Nuclear energy production

Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Introduction

Issues touching on energy production have always elicited mixed reactions from various groups of people. This, of course, depends on every group’s interests and how they will be affected by a certain aspect of energy production. It goes without saying that energy production has been barely sufficient to cater for the needs of all people. As much as there may not be an overarching shortage, the costs of energy in the present have gone so much high, especially as concerning the utilization of fossil fuels. This has prompted the various stakeholders to look or invest in alternative sources of energy. These include renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and other non conventional sources of energy such as nuclear. As much as varied governments have invested quite a considerable amount of money in the utilization of renewable sources of energy, the intake of such sources has been relatively slow. This is mainly because of unreliability of weather, vast expanses of land that are needed, not to mention the fact that such sources of energy may not be sufficient for large scale production of energy. This has, therefore, left many developed countries with the option of pursuing nonconventional sources of energy, especially nuclear energy.

The Unites States nuclear power industry incorporates 103 reactors situated in 31 states. These reactors produce energy amounting to 20 percent of the United States’ power. It is worth noting that production of electricity using nuclear power plants is beyond that from natural gas, oil, as well as hydropower sources and comes second only to power from coal (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 13). As much as the cost of constructing nuclear power plants is considerably high, consumers would pay less money for kilowatts per hour (kwh) than in the case of coal. The production of nuclear energy involves the splitting or fission of uranium atoms. Once uranium atoms split, a small proportion of their mass would be changed into energy while the remainder is modified into heat. When the fission occurs in the appropriate conditions, it will trigger chain reactions that tears or splits other atoms. The production of nuclear energy for commercial purposes maintains controlled chain reactions in the power plant (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 16). It also converts or modifies the heat that the split atoms releases into steam, which it uses to produce electricity. This energy that is generated from splitting atoms is much greater than energy produced through the combustion of similar amounts of matter. In essence, nuclear energy production requires a smaller amount of materials, less land and produces less waste than the generation of energy by burning fossil fuels.

However, this option has attracted an enormous outpouring of emotions pertaining to the appropriateness of depending on nuclear energy especially with regard to the environment. Questions, therefore, arise as to whether the production of nuclear energy is appropriate for the environment. Is the production of energy from nuclear plants the best option for the country? It is worth noting that the production of nuclear energy comes with enormous benefits, as well as a considerable number (and magnitude) of pros. It is, therefore, imperative that countries reevaluate these pros and cons and determine which is appropriate for them. In my opinion, the magnitude of disadvantages far outweighs the pros that this energy portends for the country.

First, it is noteworthy that the production of nuclear energy involves the use of non renewable resources (Bodansky, 68). Many people are concerned about the depletion of natural resources such as fossil resources, minerals, forests and others. Very few people acknowledge the fact that nuclear energy involves the use of a nonrenewable resource to produce the supposed clean energy. Uranium is extracted from the surface of the earth through chemical leaching or conventional mining techniques. Once it has been extracted from the ground, the uranium ore is taken to the processing plants where it is concentrated into an enriched fuel in the form of uranium oxide pellets. The enriched fuel is then sent to the nuclear power production plants. In essence, nuclear power production is founded on the use of nonrenewable resources.

On the same note, it is noteworthy that the mining and drilling of aluminum ores is detrimental to the environment (Bodansky, 68). Mining of any resources is always known to destroy the environment in varied ways. Large tracts of land may be cleared to pave the way for uranium mining not only in the exact places where the mining takes place, but also in adjacent pieces of land for the construction of the requisite infrastructure. These forests and other forms of vegetation are habitats for numerous animals and birds, in which case their destruction renders these animals homeless. In addition, mining comes with the disadvantage of polluting the environment in an extremely adverse way. Despite all-inclusive measures that are taken to dispose chemicals used in mining to nearby rivers, an enormous amount of these chemicals leaks into the land, thereby altering the land’s chemical composition. These chemicals are also toxic, in which case they render the soil unsuitable for the growth of plants. Even in cases where the chemicals are directed to the rivers without any leakage, there is the pollution of water bodies, which results in death of aquatic life. Chemicals such as cyanide, mercury, arsenic, methyl mercury and sulfuric acid are used in varied mining stages. These chemicals have adverse results on water bodies and the constituent aquatic life. This, therefore, pokes holes on the notion that the production of nuclear energy is entirely clean or pollution free.

Apart from the mining process, it is entirely inappropriate to insinuate that the production of nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gases especially carbon dioxide (Bodansky, 89). Of course, it is understood that nuclear energy has no carbon emissions. However, there is still a high amount of carbon emissions produced in the various processes involved such as enriching process, mining, its disposal, final plant decommissioning, as well as its conversion to nuclear fuel (Fergusson, 45). However, the amount of carbon dioxide that the secondary processes produce mainly depends on the Uranium enrichment method that is used, as well as the source of electricity that is used in the enrichment process. Either way, the processes involved in the production of nuclear energy have the potential of producing greenhouse emissions.

