Power is important to human beings as it is used for many purposes. All the sources of energy have their own drawbacks even those considered to be safe. For instance, energy sources like hydropower have their limitations although many people consider them to be safe.
However, developing nuclear alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy is more dangerous than using the fossil fuels as sources of energy. This essay will discuss the dangers of nuclear sources of energy by focusing on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster resulted from an earthquake that caused nuclear reactors to shut down. After the earthquake struck, action was taken immediately where control rods were fixed at the nuclear plant to stop the nuclear reactions. The external supply of power to the nuclear plant was disrupted by the earthquake.
Disruption of power supply was a dangerous occurrence in the nuclear power plant. During the first hour of power disruption, diesel generators reserved for emergency cases were used to supply power. However, the arrival of the tsunami filled the generators with water causing them to stop functioning. Tsunamis had occurred in different areas but the one that hit Fukushima was unexpected. The engineers responded by using the containment structure to store everything.
Failure of the diesel generators as a result of flooding forced the engineers to use reactors run by batteries. However, the batteries sustained the reactors for eight hours after which they went off causing the amount of residual heat to increase beyond the limits. At this moment, there were speculations that core meltdown was likely to take place due to increased temperatures. However, it was still not possible but the most urgent action was to look for a way of dealing with the core as heating continued (Turk & Bensel, 2011).
The process of cooling core was one of the most important processes. As a result, several cooling systems had been inserted in the reactor. The engineers did not establish the system that failed in its operation while the absence of power caused the cooling systems to lose their cooling ability. The reactors finally started releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere.
The gases did not pose health risks to the operators and the surrounding people since they were controlled. Later on, generators were moved into the plant to restore power. However, there was still a lot of water boiling which reduced the efficiency of the cooling systems. The fuel rods were heated until reactions that produced hydrogen gas occurred. The combustible nature of hydrogen when exposed to the air caused the explosion.
Chernobyl disaster was described as the worst nuclear accident in the 20th century. Many people were curious about the disaster but it was really a terrifying experience. The day the accident occurred had started well but finally it changed the lives of people who lived near the nuclear plant. It was reported that fire had broken out at the nuclear power plant. The lieutenant who went to the plant to check the situation discovered that there was debris all over the nuclear plant.
This was an indication that danger was in the offing. The level of radiation in the nuclear plant had gone up, something that prompted fire fighters to start putting off the blaze by using water only. As they continued fighting the blaze, some of them were taken to hospital after showing symptoms of sickness. The burning of the fire continued with no evidence of harmful effects to the surroundings
After the first day of the nuclear accident, people started exhibiting signs of sickness. It took eight days for the fire to be put off during which six firefighters died in the process. Investigations were conducted and it was discovered that the fire in the nuclear plant was caused by numerous errors.
One of the errors that were discovered was an operator error caused by the management. In addition, organization of the nuclear plant was responsible for some problems that were experienced. For instance, the tests at the nuclear plant were conducted by an engineer who was not experienced in dealing with reactors (World-Nuclear, 2011).
From the experiences of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, it is evident that the use of nuclear energy is risky. The risks associated with the energy are more than the rewards. This is because disasters that occur in nuclear energy plants result into deaths.
For example, the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown led to loss of many lives. These disasters were also associated with long term health problems on human beings. It is therefore important to look for alternative power sources since the risks associated with nuclear energy are more than the rewards.
References
Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2011). Contemporary environmental issues. San Diego: CA Bridgepoint Education.
This research was carried out in Iran by Terror Free Tomorrow, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that has conducted numerous research activities across many countries. The research covered several areas but mainly focused on Iranians’ views regarding their country’s nuclear ambitions, its economy, and its isolation from the West. Other research topics included the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war in Iraq, the Iranian system of government, and Iran’s relation to the US and the West. On the question of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the research found out that nuclear arms were lowly considered important by Iranians. Indeed, they insist that the government should provide unlimited access for inspectors and give an assurance not to engage in the activity in exchange for foreign aid. The Iranians also willed to live in a democratic country open to the US and the West and vehemently opposed the current system of government, where the Supreme Leader governs in accordance to the religious principles and cannot be elected through citizen votes.
Sampling design
The sample used for the study was drawn from a random national sample of 1,000 Iranians aged 18 and above from June 5th to 18th, 2007. The population of the country during the research stood at 71.532 million persons. However, the sampling frame, i.e. those eligible for the study were approximately 51.5 million persons. The target sample was a random selection of Iranian citizens, both male, and female, and aged above 18 years. The sample was to cover all the 30 provinces of Iran with the number allocated to each province proportional to the province’s population.
Contacts from each province were randomly selected from telephone exchanges within each province by randomizing digits to generate telephone numbers. Both the starting point and households within each exchange were picked randomly with recognition of the fact that telephone numbers are unselectively given by the Iranian government and are a combination of both business and residential numbers. Respondents within each household were picked using the “Last Birthday” method.
The participants were contacted by telephone from a nearby country outside Iran. During the process of recruiting participants, 2,124 persons were contacted. Out of this number, 465 resulted in non-contacts while another 8 contact attempts resulted in non-eligible respondents as they were not Iranian citizens. Out of the remaining 1,651 successful contacts, 651 refused to participate in the research leading to a 60.6% response rate. The final sample used for the research was similar to that of official national population data from Iran in terms of demography. Telephone interviewing was employed instead of face-to-face interviews due to the political and social aspects that the latter entails. Face-to-face interviewing can be challenging for both the interviewers and interviewees: the former are at a high risk of prosecution and imprisonment while interviewing the latter poses some social considerations especially if they are women. In addition, Iran has a large landline telephone penetration of more than 90% and thus it was a cheaper alternative.
Conclusion
The overall sample used for the research, i.e. 1,000 individuals, was not representative of the population to which it was drawn. However, the researchers employed valid randomization procedures and this resulted in a sample that was demographically representative of the whole population.
Nuclear power in description is a contained nuclear fission that generates electricity and heat. Nuclear power plants provide about 6% of the world’s energy and 14% of electricity. Nuclear energy is neither green nor sustainable energy because of the life threatening aspect from its wastes and the nuclear plants themselves.
Another reason is that its only source of raw material is only available on earth. On the other hand, nuclear energy is a non-renewable energy because of the scarcity of its source fuel, uranium, which has an estimation of about 30 to 60 years before it becomes extinct (Florida State University 1).
Nuclear power pros
Nuclear power has quite a number of pros associated with its use. The first pro of nuclear energy is that it emits little pollution to the environment. A power plant that uses coal emits more radiation than nuclear powered plant. Another pro of nuclear energy is that it is reliable.
Because of the fact that nuclear plants uses little fuel, their vulnerability to natural disasters or strikes is limited. The next pro is safety that nuclear energy provides. Safety is both a pro and a con, depending on what point of view one takes. Nevertheless, even though results from a reactor can be disastrous, prevention mechanisms for it work perfectly well with it. Another pro that is associated with nuclear energy is efficiency.
In considering the different economic viewpoints, nuclear energy offers the best solution in energy provision and is more advantageous. In addition, we have portability as the next pro of nuclear energy. A high amount of nuclear energy can be contained in a very small amount of volume. Lastly, the technology that nuclear energy adopts is readily available and does not require development before use (Time for change.org 1).
Nuclear power cons
On the other hand, nuclear energy has a number of cons that are associated with its usage. First is the problem of radioactive waste, whereby nuclear energy waste from it is extremely dangerous and needs careful look-up.
