Institute of Technology Essay

A minor news item call for in MSNBC last month, from which the above excerpt is taken, talks ab disclose a 38-year-old aging atomic federal agency go down in the deposit of Vermont that is fluent efficient nevertheless appears to pose increasing threat to the environment. The local and state authorities want it to be decommissioned, but the owner of the plant, Entergy corp. , intends to run it for some other 20 years. The plant meets one- triad of the states electrical vital force needs, and the populate of Vermont argon actually much dependent on it for the electricity, of course.But at the same time they involve grown distrustful of the quality of steering at the plant and the plants viability. The future of this plant whitethorn non be a national or international concern, but it is a crucial issue for the local citizenry. The primal dilemma of the role here reflects, in microcosm, the vastly larger problem of the future of thermo atomic-generated electricity as such(prenominal) should we enthusiastically embrace it or wisely resile it?Many of the rapidly cave ining countries of the valet, especially, tend to be upbeat ab push through the latent of thermonuclear business office, while in some of the developed countries where nuclear military force has been put to use for generating electricity for several decades now on that point has been an increasing percentage point of opposition to the continued reliance on nuclear precedent, from the point of view of threats it poses to the environment. As in the vitrine of Vermont Yankee proponent plant, the basic conflict in the nuclear power sector is amongst the potential and the potential risk.The Vermont facility has restrained the potential to supply a large fraction of the states electricity needs for a couple of decades more which is by no tights a mean feat, but there are signs, such as the recent tritium bring out detected at the plant, of the decreased reliability and robu stness of the plant. The Vermont news report provokes the question Can nuclear power plants be robust and secure in universal? The rewards they proffer may outweigh the risks they pose, but nonwithstanding so, do the rewards furthest outweigh the risks so that the risks to the extent they are present tin roll in the hay be considered acceptable?A number of countries of the existence have benefitted from nuclear power for several decades now with only one major disaster to speak of so far. But how some closely averted disasters such as the Three-Mile Island incident of 1979 there might have been it is difficult to estimate. Because, as can be disclosen in the case of Vermont facility, there is apparently a grandspread culture of leaks and lies in the nuclear power sector, which tends to neatly spinning top up inefficiencies, mis direction, breaches, increased risks and so on.The worlds experience with nuclear-generated electricity so far could be seen as a trial or a n experiment, base on which we are compellight-emitting diode to take decisions regarding the future of nuclear power. Should the worlds reliance on nuclear power be dramatically expanded, as advocated by many nuclear power enthusiasts and as was ab initio expected when nuclear power technologies were developing in the 1950s? Or, should we step by step phase out our dependence on nuclear power and commute to much safer alternatives, or should a middle way be fol minor?There are many well-informed people who would worry to see all nuclear power plants shut down how far are their fears valid? Literature Review 1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2003, 2009) The future(a) of atomic office staff An Interdisciplinary Study. Retrieved from http//web. mit. edu/nuclearpower/ The experts at MIT believe in nuclear power and prominently emphasize the chief advantage of absence of carbon emissions in its production. This study takes a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach t o assessing the feasibility of nuclear power. age the basic stance of MIT favors the increased use of nuclear power, the risks are not downplayed. The issues that the nuclear industry faces are tackled in a clear and critical way. The study does succeed in inspiring confidence in the potential of nuclear power. Though the fears and concerns are not really eliminated, they are not simply vague forebodings of doom now but are based on actual facts and conditions. The challenges can be dealt with, in principle, with more loading and initiative. 2) Biello D. (2009). The Future of nuclear Power An In-depth Report.Scientific American. Retrieved from http//www. scientificamerican. com/report. cfm? id=nuclear-future This is a 4- founder in-depth report feature in the Scientific American magazine in early 2009. The number 1 report, Find Fissile Fuel, explores the issue of availability of uranium and other defenseless materials for nuclear power. The second report, Reactivating Nuclear R eactors for the Fight against Climate Change, examines the ongoing escalation in nuclear power production in the U. S. Spent Nuclear Fuel, the third part, deals with the major issue of nuclear waste management.The final report, Atomic burthen Balancing the Risks and Rewards of a Power Source, asks the question Is it worth the minor hap of a major misfortune? 