thereactor's core. At the same time, the cost per unit ofelectrical output may sometimes force voters into the option of nuclearpower, since in many areas the generating of power through water or othernatural resources has become so expensive that it is almost prohibitive.In the same light, if nuclear power plants can contribute to environmentalefficiency, by preventing the loss of nonrenewable natural resources, thenthe scale is tipped toward the use of nuclear power as a viable option. In such a view, the disturbing trends symbolized by nuclear plants include most prominently the proliferation of nuclear weapons. C. In contrast, however, a studydone by the builders of the Connecticut Yankee atomic power plant at HaddanNeck, Connecticut, found that the ecosystem of the river there refutes thiscriticism. As the decade progressed though, construction costs rosetremendously, coupled with high interest rates, and resulted in a lesseningof ordered plants. That disaster,say many scientists and policy makers, has changed the way people all overthe world look at nuclear power, and has even swayed some die-hardsupporters away from blanket approvals for nuclear power plants (Bailey,1988). Proponents of nuclearpower believe that the amount of inexpensive energy derived from nuclearpower plants far outweighs the danger, while critics of the industry oftenpoint to the extraordinary dangers that could occur if an accidenthappened. The biological and environmental effects of nuclear power plants areseen by some as insurmountable. Yet, nuclear plants, properlyregulated, produce far less of a threat to society as a whole (Wood, 1983,pp. This may be inresponse to the Chernobyl disaster, but it clearly has impact on the socialand political planning for the 199 s. In many studies, the originalviews on reactor safety have had to undergo serious revision. In fact,the benefits from nuclear power plants can be summed up as the desire toprovide inexpensive, reliable sources of energy, with minimal damage to thenatural environment. As far back as the early 196 s, "Americanutility companies regarded nuclear power as the cheapest energy source.Reactor sales continued to be strong in the early 197 s; between 1972 and1974, 11 nuclear plants were ordered in the United States . J. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.