The other con of nuclear energy is that of its waste storage. A good number of wastes from nuclear energy are radioactive even thousands of years later since they contain both radioactive and fissionable materials. These materials are removable through a process called reprocessing which is through clearing all the fissionable materials in the nuclear fuel.
The next con of nuclear energy is the occurrence of a meltdown. A meltdown can be the worst-case scenario that can ever occur in a nuclear energy plant because its effects are deadly. The effects of a meltdown are very huge with estimation that radioactive contamination can cover a distance of over a thousand miles in radius. The final downturn associated with nuclear energy is radiation. Radiation mostly is associated with effects such as cancer, mutation and radiation sickness (Green Energy, Inc. 1).
Impacts of nuclear energy on the society
Social
The society being an association that has people of diverse ideologies and faiths regarding the production and consumption of energy, and economic goods, to the good life and good society. Nuclear energy should serve social justice and quality of life rather than being looked upon as end in it.
Ethical
The existence of technology is purposely for serving human needs; it can destroy people and human values, deliberately or by unintended consequences. Because of this, the technological processes are guided by values that require constant public scrutiny and discussion.
Political
Nuclear energy has implications towards the political viewpoint in that a country might wish to take advantage of its nuclear weapons to gain control of others. This will deprive others of their democratic rights coexist within their territory without interference of intruders.
Legal impacts
In terms of the legal impacts of nuclear energy, there are regulations that gives rights to who or which organizations have the authority to own nuclear facilities. The legal implications also target what specific standards are set out for adequate protection and what risks are not acceptable.
Summary
From the above discussion, in comparing the pros and cons of nuclear energy, one can conclude that as much as nuclear energy has severe effects to people and environment it also has varied benefits. In my own viewpoint, I presume to counter with the cons rather than the pros. It is evident what devastating effect nuclear energy has on the environment and as much as it benefits the environment through low pollution, in case of an accident and there is a meltdown the whole environment will be wiped out.
In a moral standpoint, I believe that lives of people are more important than energy sources. In as much as we would wish to have the most reliable energy source, our lives is the most important than any other thing (Florida State University 1).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident from the mentioned pros and cons that nuclear energy is not the all-time solution to any problem. One can argue that to the extreme it is much of a problem source that a solution. In an effort to getting a good life, withstanding the ethical and moral issues, we should always strive for sustaining our lives to the best way possible. Nevertheless, many of the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nuclear power require determinate, immediate, distinct, significant actions (Falk 1).
Works Cited
Falk, Jim. Global Fission: The Battle over Nuclear Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.
Florida State University. “Pros of Nuclear Power.” eng.fsu.edu. FSU, n.d. Web.
Green Energy, Inc. “Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power.” greenenergyhelpfiles.com. Green Energy, n.d. Web.
Ionizing radiations cause harm to the environment and remain a challenge to the public health. Nuclear power is beneficial but also poses a great risk to the population. In fuel plants, nuclear power is marked by radioactive materials, which could be very detrimental, in case a disaster occurs. This is because they contain ionizing radiation that could lead to genetic mutations and malignancies such as leukemia. As Iliffe (1984) ascertains, the biological impacts of nuclear disaster are dependent upon the dosage, type and time of exposure to radiation. Nuclear technology is part of our lives especially now that the world is pursuing alternative sources of fuel. Besides, nuclear medicine is equally important in diagnosing and treating diseases. However, the same nuclear has continued to impede the human civilizations as depicted by nuclear disasters such as that of Chernobyl. Nuclear technology has therefore, triggered controversial debates globally and dictate the nuclear choices to be undertaken. This paper shall give a detailed discussion of impacts of man-made disasters such as those caused by nuclear energy from a biological perspective that includes radiation, cells system and genetic mutation as well as human diseases.
Chernobyl Nuclear Power station
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine experienced a nuclear disaster that is considered as the most horrible in the world’s history. It comprised of four reactors, used for the production of electric power. A nuclear disaster ensued on 26th April, 1986 under the very influence of the reactor operators (Onishi et al., 2007). An explosion that was characterized by huge emission of radioactive materials led to atmospheric contamination not only in Ukraine but also in USSR and other parts of Europe. It started in the course of the system testing in the fourth reactor located at Prypiat. It was followed by an abrupt power output flow that resulted to the blasting of the reactor vessel. As a result, graphite moderator in the reactor was released into the atmosphere and ignited into a fire, whose radioactive content spread extensively. Several thousand cancer deaths were later implicated to the Chernobyl nuclear accident. This nuclear disaster raised eyebrows regarding safety of nuclear plants (Onishi et al., 2007).
Radiation, Radioactivity and Chemistry of Radiation
Natural sources of radiation include Radon gas, which is related to cause lung cancer. In addition, cosmic radiations emanate from the outer space and include the gamma rays, which have ions with a positive charge and consist of much energy that exceeds manmade radiations. The exposure to cosmic radiations varies with different regions of the biosphere depending on geomagnetic field, solar cycle or even altitude. Man can also make artificial radiations especially from nuclear medicine as in CT scan. According to Iliffe (1984), places with artificial radiations are aircrafts, radiography industries, uranium mines, and nuclear power plants. Radioactivity on the other hand is the spontaneous emission of particles from the nuclei due to being unstable and its ultimate disintegration. Nuclear isotopes are as a result of instability, which is followed by release of radiations that include alpha, beta and gamma rays (Lowenthal & Airey, 2001).
These are the chemistry of radiations that evaluates the interaction between radioactive elements and their application in various processes as proven by Lowenthal and Airey (2001). During decay of a radioactive material, it releases particles and in the process, its nature is altered. Protons are released from the nucleus as alpha particles and converts into other elements depending on the half-life. The elements transforms into isotopes of a different element until it attains stability (Iliffe, 1984). This process is termed as radioactive decay, which occurs in series and spontaneous, while the time taken is quantified as half-life. This is the time for half of the radioactive material to decay into a different element, whose rate is dependent upon an individual radioactive element regardless of whether it’s in compound or element form. Radioactive elements are referred to as ionizing radiations that can impact chemical and physical traits of the molecules they are exposed to (Lowenthal & Airey, 2001).
Cell system, how cells damage and reproduction
The cell is defined as the functional basic unit of life. Cells are vast, different and functions as units in an organism and make-up the human body. Karp (2009) asserts that cells take various forms in the vital organs of the body such as the skin, kidney and the liver, which are specific and distinctive. They have plasma membranes to safeguard them from external influences. They have a cell membrane that controls flow of products in and out of the cell. According to Karp (2009), a cell has nucleus, which has the DNA that regulates protein synthesis with the help of many organelles such as the ribosomes. The nuclear is where transcription occurs, producing messenger RNA (MRNA), which is taken into the ribosomes for translation (Karp, 2009).
According to Wolfson (1993), when there is radiation exposure on germ cell of the reproductive system, it could cause chromosomal or gene damage essential in determining heredity traits in an offspring. DNA bears the genetic information and is particularly sensitive to radiations. When it is disrupted in the reproductive organs, the changes are passed on to the offspring as mutations, which are mostly harmful to the organism and related to many deaths in the course of the organism development. Radiations are mutagenic and the mutation increases proportionally with dosage (Wolfson, 1993).