One of the key or principal concerns pertaining to the production of nuclear energy has to do with the disposal of its waste products (Bodansky, 57). Of course, the production of nuclear energy produces less waste material than other sources of energy such as fossil fuels. Research shows that one uranium atom incorporates energy that is millions of times more than the energy held by fossil fuels. In essence, there is always less waste material produced in the generation of nuclear energy than in other processes (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 34). However, the dangerous nature of these waste materials cannot be ignored. It is worth noting that various methods of disposing these materials have been devised. The production or generation of nuclear energy results in the creation of radioactive waste materials that cannot be disposed off in the conventional methods or even recycled, at least not according to the current technologies. These waste materials come with varying degrees of radioactivity with the most dangerous category of waste materials being the spent nuclear fuel rods (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 22). The low-level radioactive waste materials include the radiation contaminated materials, as well as uranium tailings. Unfortunately, there is no technology in these days that allow for the proper disposal of waste, in which case it is piling up in the nuclear facilities, in the country.

Currently, the radioactive waste materials are stored in the nuclear plants within multiple barriers. The geologic disposal system is conceived as incorporating extra barriers for isolating the waste, as well as sealing pathways through which the contaminants are likely to reach the environment (Hadjilambrinos, 47). These waste materials are first placed in titanium or copper containers that can withstand corrosion for a long time then stored in the repositories. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive research as to the ability of these repositories to contain the radioactive materials until they have totally lost their radioactive nature and attained safe levels of the same. It is worth noting that while some radioactive waste materials take a few decades to become safe, most of the waste takes thousands of years to lose their radioactive nature. Even when they do, research has shown that there is no safe level of radiation (Hadjilambrinos, 67). In quite a large number of cases, the spent fuel rods in United States’ nuclear reactors are put into or submerged into storage pools that incorporate circulating water to cool them off. It is noteworthy that these storage pools do not have steel containment structures protecting them, irrespective of the fact that the pools contain 5-10 times more radioactivity than reactors. It is obviously difficult to rule out the possibility of accidents or mechanical failures in these containers (Goldberg, 78). Studies show that in case the cooling system failed, for example, in cases where the water pumps are unable to pump water through, the spent fuel would be likely to get as hot and unsafe as the fuel incorporated in the reactors. The water would then heat in less than 24 hours, leading to the exposure of fuel rods to air. The consequences would be severe and dangerous and may include the occurrence of a self-propagating zirconium fire, as well as an enormous production of radioactive isotopes.

In addition, there have existed suggestions that the radioactive waste material should be buried in underground stores where they would remain undisturbed for eons on end until they are safe (Goldberg, 45). In fact, the Yucca Mountain had been identified as the best place for this method of storage. On the other hand, there have been suggestions that the waste materials should be disposed off in space using rockets or by burying it under ice caps. However, questions remain as to the safety of such methods of storage. It goes without saying that the magnitude of dangerous effects that the explosion of such a rocket would have on both plants and animals would be enormous (Gudorf and Hutchinson, 113). As much as burying the radioactive waste materials may appear as a viable option, questions exist as to how such storage facilities would be maintained especially in the long run. In addition, such storage methods would produce severe consequences if natural catastrophes such as earthquakes occur in the areas (Gudorf and Huchingson, 166). In addition, there exists the danger of terrorist attacks targeting nuclear reactors. The fears became real after it was discovered that, the masterminds of the September 11 attacks were also planning to target one of the United States’ nuclear reactors. The Japanese nuclear crisis has shown just how devastating such accidents, whether natural or manmade, could be not only to the environment but also to the plants and animals.

Lastly, there are concerns as to the amounts of water that nuclear reactors consume so as to cool off. Nuclear reactors not only consume large amounts of water but also release steam that eliminates some aquatic life. This is especially when there are radioactive elements in such water (Richard and Routley, 34).

In conclusion, nuclear energy has lately been propagated as the safest and most appropriate for the environment. This is because of the notion that it produces clean energy. However, it noteworthy that its production involves the destruction of the environment through mining, as well as the use of chemicals that eliminate aquatic life once they leak into the water bodies. Moreover, there are issues pertaining to the storage or disposal of radioactive waste materials, which pose enormous threats to both the current and future generations. The possibility of accidents in such cases would affect the world in an unchangeable manner. In my opinion, the cons of producing nuclear energy far outweigh the advantages especially as far as the environment is concerned.

Works cited

Gudorf, Christine E. and Huchingson, James E. (2010-04-19). Boundaries: A Casebook in Environmental Ethics. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. 2010. Print

Richard and Val Routley. “Nuclear Power: Some Ethical and Social Dimensions.” Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1982. Print

Goldberg, Jonah. “Dead and Buried.” National Review, 2002, Print

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Nuclear Energy: Electricity from Nuclear Energy. Web 2012 retrieved 21st June 2012 from HYPERLINK “http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html” http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html

Hadjilambrinos, Constantine. “Ethical Imperatives and High-Level Radioactive Waste Policy An Egalitarian Response to Utilitarian Analysis.” Environmental Ethics. 2000. Print

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Energy. New York: OECD Publishing, 2007. Print

Ferguson, Charles D. Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2007. Print

Bodansky, David. Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. New York: Springer, 2004. Print