NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In 1986, the head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave this statement. Even if there was this type of accident every year I would consider nuclear power a valid source of energy. The statement came from the man responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants throughout the United States following the Chernobyl accident, which was the worst nuclear accident in the world so far (Hodgson and Marignne 5). Nuclear Energy came into use in 1953. Rather simply, when one of the atoms of fuel in a nuclear reactor absorbs a neutron, the atom sends of two pieces, which will cause two more atoms to split. The split atom also creates fission particles that create ten million times as much heat when stopped then burning coal creates.
The heat is used to boil water into superheated steam, which spins turbines to create electricity (McCarthy 2). Nuclear lobbyists believe that nuclear energy is justifiable because they believe nuclear energy is cleaner and that nuclear energy can supply the world with energy for thousands of years. Unfortunately, these people fail to see not only the flaws in their reasoning, but also the overwhelming reasoning against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants need to be eliminated because they cost far too much, they are extremely dangerous, and they create deadly waste that lasts for centuries.
Those in favor of nuclear energy claim that nuclear power can stop global warming. Hypothetical nuclear power plant A is producing slightly less than twenty-three tons of waste to create a certain amount of electricity. For hypothetical coal burning plant B to create that same amount of energy, over 300, 000 tons of ash would be created as a byproduct (Nuclear Power 4). Today, France derives eighty percent of their electricity form nuclear power. By doing this, France managed to cut their emissions of CO 2, a green house gas, in half (Hodgson and Marignne 3). One major error with using global warming as a reason to push the use of nuclear power energy because it limits CO 2 emissions is that power plants are only a tiny section of the worlds CO 2 emissions.
Anyone who is worried about global warming needs to first take into consideration all the other types of factories as well as the emissions from all the inefficient cars that Americans enjoy driving so much (Hodgson and Marignne 3). France did manage to greatly lower their carbon emissions by creating eleven new nuclear power plants throughout the county. But, following a quick drop in emissions, the carbon levels in France have been steadily rising ever since. Frances emissions of CO 2 are now higher than they were before the new factories were built (Hodgson and Marignne 5). The best and most effective way to control global warming is not to increase the number of or change the kind of power plants, but to change the mentalities of the consumers. Instead of building more and more plants, teach people to use less electricity when they can.
If everyone could do something as simple as turn off a light when they were leaving a room, the immense demand for more power would drop greatly (Hodgson and Marignne 5). Pro-Nuclear power lobbyists also say that nuclear power is capable of supplying the world with energy for thousands of years. The used fuel rods from a nuclear reactor contain large amounts of plutonium, which was created from U- 238 during nuclear fission. These fuel rods can be sent to a reprocessing plant where the fission products are separated from the plutonium.
The extracted plutonium may now be used in a plutonium powered reactor (McCarthy 3). For the more immediate future, there are known deposits of uranium that will fuel nuclear reactors for the next hundreds years (McCarthy 12). The U. S.
reprocessing plant was previously shut down by the Carter administration. Both Bush and Reagan wished to restart the plant, but the public is too uneasy on the topic, so both administrations left the plant be (McCarthy 4). After reprocessing, more radioactive waste is needed to be disposed of. The materials surrounding the reactor in both plants instead of just one become radioactive during the plants use and must be treated as nuclear waste. The plutonium fuel rods coming from reprocessing plants are weapons grade material as apposed to the uranium fuel rods.
The security at nuclear power plants has always been under scrutiny for being too lenient, and there is fear that a terrorist group could break into a plant and steal the fuel rods. With these fuel rods, a bomb could be fashioned with an immense exploding power (Find). First, nuclear power plants are far too expensive for use as an energy source. The nuclear power plant in Limerick, PA was expected to cost on billion dollars to build. The investors were in for a shock when the plant was finished at a total cost of seven billion dollars. For the next eleven years, electricity consumers have been paying an extra two and a half cents per kilowatt-hour to cover for the six billion dollar surprise.
Also, nuclear waste is not dumped into the air like smoke. When the fuel must be replaced, it requires much more care before being disposed of. A nuclear power plant must store their used fuel rods until they can be taken to an underground storage complex. Large swimming pool size tanks of water must be built within the plant area to store the used fuel rods. As the tanks fill up, the plant has no choice but to build more of them at a high price (McCarthy 3). Second, nuclear power plants are much too dangerous.
Fifteen years after the Chernobyl accident, the Ukrainian government is still placing restrictions on the area. 230, 000 sheep from 388 different farms cannot be sold because their meat is contaminated by calcium fallout from the plant (Hodgson and Marignne 5). In the initial blast of the Chernobyl accident, thirty-one people were killed. There after for a substantial amount of time, twenty square miles of land in the vicinity of the Chernobyl plant were an uninhabitable wasteland. Estimates place the number of cancer cases directly caused by the accident across Europe in the thousands (McCarthy 5).