Karp (2009) argues that cells reproduce a number of times during human development and varies depending on whether they are somatic or sex cells. Somatic are body cells and are reproduced in a process called mitosis. On the other hand, sex cells comprise of sperm and ova and duplicates in a process called meiosis in the testes and ovaries. Body cells are vast and replicate through mitosis in a process of cell division, generating new cells to replace older ones, repair or for growth and development. They produce 46 chromosomes, regarded as diploid. A somatic cell subdivides twice and the products are similar to the parent cell. They continue dividing in six phase process. Conversely, Meiosis generates two daughter cells from every parent cell, giving four sex gametes that are not similar to parent cells. Gametes give haploid or 23 chromosomes and during conception, a zygote with 46 chromosomes is produced and inherited by each generation (Karp, 2009).
Process of Getting Diseases, Latency Period and Leukemia
Radiation comprises of high energy particles, containing alpha, beta and gamma rays respectively. They have high energy with ability to detach electrons from an atom in a process referred to as ionization, to cause biological harms. According to Wolfson (1993), the molecules are extremely active and when they are in a living tissue, they could experience a chemical reaction to produce harmful effects. In any case, humans consist of water molecules and when ionization occurs, the products could be hazardous to the cells. High doses might even upset the cell processes. Worse still, when complex molecules such as nucleic acids and proteins are involved, they could break and be rendered dysfunctional (Wolfson, 1993). As a result, cell vitality and enzyme processes might be lost, which could lead to cancer and genetic mutations. Ionization is dependent upon particle’s energy and frequency and not on intensity since low intensity radiations also ionize (Wolfson, 1993). The time taken from exposure to carcinogens up to the detection of cancer is referred to as the latency period. The malignancy may manifest several years following the exposure to ionizing radiations as depicted by the survivors of Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Usually, exposure quantity and latency, relate inversely since more dosage is related to a reduced latency while a low dose is related to an extensive latency. Generally, early detection is important and could be achieved through screening in order to control the metastasis as argued by DeVita (2008).
Leukemia for instance is a hematological neoplasm that involves the bone marrow, lymphatic system and blood cells. It is marked by an upsurge of leucocytes in the blood. From research conducted by DeVita (2008), radiation-induced leukemia has a relatively short latency for malignancy to be detected. However, this varies with the irradiation dosage and may take as early as two years, following the initial exposure. The peak incidence could occur during four to eight years following exposure (DeVita, 2008). Leukemia results from DNA mutations through stimulation of oncogenes or through the dissimulation of ‘tumor suppressor genes’. According to DeVita (2008), this interrupts the process of apoptosis and cell division. The mutation could be spontaneous or as a result of radiation exposure. The normal blood cells are substituted with abnormal ones from the bone marrow and accumulate in the blood. This causes problems with blood clotting since the platelets are destroyed. Besides, the immune system is weakened since the white blood cells cannot effectively fight diseases. Anemia could also arise due to inadequate red blood cells that could lead to dyspnea (DeVita, 2008).
Conclusion
This research study has tried to analyze the impacts of man-made disasters such as those caused by nuclear energy from a biological perspective that includes radiation, cells system and genetic mutation as well as human diseases. From the research, it is clear that it is important to monitor the radiations from far while steps to safeguard the public’s health should be prioritized. Ionizing radiations cause harm to the environment and still remains a challenge to the public health. Radiation exposure is implicated with the rising cases of cancers such as leukemia. However, the latency period that occurs from the time of initial stimulation to the ultimate detection, makes it extremely difficult to determine the exact carcinogen, which could help in formulating preventive cancer strategies. Biologically, exposure to ionizing radiations from nuclear plants such as gamma, beta and alpha rays is detrimental to one’s health and safety measures should be employed at whichever cost.
List of References
DeVita, V.T. (2008) DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s cancer: principles & practice of oncology. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Iliffe, C. E. (1984) An Introduction To Nuclear Reactor Theory. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Karp, G. (2009) Cell and Molecular Biology: Concepts and Experiments. Danvers, MA, John Wiley and Sons.
Lowenthal, G. C. & Airey, P. L. (2001) Practical Applications Of Radioactivity And Nuclear Radiations: An Introductory Text For Engineers, Scientists, Teachers And Students. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Onishi, Y., Voitsekhovich, O.V., and Zheleznyak, M. J. (2007) Chernobyl — What Have We Learned: The Successes and Failures to Mitigate Water Contamination over 20 years. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer publishing.
Wolfson, R. (1993) Nuclear Choices: A Citizen’s Guide to Nuclear Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The war against nuclear weapons developed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK remains a delicate and sensitive issue in diplomatic relations between DPRK and other countries around the world. With several nations opposed to the nuclear development program, DPRK has gone through a series of steps and encountered countless challenges in its quest to produce and develop nuclear weapons.
This has led to international conferences and treaties aimed at limiting the progress and chances of North Korea becoming a nuclear power threat to the rest of the world in future (Wampler, 2003). With all these efforts, research indicates that the country’s leadership has had a deaf ear on the calls and maintained their development programs to-date.
In this regard, this research focuses on the historical progress of nuclear strategy in North Korea and how North Korea’s foreign diplomacy and Nuclear affected each other. Of special significance is the nuclear development in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, encompassing both its on-table and under-table activities.
The research furthers synthesizes how DPRK’s pursuit of Nuclear weapons has affected its relationship with countries like the United States, Japan, China, South Korea and other European and Asian states throughout history. Lastly, the paper analyzes the Six-Party talk in terms of its successes and failures with special focus on the current status of the nuclear development program in North Korea.
Nuclear weapons
These are highly lethal armaments with the highest known potential of destruction in the world. This ability emanates from fusion and fission reactions which take place in nuclear reactors. Although it later gained its use in the mid 20th century, nuclear weapons breakthrough were made in early 1930s and later applied by several countries during the Cold War.
It is believed that the first fission weapons were developed by the union between the United States, Canada and Britain as a way of counteracting the threat that was being posed by Nazi German bomb scheme during Cold War (World Nuclear Association, 2011). After some of the bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945, the Soviet Union began its development of the Hydrogen bomb.
The U.S and Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons, which were used during the Cold War. Since then several countries, totaling to nine have acquired these weapons and their proliferation remains a global security threat. Moreover, of substance, controversy and great attention is the nuclear development in DPRK.
North Korea and Nuclear weapons
North Korea is an isolated and relatively small country in Asia but it has remained in the limelight for decades with regard to nuclear power exploration and development of weapons. Its thirst for nuclear weapons has sparked chilly relationships with countries like the United States and South Korea, having been criticized and highly condemned for the manner in which it handles human rights issues. DPRK government is considered to be quite secretive and its borders are highly guarded and sheltered.
North Korea was created after the Second World War, when the DPRK declared its independence in the year 1948 (Kimball, 2011). Early 1950s witnessed the Korean War when DPRK invaded the South after their declaration of sovereignty. The war claimed more than two million Koreans and came to a halt after a peace agreement that was reached in 1953.
Nuclear development in DPRK
It is believed that North Korea, also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korean has nurtured its interest in nuclear power and weapons since 1950s. Although there are no known operating nuclear reactors in the country, there are massive development programs which have remained part of the epicenter of global nuclear power threats (Wampler, 2003).
While others argue that North Korea developed its nuclear plants and weapons decades ago, the following segments summarize some of the steps which DPRK has undergone to achieve its current global ranking in nuclear matters.
Chronology of events
DPRK’s nuclear program began in mid 20th century, precisely 1950s during the reign of Kim il-Sung, a time when most scientists from North Korea received practical training in the Soviet Union (Moltz & Mansourov, 2000). As a way of exploring atomic energy, these scientists were trained in high-energy physics and radiochemistry among other science subjects.
During this time, the two countries, North Korea and the Soviet Union maintained peaceful bilateral relationships that were aimed at fostering their exploration of nuclear power. This relationship was formerly cemented in 1959 by the signing of an inter-governmental agreement based on cooperation within the field of nuclear science.