3) Department of Trade and Industry, U. K. (2007). The Future of Nuclear Power The Role of Nuclear Power in a piteous Carbon UK Economy. Retrieved from www. berr. gov. uk/files/file39197. pdf This is a UK government white account / consultation roll on the relevance of nuclear power in addressing the issues related to world-wide warming and climate change and ensuring continued slide fastener supplies.Though it is a document of advice and information provided to the UK government to serve up it assoil decisions, a favor of the particularities of the UK situation can be useful in more general mise en scenes. In the U K, nuclear power is already making a satisfying contribution to the electricity generating mix and this paper is inclined to the view that it could make an even more prominent contribution. 4) Mahaffey, J. (2009). Atomic Awakening A novel Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power. sunrise(prenominal) York Pe muck upus BooksMahaffey, a senior research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute, has indite a record book meant to interest laymen about nuclear power and its possibilities. He wants to show us that nuclear energy is not the monster it is portrayed to be while the risks cannot be completely mitigated it can still be used in a very safe manner. ane of the barriers to greater acceptance of nuclear power is the general unfamiliarity of the subject, the degree of alienation between the common man and the tall-standing nuclear reactors.The author seeks to dyad this gap by familiarizing his audience with the subject in an entertain and engaging manner, for the most part in a historical perspective. 5) Smith, J & Beresford, N. A. (2005). Chernobyl catastrophe and consequences. New York Springer The public perception of nuclear power has radically changed after the Chernobyl tragedy. Ever since, people living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant are naturally beset with fears that their quickness does not turn out to be another Chernobyl. And if a nuclear facility is actually having some known problems, as in the case of Vermont, these fears are vastly exacerbated.In this context it is very pertinent to run into what caused Chernobyl and assess how likely is it for a similar disaster to come up again, for generally similar reasons. Smith and Beresfords detailed up to now uncomplicated explanation of the Chernobyl incident is useful for developing a mental picture of the events that led to the 1986 mishap, what really occurred and how it was handled. Methodology This short paper is built around a minor incident at Vermonts nuclear power plant and the public reaction to it with the aim of examining the broader implications of nuclear power to the future of the world.We provide to survey the works cited in the literature review in instal to glean the opinions and standpoint of their authors in regard to the risks and rewards presented by the use of nuclear power. A special focus is laid on the Chernobyl incident. Results The MIT study of 2003, ulterior updated in 2009, is the one of the most authoritative studies in this field. It begins with what would appear like a sad tint that despite the great promise nuclear power holds in regard to significantly restricting earths green house emissions, nuclear power is virtually go about stagnation.It recommends a tripling of worlds nuclear generating capacity of the world by 2050 in order to turn around the situation of decline. Doing so would help in cutting 25% of the increment in greenhouse gas emissions which would occur if such a resurgence of nuclear powe r did not take lay out. The base hit of modern reactor figure of speechs is considerably superior to those of the preliminary models, and there is very low risk of serious accidents. However, the very low risk associated with modern nuclear reactors holds true only when their operation implements lift out practices. Proliferation is another major concern in regard to nuclear power generation. With increased use of nuclear power, there is increasing likelihood of ill-use of raw materials and technology for manufacturing nuclear weapons. The existing international safeguards regime is far from being adequate, according to the report, to meet the greater auspices challenges of a ball-shaped growth in nuclear usage. Especially, the kind of reprocessing system that is used in a majority of nuclear power using countries, including European Union, lacquer and Russia, poses unwarranted risks of proliferation.Waste management is yet another major ambit of concern. Closed arouse cy cles involving reprocessing are generally considered to offer waste management benefits, but the study is not convinced of their benefits improved open fuel cycles can offer just as many benefits and they present little security threats along with decreased costs. The study therefore recommends open, once-through fuel cycles for facing both security and waste management challenges in a go bad way.However, the international safeguards regime needs to be improved, and greater efforts have to be put in by the government and the private enterprise to develop better solutions for the waste disposal problem. Apart from the safety, proliferation, and waste management concerns, the fundamental issue in regard to nuclear power is the cost, which is not yet competitive with the other conventional modes of power generation. However, even this problem is not insurmountable, and various strategies are suggested to increase the economic feasibility of nuclear power.Finally, forebodings and mis lead perceptions among the public present a great barrier for creating a relocation to expand the worlds nuclear power capacity. This, the report suggests, can be dealt with