A report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, in 1985 roughly estimates the probability of a severe core melt accident to be approximately 45 percent. The NRC also estimates that such a melt down at New York Citys Indian Point 3 plant would cause as much as 314 billion dollars in damage, and as many as 72, 000 deaths from a melt down at Lancaster Pennsylvania's Peach Bottom 2 reactor (Grossman 3). The fission products left over after fuel rods are used in a nuclear reactor are highly radioactive. After being removed form the nuclear reactor, they must be handled with great care and be placed inside an underground storage facility such as that in Yucca Mountain. Once inside the storage facility, the fission products simply sit and slowly become less radioactive.
The fuel rods require about five hundred years to decay to the point that they are only as radioactive as the uranium ore tat they originated from (McCarthy 7). There are other risks too. But, these risks are due to humans. In 1983, eleven counts of falsifying leak-rate test results were placed on licensees of the Three Mile Island plant.
Also, the Peach Bottom Reactor in Pennsylvania was shut down after it was discovered that the safety-control officers were sleeping during their shift (Jones 4 - 5). Finally, nuclear power plants create highly toxic waste that lasts for centuries. As of now, the Yucca Mountain storage complex 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas is used for high-level nuclear waste. Nuclear waste storage facilities must be stable enough to hold waste safely underground for up to thousands of years.
Frighteningly, the Yucca Mountain facility is surrounded by thirty-two earthquake faults and is reported to have a likely hood of flooding and leakage (Nuclear Performance 2). The governments solution to the problems with nuclear waste is to hide it away in the desert, far from where they will have to think about the effects of the slowly decaying materials. In the governments eyes, Nevada seems to be the perfect place to store all their unwanted toxic waste. Understandably though, the State of Nevada objected to having their state turned into a nuclear dump. In 2002, President Bush passed a bill that overturned the objections and complaints brought up by Nevada, allowing nuclear power companies to use the state as a place to send their unwanted waste (McCarthy 4).
The government also had plans to incorporate what they considered low-level waste into consumer goods. Their goal was to take the metals, which had become radioactive from use in nuclear reactors, and melt them down into everyday items. This seemed acceptable to the government officials who thought up this plan because the metals were only slightly radioactive (Grossman 2). A short-lived plan of launching nuclear waste into space was once considered. Plans were to use shuttle flights to jettison the waste into space or into the sun. It was soon concluded, though, that the shuttle flights were too few and too expensive to use.
A federal law backed this decision in 1982, ordering all American nuclear wastes to be disposed of underground (Claiborne 1). The push for nuclear energy through the arguments of nuclear power being cleaner than other methods of producing electricity and nuclear power being capable of producing electricity for thousands of years may be true, but they are not entirely accurate. If the government stopped putting money into nuclear power, and instead used the money to promote forms of renewable energy the United States could eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. Algal biodiesel is capable of completely filling the demand for Diesel fuel in America (Tickell 53). When one looks at the facts, he will find that these arguments are not nearly as solid as they may sound. Nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous, and creates deadly waste.
For these reasons, nuclear power needs to be eliminated. Anyone who can think clearly and analyze the facts will inevitable come to the conclusion that nuclear power is not a valid source of energy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Claiborne, Ray. Nuclear Waste in Space. New York Times 2 March 2004.
ProQuest. Manheim Township H. S. Library, Lancaster PA. 11 March 2004.
Grossman, Karl. Pushing Ahead. Earth Matters Apr. 2002: n. p. SIRS Researcher.
SIRS Knowledge Source. Manheim Township H. S. Library, Lancaster PA. 10 March 2004 < web >. Hodgson, Peter; Marignne, Yves. Is Nuclear Power a Viable Solution to Climate Change?
Ecologist Sept. 2001: 20 - 23 SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. Manheim Township H. S. Library, Lancaster, PA. 9 March 2004 < web > Jones, Arthur. Americas Aging Nuclear Reactors National Catholic Reporter.
SIRS Knowledge Source. Manheim Township H. S. Library, Lancaster, PA. 10 Mar. 2004 < web >. McCarthy, John.
Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy Progress and its Sustainability < web > 10 March 2004. Nuclear Performance Monthly Nuclear Energy Institute (Feb 2004) < web >. 9 March 2004 Nuclear Power and the Environment. Department of Energy May 2003: n. p. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source.
Manheim Township H. S. Library, Lancaster, PA. 9 Mar. 2004 < web >. Tickell, Joshua. From the Free to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel. Lexington, LA: Tickell Energy Consultants, 2000
Free research essays on topics related to: sirs researcher, chernobyl accident, fuel rods, nuclear reactor, nuclear power plants
Research essay sample on Nuclear Power Plants Sirs Researcher