As a result, a series of joint-nuclear activities followed like the signing of the “Series 9559”, contracts and ratification of contracts which allowed construction of a mega nuclear research center that was referred to as the “Furniture Factory” and extensive training of the North Korean labor force (Kimball, 2011).
Besides in the Soviet Union, other North Koreans received training and education in China and East Germany. Major nuclear power events began unfolding in early 1960s when North Korea officially launched its nuclear development program in Yongbyon. This location was approximately sixty miles north of Pyongyang.
Even though North Korea established its nuclear development program, its ties with the Soviet Union remained right as the latter continued to supply the former with nuclear reactor fuel and technical support for years. For instance, these efforts were boosted when the Soviet Union donated a 2 MW IRT-2000 reactor to North Korea in 1965 in support of the Yongbyon project (Niksch, 2010).
Notably, most of the construction and experimental structure in DPRK was accomplished with enormous assistance and technical involvement of the Soviet Union experts. They participated in the construction of the Yongbyon research center and supplied the country with IRT-2M fuel-type which contained close to 36% and 80% uranium enrichment. Nevertheless, the center is currently used in the manufacture of iodine-131 which is used in cancer treatment (Wampler, 2003).
Expansion after 60s
With established research institutions, laboratories and chairs across North Korea, the country focused on the expansion of nuclear technology. However, the primary objective of this initiative was to explore the use of nuclear energy and consider several ways of tapping from the sector to advance the country’s economy.
During a delegates congress that was held in October 1970 and 1980, many emphasized on the need of constructing nuclear plants on large scale in order to serve as alternative sources of electrical energy (Niksch, 2010).
Similarly, North Korean leaders quickly adopted the idea since no oil had been explored in the country and the looming crisis of compensating nationwide power shortages with options like thermal and hydroelectric energy. Consequently, the unclear development idea received full support to establish the nuclear energy sector based on gas-graphite reactors given that the country had enough uranium and graphite deposits (Kimball, 2011).
In 1970s, DPRK concentrated on nuclear fuel cycle which mainly consisted of refining, fabrication and conversion. The year 1974 saw North Korean experts transform the Soviet IRT-2M into a modern reactor which resembled those in other countries like USSR, giving it a total of eight megawatts and becoming 80% fuel enriched economy.
This achievement was followed by the construction of the 5 MWe research reactor, famously known as the “second reactor”. At its completion, DPRK agreed for the inspection of the reactor by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1977, a project that was jointly done by the USSR (Kim, 2010).
It has been argued that the 1980s period was a significant time in the history of DPRK’s nuclear development program. It completed developing a weapon system and began running several facilities which targeted fabrication and conversion of uranium. Having experienced success developments, North Korea established a 200 MWe reactor and other high technology facilities in Yongbyon and Taechon towns.
This was followed by explosive nuclear tests which caught the attention of the United States. In 1985, the U.S intelligence reported evidence of a secret nuclear reactor in North Korea, although the installation of the plant had been known by the IAEA for close to eight years.
With pressure from all over the world, Pyongyang ratified the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) but failed to accede to a safeguards treaty with the IAEA despite its membership and legal obligation to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. With their triggered attention, the United States observed a possibility of having a structure in Yongbyon which could be used in the separation of nuclear fuel to obtain plutonium (Albright & Hinderstein, 2006).
Relationship with South Korea
After the Korean War that was experienced in 1950s, President Roh Tae Woo of South Korea saw the need of strengthening North-South relationship through trade, exchanges, international contact and family reunifications. He affirmed his stance in a UN General Assembly, offering to have dialogue with North Korea over security matters.
This was the first time since the countries bloodily fought. The first meeting that was held in response to Roh’s proposal was in the year 1989. Another fruitful meeting was held in Seoul in 1990, comprising of eight prime ministers from different countries. This bred the “basic agreement” and the “joint declaration” which had a lot of significance. As such, the two sides agreed reconciliation, cooperation, nonaggression and exchanges (Stratford, 2005).
The Joint Declaration that was signed by the two countries in 1991 recommended bilateral inspection of nuclear weapons, a move that was aimed at confirming the denuclearization of the Peninsula as it was stipulated in the signed agreement. The declaration outlawed the manufacture, storage, processing or usage of any form of enrichment facilities (Kim, 2010).
The Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was established to oversee the inspection process and in early 1992, DPRK ratified the nuclear safeguards agreement as demanded by the IAEA and as a fulfillment of the pledge it made in 1985.
This authorized IAEA’s inspections in mid 1992 although JNCC meetings did not agree on the agenda of having an inspection team which had been established bilaterally. As a result, President Roh Tae declared that their economic cooperation with the North could not work until the nuclear was resolved by the two parties (Stratford, 2005).
Denuclearization pledges
Kim Jong-il signed a U.S-North Korea framework that was aimed at ending the construction of nuclear power reactors in exchange of two water reactors that were considered lighter and less lethal. The construction of the proposed reactors began in 1997 before it was suspended in the 2003.
Moreover, the Six-Party Talks which were held in September 2005 saw North Korea agree to abandon its nuclear program and revisit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Additionally, DPRK submitted to IAEA inspections and it was awarded fuel aid by the international community. This path was taken by North Korea to mend its relationships with countries like Japan and the United States.
In mid 2008, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea appeared committed to the denuclearization agreement when it announced to end its nuclear activities and handed the declaration to China in June 2008. DPRK went ahead to destroy its cooling tower at Yongbyon. Despite the shutdown of its nuclear reactors, explosive tests witnessed in 2006 and 2009 questioned the commitment of North Korea towards the denuclearization pledge (Kim, 2010).
There have also been efforts by North Korea to have the 1953 ceasefire between the two sides being replaced with a peaceful agreement as news reports indicated that Pyongyang was still obeying the denuclearization agreement. Due to the tension between North and South, China called for the Six-Party Talks to chat the way forward.
However, the call was rejected by the United States, South Korea and Japan in December 2010 who held that there was need for the improvement of North-South relationship before constructive dialogue could take place (Stratford, 2005). In the year 2011, many leaders from North Korea, Russia and China favored the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.
Relationship with the United States
The United States remains a major player in the debate surrounding North Korea’s nuclear development project and the denuclearization plan. The U.S government agreed to aid the construction of two water reactors after DPRK acceded to the denuclearization agreement of 1994 (Albright & Hinderstein, 2006). In other words, America considered the reactors more proliferation resistant compared to the nuclear reactors consuming graphite.
Although President Bush considered North Korea as a perpetrator of terrorism, no military action was taken against it after the 911 attack on New York City. On the other hand, some U.S officials believed that the 1994 agreement was flawed and that America was not willing to sign any other agreement that would only benefit Pyongyang (CNN, 2003). The United States has recently been seen committed to reviving multilateral discussions to find a lasting solution in North Korea.
The relationship between America and North Korea has further been strained by wide allegations which linked the government of North Korea with counterfeiting, drug smuggling and widespread money-laundering (Nitikin, 2010). It is however worth noting that resolving the North Korean situation remains a tuff task due to the individual interests of the nations from the region.
While some nations support nuclear enrichment in North Korea, other players like South Korea and Japan are concerned with counter-strikes that are likely to be carried out by North Korea as a result of a likely military action (Niksch, 2006). China and South Korea are further concerned with the severe impact likely to be witnessed in the event that action is taken against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Six-Party talks
These discussions refer to a series of meetings and forums, which were held with a sole aim of finding a solution for the controversies surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program. These meetings were held in various countries like the United States, Republic of China, South Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the State of Japan and Russia.