by implementing an intensive program of public education. The 4th part of Scientific Americans in-depth feature on the future of nuclear power covers many risky scenarios faced by the American nuclear power sector in the past few decades. The report leads us to conclude that the future of nuclear power in the US largely depends on the quality of management of the nuclear installations.So far the US has a rather impressive track record in racecourse the nuclear facilities, and this consistency is likely to continue. A chapter in the UK white paper on the future of nuclear power addresses the specific safety and security risks posed by nuclear installations. It stresses on the additional safety features added to the latest models of nuclear reactors Designers of nuclear power stations have taken this primari ly operational experience and learned lessons from previous nuclear events. They have added features to narrow the likelihood of plant failures and to limit the consequences when failures occur.(p. 105) From design to operations and maintenance, rigorous procedures can be developed, and in fact have been developed, which make nuclear energy one of the best options for meeting the electricity needs of UK and Europe. Mahaffey, in his book Atomic Awakening raises many interesting points. He observes, for example, that Chernobyl caused only 55 to 60 deaths (most of them being fire fighters exposed to lethal doses of radiation), whereas the Bhopal incident which took place in 1984 in India killed over 15,000 of the citys inhabitants.Despite the overblown public fears, the safety record of the nuclear industry world wide is relatively very solid. There is no reason why people should fear nuclear power generation more than they fear many other processes to do with advanced technology. S een from a safety perspective, nuclear power plants are like airlines a single disaster can bring about great fear among the public for air travel, but when we look at the statistical record of safety of airlines and compare them with road transport, airplanes turn out to be vastly safer than cars. In the early hours of April 26, 1986, a massive nuclear reactor accident took place at the Chernobyl Power pose in Ukraine. A small test procedure that was being conducted went completely out of control, resulting in two non-nuclear explosions that demolished the heavy ceiling of the reactor and expelled the hot contents and waste products of the reactors core into the surroundings. Chernobyl is the worst nuclear disaster in the history. It has cast a heavy shadow on the entire nuclear industry which continues to darken the horizons.But we must note that the Chernobyl disaster is a result of bad design compounded by bad management practices and a work culture which flouted all safety c onsiderations. One safety feature after another was deliberately check in order to facilitate the test procedure serious warnings were unfeelingly disregarded. The Chernobyl meltdown occurred as a result of operator incompetence on a huge scale, as was acknowledged by the Soviet authoritative report of the disaster. A group of technicians are directly responsible for this disaster, and they connected six serious violations or errors besides many others.Many of the operators as well as managers in charge at Chernobyl actually knew very little about nuclear technology. Moreover, there were certain high-risk features associated with the RBMK design of the Chernobyl reactors. A Chernobyl can never exceed in the Western world because the minimal industrial standards here are far superior to those that prevailed in the Soviet Union during the last years of its existence. Conclusion Nuclear power plants have been safe and would continue to be safe in the context of advanced nations.B ut the real problem comes when we consider nuclear energy in the setting of the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. All the studies we have dealt with so far focus on the U. S. , U. K. and the E. U. How would nuclear power fare in the volatile developing countries is in fact even difficult to compendium even in broad terms. The major obstacle for the Third knowledge base Countries in embracing nuclear power is the cost. However, in a fight to develop environment-friendly energy sources, Western nations are engaged in livery down the costs of production of nuclear power.If they succeed, nuclear power production can spread rapidly in the developing countries of the world, and this can have potentially highly adverse consequences. A Chernobyl can never happen in the U. S. or Europe, but it can very well happen in Angola or Pakistan or Columbia. References Associated Press. Vermont Town Halls Want Nuclear Plant Shut. MSNBC. Retrieved from http//www. msnbc. msn. com /id/35687805 Biello D. (2009). The Future of Nuclear Power An In-depth Report. Scientific American. Retrieved from http//www. scientificamerican. com/report. cfm? id=nuclear-future Department of Trade and Industry, U. K. (2007).The Future of Nuclear Power The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon UK Economy. Retrieved from www. berr. gov. uk/files/file39197. pdf Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2003, 2009) The Future of Nuclear Power An Interdisciplinary Study. Retrieved from http//web. mit. edu/nuclearpower/ Mahaffey, J. (2009). Atomic Awakening A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power. New York Pegasus Books Smith, J & Beresford, N. A. (2005). Chernobyl catastrophe and consequences. New York Springer