Example research essay topic: Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plants - 719 words

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

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island Chernobyl and Three Mile Island bring visions of mushroom clouds, destruction, death. What do they have in common? They were both nuclear accidents. They bring up a serious question: Just how safe is nuclear energy? There are many viewpoints on the topic, but most are polluted with myths and ignorance.

With the popularity of the prime-time cartoon The Simpsons, many people s view on the topic have been distorted. The father (Homer) is an under trained, high-school failure, self-admitted bone-head who works in a nuclear power plant for a money-hoarding oldman. Many opinions on nuclear energy have actually been distorted by this TV show. They are untwisting, disbelieving and skeptical of nuclear energy. Their views are unrealistically morbid, however there IS a grain justification behind their worry. Considering the risks involved with nuclear energy, the possibility for catastrophe is far greater than their potential.

In fact, a review board for the Atomic Energy Control Board wrote to the Canadian Treasury Board in regards to the CANDU nuclear reactors (one of the most popular and widely-used design in the world): When modern nuclear power plants were being designed in Canada two decades ago, their complexity and potential for catastrophic consequences were recognized. The plants were designed to high standards, and special safety systems were incorporated. Reactor designers and owners adopted relatively simple process for evaluating plant safety. Since that time, experience in Canada and the rest of the world has demonstrated that this approach to safety is too simplistic. It is recognized now that, through the combination of a series of comparatively common failures which, on their own, are of little consequence, accidents can develop in a myriad of ways (as demonstrated most vividly at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl).

The consequences of a severe accident can be very high. The accident at Chernobyl has cost the Soviet economy about $ 16 billion including replacement power costs. Three Mile Island has cost the USA $ 4. 8 billion. CANDU plants cannot be said to be either more or less safe than other types. 1 This having been said, just how safe is nuclear energy? Th Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility believes that there are business advantages to dismantling unnecessary nuclear power plants: The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA estimates that there will be about 100 nuclear power reactors, world-wide, needing decommissioning (a euphemism for dismantlement) by the first decade of tenet century. Each decommissioning job will cost at least $ 100 million, some are talking about ten billion dollars in business opportunities! 2 Not only that, there is a serious safety issue concerning these plants.

First of all, the system used for cooling the nuclear core of atlanta relies on a pipe system called feeder pipes. These pipes transport the cooling material to the nuclear core, preventing it from going into meltdown (a term coined because the containment walls of the core actually melt due to the extreme heat). Now, as a plant ages, the feeder pipes corrode. As this happens, some of the efficiency of the cooling system isles.

This process continues until the pipes have broken down completely, thereby eradicating the cooling system totally. This usually occurs solos to the core where it is unsafe to repair the pipes on a regular basis, and is a very costly proposition. With this in mind, plants don t replace the pipes at all, and are moving ever closer to the brink of disaster. The time has come to decide: Is nuclear power worth the cost needed to be used safely and effectively? In light of the evidence presented, the answer would have tobe no. The high safety and monetary cost, the past disasters, the income lost to the plants, any reasonable person would have to say that nuclear power is not worth the cost.

Anyone who disagrees with this statement must ask themselves this: Is abundant energy worth ultimate disaster? Sources: 1: AECB (Atomic Energy Control Board) 1989 Report to the Canadian Treasury Board. Ontario, Canada: Atomic Energy Control Board 19892. Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Dec 14, 1996, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility Home Page, available at: web accessed Sunday, February 9 th, 19963. Nuke Quebec? , Dec 18 1996, ACEB report of Gently- 2 CANDU reactor, web accessed Saturday, Febuary 8 th, 1996

Research essay sample on Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plants