The main event which triggered these discussions was the decision taken by North Korea in 2003 to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Niksch, 2006). Several obstacles were encountered during the meetings as many of the achievements which were realized in early meetings were reversed as phases of meetings took place. As a result, little progress was registered in five meetings that took place between 2003 and 2007.
Notable success was however realized in the third part of the fifth round when DPRK leadership agreed to shutdown nuclear stations. Moreover, North Korea demanded fuel support and looked forward to mending its broken relationship with Japan and the United States. Even though this was expected to last and serve as the basic foundation for future developments, it was short lived. DPRK responded furiously to the UNSC’s Presidential Statement in April 2009, which had criticized its unsuccessful satellite launch (Niksch, 2006).
DPRK threatened to pull out of the talks and recommence its initial nuclear enrichment plan. According to DPRK, this move would promote its nuclear deterrent in the region. In addition, North Korea expelled all the international nuclear inspectors who had been mandated by the IAEA to ascertain the situation of nuclear status of the country (Moltz & Mansourov, 2000).
Before the commencement of the third round of the talks, Wang Yi, Chinese Foreign Minister noted that several achievements had been realized since the talks began. According to Wang, the talks had formed the basis for the realization of Korean Peninsula that was free from nuclear weapons threat (Nitikin, 2010).
Secondly, Mr. Wang noted that six-party talks had established a mechanism through which the North Korean stalemate could be resolved in a more peaceful and amicable way. He argued that the process would allow unearthing issues that would ultimately lead to peace.
Through a coordinate approach, the talks allowed verbal and action-oriented solutions. Although these were considered as successes, the greatest challenge and failure of the Six-Party talks is that it failed to stop DPRK from pursuing its nuclear interests (Stratford, 2005). Despite their progress, nuclear explosion tests have been witnessed by in North Korea, raising concerns over the workability of the talks.
Conclusion
The issue of nuclear power and enrichment remains a major concern with regard to global security. It is true that the issue of nuclear proliferation in North Korea is intertwined with several elements that need to be addressed in finding an amicable solution. From the chronology of events above, the issues have led to strained relationships between DPRK and other countries like the United States, Japan South Korea and Russia among others.
As these parties aim at ensuring that North Korea adheres to the denuclearization pledge, it is clearer than not that individual interests also hinder the success of the process (Niksch, 2010). Some countries feel that DPRK would become a threat if allowed to pursue its course while others affirm that the denuclearization is necessary for peaceful and smooth multilateral associations.
In analyzing this issue, it is also paramount to echo the efforts and progress realized by the Six-Party talks. Although full success has not been achieved, significant steps were reached in making DPRK acknowledge the need of having a denuclearized state. Above all, the issue has to be handled with diplomacy, underscoring the destructive nature of nuclear weapons and the countless merits of having harmonic international relationships among states.
Moltz, J., and Mansourov A., 2000. The North Korean nuclear program: security, strategy, and new perspectives from Russia. London: Routledge.
Niksch, L., 2006. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program. CRS Report for Congress. Web.
Niksch, L., 2010. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Development and Diplomacy. Darby, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing.
Nitikin, M., 2010. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues. Darby, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing.
Stratford, J., 2005. Strategic Culture and the North Korean Nuclear Crisis: Conceptual Challenges and Policy Opportunities. Security Challenges 1 (1): 123-133.
Nuclear power is the energy generated by use of Uranium. The energy is produced via complex chemical processes in the nuclear power stations. Major chemical reactions that involve the splitting of atom’s nucleus take place in the reactors. This process is known as fission (Klug and Davies 31-32). The first nuclear power station was established in 1956 in Cumbira, England. Nuclear energy provides about sixteen percent of the total earth’s energy requirements (Cohen ch. 2).
Nuclear Power and Fuel Cost
Nuclear plants take years to be built.The cost of buying, and building the reactors is way too high (Klug and Davies 31-32). The kinds of security installations done around the power plant are of high technology which is extremely costly. Managers of nuclear power plants would prefer claiming their returns at the commencement of the plants activities which describes the high cost of fuel. The claim is thought to include cost of installations and time taken to construct the nuclear plants.
Other reasons that could lead to high cost of fuel namely, Security measures, installation factors and safety measures (Klug and Davies 36). The safety measure gadgets are very expensive and are made by great technological experts. Another form of safety measure is availability of machine spare parts. This ensures frequent renewal and upgrading of the plant’s mechanical equipment and this is again very costly.
The main reason for such security is due to the danger that could be caused by exposure to the products of radioactivity. The main equipment that needs close check up is the reactor. Its installation is quite costly hence appropriate renewal of worn out parts is an option that should not to be overlooked.
In addition to these costs, the costs of containing the waste matter is also quite high (Cohen ch.11). Although many people think that investing in nuclear power is a costly event, I do not feel so because it is a worthy venture and one of the cleanest sources of energy.
Though it is not renewable, its establishment and good management could provide a perfect source of energy to the world at large. Nuclear energy production requires low fuel and once the plant is built the cost variables are minor. The Cost of doubling fuel or uranium cost in nuclear plants will only increase fuel cost by 9%. For other sources like coal and gas, doubling fuel prices will increase the fuel prices by 31% and 66% respectively (Cohen ch.9).
Global warming and nuclear power
Global warming is caused by the effect of green house gases. These gases are carbon dioxide, methane, vapor and ozone. They are produced by burning fossil fuel. When the gases accumulate in the atmosphere they serve as a mirror in reflecting heat energy back to earth. The accumulation of these gases leads to increased temperature on earth’s atmosphere resulting into global warming (Klug and Davies 31-37).
Nuclear power should not at any instance be regarded as one of the causative effects of global warming. This is because it consumes carbon dioxide which is of the green house gases during energy production. Carbon dioxide is a major gas among the green house gases. Hence nuclear energy has provided a solution point for its disposal.
Nuclear energy should therefore be referred to as a cleaner rather than destroyer. It has also boosted the economy by creating a market for sale of carbon dioxide gas. Industries producing this gas can as well trade with nuclear power plants. When serious action is taken in trading this gas from various outlets to various nuclear plants, then a solution would be made on how to regulate global warming using nuclear power generation.
In addition to nuclear power generation, use of renewable energy would also help in countering global warming. Due to the increased need for electricity, more nuclear power plants should be built. These will provide enough market for carbon dioxide waste from other manufacturing industries.
Nuclear energy should be adopted in place of fossil fuel. This is because fossil fuels position’s the earth at a higher risk of global warming. The only task that would justify the use of nuclear energy is when the purpose of Uranium metal is not shifted to bomb production or nuclear weapon production. New adoptions and policies on how to prevent global warming should be implemented.
Article Annotation
Barkan, Steven. Nuclear Power and Protest Movements. Social problems journal Vol. 27.1(1979):11-36.Print.
Steve Barkan, a retired article writer basically points out people’s views that have been influenced by environmental degradation. The people have turned more attention to nuclear energy technology as a means of addressing the problem. Barkan’s article examines people’s opinion on nuclear energy. Those against the notion of nuclear energy as a source of energy believe that carbon dioxide emissions mostly emanate from nuclear power and not renewable energy.
These people’s arguments are based on the argument that high grade ores will get depleted hence low grade ores which produce carbon dioxide will be used with no installation of advanced reactor equipment.
In addition the opponents say that nuclear waste makes the environment susceptible to harm in the future, but they fail to point out that long lived constituents or radioactive elements give off small portion of radioactivity. The opponents also fail to mention any person that could have been harmed as a result of using fuel from power plants.
Another argument is that high cost of nuclear plant management has resulted to increased cost of fuel. In this case, they fail to note that the cost of electricity from nuclear energy is cheaper than most sources. Barkan also brings out the contrasting issue of terrorist attack whom the anti nuclear group argues that could cause melt down of ore. He responds by saying that high level of technological security would not allow access of such suicidal sabotage.
Conclusion
Nuclear energy is more affordable to produce than coal energy. It does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide. Instead, the carbon dioxide is used in the process to remove heat from the system. In this case carbon dioxide does not act as a byproduct rather it serves a positive purpose by being utilized. In addition its usage, nuclear energy produces less waste. It does contribute to neither environmental hazards nor green house effect like coal.
Nuclear energy is reliable and produces large amount of energy from less fuel. The negative effect lies on the risks that are associated with nuclear plants especially accidents and suicidal terrorists. These could cause extremely deadly effects and scars that can never be erased. Only good management and high technological security can assist in nullifying such fateful occurrences.
Nuclear power reactors should not be built in politically unstable regions. Political instability results in war and negative effects on the economy. For instance war prone areas are susceptible to attacks by terrorists which could result in detrimental effects. There is need for effective safety policy to be implemented that will address the following factors namely, climate change, security of power plants, safety, energy security and proliferation of nuclear technologies. This is because such proliferations would result in nuclear bomb.
Works Cited
Barkan, Steven. Nuclear Power and Protest Movements. Social problems journal Vol. 27.1(1979):11-36.Print.
Cohen, Benard. The Nuclear Energy Option. Plenum Press.1990.
Klug, Aaron & Davies, David. Nuclear Energy; The Future Climate. Norway: The Royal Society (1999):11-65.Print.
Issues regarding nuclear energy production have been intensively debated since the inception of nuclear power. People who support the production of nuclear energy feel that it is a more efficient, safe and cheap method of producing power for use. However, in reality there is more to worry about production of nuclear energy through its dangers in the event of an accident.
Also, nuclear power production is expensive contrary to what the people who are in support of the technology portray. Some believe the use of nuclear power technology should be stopped because of the high costs and risks that the technology poses. Therefore, should the production of nuclear energy be stopped?
Firstly, one of the disadvantages of nuclear power production is that it is very costly to produce. Nuclear power is derived from uranium which is a natural ore. Uranium ore is currently depleting therefore this tends to raise the prices of electricity up in the world. Considering that it is non renewable, the ore will be worn out with time.
The utilities used to construct a nuclear reactor are very expensive. “The price tag for creating a large nuclear plant was between six billion and eight billion US dollars in 2010” (Beaver 399). Clearly, it is very expensive to put up a nuclear plant and maintain it too. Large tracks of land are required to build a reactor and a large proximity is required to where people live.
Secondly, nuclear power plants pose great risk on the environment. Nuclear powered plants emit thermal energy to the environment; this thermal energy contributes to the current predicament of global warming. Power plants normally dispose heated water to the rivers or other water bodies hence causing devastating effects to aquatic life and subsequently cause climatic changes.
“There are fears from the community that the disposal of hot water that might be contaminated to rivers may also pose a risk to human beings since most of their water comes from rivers and lakes” (William 161). Accidents can be catastrophic if radiation material is emitted to the environment. Although people who sympathize with nuclear power production argue that accidents are very rare, any accident that occurs causes extensive disastrous effects.
A good example of a disaster caused by nuclear power accident is the accident in Chernobyl in April 1986, the accident was the worst in history and it led to mass displacement of people and long-term deaths in the hundred of thousands according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Victims of Chernobyl disaster experienced illnesses such as cancer, stress and depression. “To date people in Ukraine cannot drink water or locally produced foods” (Miller and Spoolman 313).
Another example is Three Mile Island in March 1987 which had also emitted radioactive materials due to an accident caused by human error and component failure. Recently in Fukushima in Japan in March 2011, a massive tsunami overwhelmed the plant that caused a reactor meltdown creating a leakage of radiation and iodine. “Radiations were later found in milk and spinach thousands of kilometers away from Fukushima” (Coren, YouTube).
A few weeks later tiny amounts of iodine were discovered in countries as far as Iceland as well as the United States. These radiations pose a great public health risk and on the environment in general.
Natural disasters such as floods, tsunamis and earthquakes normally trigger the release of radioactive material from the reactors. Even with initiatives for safety by nuclear energy plants, these natural disasters are unavoidable. Despite the safety measures used by the plant, Fukushima failed to prevent emission of radioactive materials. Therefore, an increase in the number of nuclear plants increases the probability for the plants’ exposure to natural catastrophes.
Thirdly, materials used in the production of nuclear energy produce waste materials which are still radioactive and takes more than a thousand years for the waste to be decomposed. This leads to more costs in disposal of the waste materials from the plants. Wastes are normally disposed deep in the ground and this does not prevent it from being exposed to the environment due to natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes.
Controversies revolving around how radioactive waste can be disposed in a safe way still stand out. In France recycling of radioactive material is done, but there is only a small amount of material that will be reused; in fact recycling of these materials to produce other fuel energy is more expensive.
Lastly, nuclear plants provide a platform for terrorists attack. Terrorists might easily get access to nuclear waste materials and are likely to expose them to the environment. Imagining a situation where terrorists attack a nuclear plant, it will expose the world to immense radiation levels. Despite security beef up, we can never be too sure of terrorist attacks not occurring. Radioactive wastes also provide materials for nuclear bomb creation by terrorists and some governments.
Nuclear energy has great advantages too despite its demerits. Nuclear power is not dependent on fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal which emit a lot of carbon dioxide in the environment. Nuclear power emits a lot lesser carbon dioxide gas to the environment, hence less pollution to the environment. A group of thinkers argue that nuclear power has less responsibility for global warming than fossil fuels. Statistics also show that many deaths in the United States are attributed to illnesses caused by burning coal.
Moreover, it is also argued that nuclear energy production costs are almost the same as coal, therefore it is better to use nuclear power and reduce emission of carbon dioxide and consequently the number of deaths related to illnesses caused by coal burning. Fossils fuels are expensive raw materials than uranium, hence leads to lower electricity costs for consumers.
Another advantage of nuclear power is that it produces a lot of power; this enhances efficiency in power production. Huge amounts of nuclear energy are produced using small amounts of fuel compared to other methods of energy production. In terms of reliability, nuclear power is the most efficient and reliable type of energy production.
“Currently in the world, nuclear energy caters for eleven percent of the total population’s energy needs” (Energy Resources para 3). In the United States of America twenty percent of the energy is produced from nuclear energy and currently the government is planning on putting up more plants to meet the rising needs of electricity.
Nuclear power also provides competition which drives the costs of electricity low to the consumer. The ready availability of uranium ore also reduces the cost of transporting fuel from distant places where they are found. With depletion of fossil fuels, nuclear energy will be the most appropriate method of avoiding shortages in the future-“due to nuclear energy reliability” (Energy Resources para 3).
Currently nuclear reactors are built with precision and are computerized; computerization has enhanced fewer accidents due to human error and component failure. Supporters of nuclear energy production argue that today’s technology guarantees safety through computers that automatically shuts down the reactor in cases of faults.
Therefore, the production of nuclear power should be stopped. In spite of nuclear energy being very attractive, it has more disadvantages than advantages therefore there is more reasons to abolish the nuclear energy production.
The disasters evident from the nuclear reactors have led to increased levels of radiation and even deaths-in Germany studies have shown that many people living near nuclear power plants are likely to be suffering from leukemia. Nuclear power might be seen as a solution for electricity shortage today and in the future by some people but their effects are more disastrous and could lead to human extinction in our planet.
The claims of recycling nuclear wastes to new fuel elements accounts for a very small percentage energy capability which is not worth justifying the use of nuclear energy. The threat of terrorist attacks can be avoided through abolishing nuclear related practices, meaning there would be less probability of nuclear attacks, a few countries which are not politically stable bear great risk of terrorists acquiring weapons grade plutonium.
With the existence of other energy options which are safer such as hydro electric energy, solar energy and wind energy. These energies are safe and environmental friendly than nuclear energy. Harnessing these energies can supplement the use of nuclear energy considering that they are cheap and renewable.
Annotated Bibliography
Miller, Tyler G., and Scott Spoolman. Living in the environment: Principles, connections, and solutions. Canada: Cengage learning, 2011. Print.
The book discusses about the history of nuclear power plants accidents such as the Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island accident. It describes the causes of the accident and how human error and component failure were the major reasons for the accident. It also gives evidence on the health implications of the radiations victims in the USSR. It also gives the statistics on the deaths and displacement of victims and long-term effects of nuclear emissions.
William, Thomas K. Politics, technology, and the environment: technology assessment and nuclear. New York: Arno Press Inc., 1979. Print.
In William’s book, he argues on the effects of radiation on the environment as a result of nuclear plants. He discusses on issues of thermal release by nuclear plants through rivers and lakes and how it affects the communities using the water. He also argues on the effect of emissions to the environment in general and the concerns of the communities living around nuclear power plants
Beaver, William. “The failed promise of nuclear power.” Independent Review 15.3 ;( 2011): 399-441.
In this journal article, the author discusses issues regarding the construction of the reactor and how it is expensive to put up a nuclear power plant. He further gives an estimate of the amount of money required to put up a plant by the year 2010. He also discusses on the difficulties experienced in putting up a nuclear power plant. He also talks about the failure by the government to meet its vision of the nuclear technology.
Energy Resources. Nuclear power. 26 August, 2011. Web.
In this website, there is a comparison of the different energy resources. It also provides information on the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods of power production. It further talks about the non renewable nature of Uranium and the facts about nuclear power production.
Coren, Anna. “Japan-radiation found in food as workers scramble to curb nuclear crisis.” CNN. YouTube. Web.14th November, 2011.
In the video, a Tsunami that caused a reactor meltdown creating a leakage of radiation and iodine in Japan occurred due to an earthquake. Radiations were later found in milk and spinach thousands of kilometers away from Fukushima.
Works Cited
Beaver, William. “The failed promise of nuclear power.” Independent Review 15.3 (2011): 399-441.
Coren, Anna. “Japan-radiation found in food as workers scramble to curb nuclear crisis.” CNN. YouTube. Web.14th November, 2011.
Energy Resources. Nuclear power. 26 August, 2011. Web.
Miller, Tyler G., and Scott Spoolman. Living in the environment: Principles, connections, and solutions. Canada: Cengage learning, 2011. Print.
William, Thomas K. Politics, technology, and the environment: technology assessment and nuclear. New York, NY: Arno Press Inc., 1979. Print.
Beaver, William. “The failed promise of nuclear power.” Independent Review 15.3; (2011): 399-441.
Quotes
“Farrow stated that the White House announced plans to triple the amount currently allocated for loan guarantees available to utilities for construction of new reactors. Indeed, loan guarantees are seen as crucial, considering that the current price tag for a large nuclear plant is estimated to be between $6 billion and $8 billion” (Beaver 399).
“The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, which resulted in a partial meltdown of the reactor’s core, certainly comes to mind. In addition, the government’s failure to open a long-promised nuclear waste repository in Nevada for which the utilities have contributed billions of dollars certainly did nothing to restore interest in the technology” (Beaver 400).
Coren, Anna. “Japan-radiation found in food as workers scramble to curb nuclear crisis.” CNN. YouTube. Web.14th November, 2011.
Quotes
“A Tsunami caused a reactor meltdown creating a leakage of radiation and iodine in Japan occurred due to an earthquake” (Coren YouTube).
“Radiations were later found in milk and spinach thousands of kilometers away from Fukushima” (Coren YouTube).
Energy Resources. Nuclear power. 26 August, 2011. Web.
Quotes
With reactors in the UK, the computers will shut the reactor down automatically if things get out of hand (unless engineers intervene within a set time). At Chernobyl, in Ukraine, they did not have such a sophisticated system, indeed they over-rode the automatic systems they did have.
When they got it wrong, the reactor overheated, melted and the excessive pressure blew out the containment system before they could stop it. Then, with the coolant gone, there was a serious fire. Many people lost their lives trying to sort out the mess. A quick web search will tell you more about this, including companies who operate tours of the site (Energy Resources para 3).
“Although not much waste is produced, it is very, very dangerous. It must be sealed up and buried for many thousands of years to allow the radioactivity to die away. For all that time it must be kept safe from earthquakes, flooding, terrorists and everything else. This is difficult” (Energy Resources para 3).
William, Thomas K. Politics, technology, and the environment: technology assessment and nuclear. New York, NY: Arno Press Inc., 1979. Print.
Quotes
“Routine discharge of radiation discharge from nuclear reactors has become an issue of considerable concern and debate. The possibility that, with the growing proliferation of such reactors, radiation will have a substantial, and substantially adverse, impacts on human health of present and future generations” (William 161).
“Since many, if not most of these lakes and streams act as a source of community drinking water; many have become aroused by the possibility of radioactive contamination” (William 161).
Miller, Tyler G., and Scott Spoolman. Living in the environment: Principles, connections, and solutions. Canada: Cengage learning, 2011. Print.
Quotes
“The Chernobyl in April 1986, the accident was the worst in history and it led to mass displacement of people and long-term deaths in the hundreds of thousands according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Victims of Chernobyl disaster experienced illnesses such as cancer, stress, and depression” (Miller and Spoolman 313).
“In Ukraine water or locally produced foods are not consumed because they are contaminated due to previous radiations in Chernobyl in 1986” (Miller and Spoolman 313).
Nuclear power is perceived in Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand and perhaps somewhere else in Asia as an ingredient in a resolution aimed at achieving the requirement of an exceptionally huge amplification of power manufacturing capacity over the next two decades to energy for both engineering and city expansion.
Nuclear energy is perceived as a technique of intensifying power supply protection (for electrical energy) and expansion over dependence on fossil fuels. To a large extent preparation at this point is concerned more in minimizing green gas release and the risk of environmental transformation.
Certainly, agitation for nuclear energy can be made on the foundation of its extremely lesser production of carbon dioxide and additional conservatory gases.
Although the realism in Southeast Asian states, which are not confronted by compulsory emissions cutback objectives in the current Kyoto treaty to the UN structure meeting on environmental Change, is that climate transformational worries do not result too much to energy sector development.
The extremely great-premeditated increases in coal-fired energy creation in the area bear out to this (Symon, 2008).
Implications of Japanese Nuclear Crisis
Antagonists are cautious about allegations of safety of nuclear energy knowledge, particularly in tremor zones for instance in Indonesia, even though Japan, a state under discussion to earthquakes, has long had a great nuclear energy engineering.
There is an influential alarm over the possible human and natural consequence of a severe nuclear plant catastrophe if there were a momentous emission release as was the incidence in the 1986 Chernobyl tragedy and the Japan earthquake crisis.
A large area of Southeast Asia is greatly inhabited, and regions where nuclear energy plants are currently designed or considered may perhaps be heavily developed, as in Central Java. Many states have forfeited their nuclear energy plans in fear of misfortunes associated with it.
The undertaking is extremely expensive and it will be a waste of resources if a catastrophe such as that witnessed in Japan occurs. The states would witness huge losses of human lives and natural resources.
In reaction to the implications of delayed nuclear energy production, the IAEA, sustained by a variety of governments, support the importation of fictitious energy rods, together with, latent, from prospective equipments projected to be erected and handled globally.
A number of suggestions of global administration to the nuclear energy series have been located in current years; however not any of them has till now achieved a great evaluation of consent bearing from the global society.
In presumption, though, energy fortification for Southeast Asian countries and other countries joining the nuclear power alliance would be approved under the patronage of the IAEA in a restricted number of settings. The IAEA would after that go on with the plan as a sponsor to deliver power production plants.
Such a polygonal structure would also involve management of exhausted coal and ordinary ravage storage. The idea is not fresh but it has been awarded existence once more by the improved interest towards nuclear energy.
In whatever is acknowledged as the Singapore Declaration on environmental Change, power and the atmosphere, the East Asia top government representatives dedicated themselves to collaborate for the growth and utilization of civilian nuclear energy.
This is to happen in a way that guarantees nuclear protection, safety and nonproliferation especially its safeguard, in the structure of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), hence the plans for erecting nuclear power plants no longer holds because of its profound effects to the public (Bunn, 2011).
References
Bunn, M. (2011). Japan’s Power Plant Crisis: Some Context. Web.
Symon, A. (2008). Nuclear Power in SouthEast Asia: Implications for Australia and Non-Proliferation. Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy.
The use of nuclear power is a very controversial question. The sustainability of this energy source depends on many factors, including economic, technological, political, environmental, and ethical ones.
The first factor to argue about is whether nuclear power is safe or unsafe for people. Considering the Fukushima disaster and another one in Ukrainian Chernobyl, it is hard to conclude that this technology is safe. However, it is getting safer. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima plans were old; the present-day nuclear reactors are much safer and less likely to meltdown (“Arguments for and against nuclear power” par. 1). Admittedly, nuclear plans remain vulnerable to natural disasters, one of which has already caused the Fukushima tragedy, and terroristic attacks. However, any modern reactor is well-equipped and has a containment structure. Moreover, radioactive waste and spent fuel storage are usually located below the ground level (“The Nuclear Debate” par. 15).
Another controversial aspect of nuclear power is its effects on human health and the environment. One of the greatest concerns in this regard is radioactive waste, which would be “a nightmare for our grandchildren” (“The Nuclear Debate” par. 13). However, all those countries that use nuclear energy take all responsibility for managing the radioactive waste that it produces. Thus, the waste is never released – it is stored, contained, and managed.
To take care of nuclear waste, as well as for setting up and decommission nuclear plants, a lot of money is needed. That leads us to another aspect nuclear power’s sustainability depends on – the economic one. Besides, building nuclear reactors requires numerous technologies and investments in the research, which makes it difficult from a technological perspective. Still, nuclear plants have many economic benefits. An average plant brings approximately $470 million of economic output every year (Nuclear Energy Institute par. 1). Besides, it provides workplaces with decent salaries.
Finally, the use of nuclear energy is a significant political and ethical concern. Such countries as Iraq and North Korea have used the need for nuclear power as a cover to create their nuclear weapon programs, and now the world is worried about Iran for the same reason (“Arguments for and against nuclear power” par. 3). If other countries, especially different parts of Europe and the United States, refuse the need for nuclear energy, it will be a great example for Iran to do the same. This dilemma is both political and ethical since it involves political figures of many countries and does not have a single right solution. From my point of view, even if the US and Europe give up on nuclear energy, that will not guarantee that Iran will do the same.
Presently, people should use all energy sources they have since the energy demand is growing and no source of it can take over all the remaining ones. Nuclear power now produces approximately 15% of all global electricity and partly solves the population’s energy needs, which makes it a valuable sphere of research (Englert, Kralla and Ewing 417). Missing this chance would be wrong.
Works Cited
Arguments for and against nuclear power 2015. Web.
Englerta, Matthias, Lindsay Kralla and Rodney C. Ewing. “Is nuclear fission a sustainable source of energy?” MRS Bulletin 37.4 (2012): 417-424. Print.
Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Power Plants Benefit State and Local Economies 2015. Web.
In the current political climate, the debate over the best sources of energy and the most effective methods of reducing emissions is more charged than ever. Across the United States, states are deciding on the best strategies to replace the dwindling number of nuclear power plants, and in many cases, the debate is centered around the use of coal-fired plants or combined-cycle gas plants. At the same time, many people are concerned with the cost of implementing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes, and while these methods are often seen as government taking the people’s money, they are in fact vital tools for reducing emissions and protecting the environment. This essay will make the case for the use of a combined-cycle gas plant as the best option for replacing a state’s nuclear power plant, as well as explain why a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme is a necessary part of the equation for reducing emissions and protecting the environment.
Replacing a Nuclear Power Plant
When deciding on the best option to replace a nuclear power plant, it is important to consider both the cost and the environmental impact of the various options. Coal-fired plants have long been seen as a cheap and reliable source of energy, but they come with a high environmental cost. Coal-fired plants are responsible for a large amount of air and water pollution, as well as contributing to global warming (Buskies, 959). On the other hand, combined-cycle gas plants have much lower emissions than coal-fired plants, and they are also more cost-effective in the long run. The cost of natural gas is generally lower than the cost of coal, and combined-cycle gas plants also have a much lower operating cost than coal-fired plants, making them a more economical choice in the long run.
Combined-cycle gas plants also have the advantage of being able to quickly adjust their output in response to changes in demand, making them a much more flexible source of energy than coal-fired plants. This flexibility makes combined-cycle gas plants an ideal option for replacing nuclear power plants, as they can easily be adjusted to provide the same amount of energy as the nuclear plant they are replacing. Combined-cycle gas plants also have the advantage of being much more efficient than coal-fired plants, as they are able to capture and use more of the energy produced. This makes them a much more efficient source of energy and one that can help reduce emissions and protect the environment.
Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade
While a combined-cycle gas plant is an important part of the equation for replacing a nuclear power plant, it is not the only solution. Carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes are also essential tools for reducing emissions and protecting the environment. A carbon tax is a fee imposed on companies that emit carbon dioxide, which serves as an incentive for them to reduce their emissions. This can help to reduce the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as well as provide a source of revenue that can be used to fund renewable energy sources (Buskies, Ulrich, P. 959-974).
A cap-and-trade scheme works in a similar way, but instead of a tax, companies are given a set cap on the number of emissions they can produce. If a company surpasses its cap, they have to buy credits from another company that is below its cap. This creates a market for emissions credits and encourages companies to reduce their emissions in order to sell their credits at a profit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when deciding on a replacement for a state’s nuclear power plant, the combined-cycle gas plant is the best option due to its lower costs and emissions. At the same time, carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes are essential tools for reducing emissions and protecting the environment. These methods are not just a way for the government to take the people’s money, but rather a necessary part of the solution for reducing emissions and protecting the environment for future generations.
Work Cited
Buskies, Ulrich. “The Efficiency of Coal-Fired Combined-Cycle Powerplants.” Applied Thermal Engineering 16.12 (1996): 959-974.