As
the world’s population increases, so does the demand for efficient, affordable
sources of energy. For as long as one
can remember, man has harnessed the power of the sun, wind, and water for
sustainable sources of energy. These
sources of energy are clean, meaning they emit no harmful emissions, and they
are renewable, meaning man cannot deplete them.
As
more and more people depend on electricity for lighting and heating their
homes, cooking their food, recycling their plastics and glass, and even
powering their vehicles, any one of these sources may not be able to keep up
with demand. Electric demands tend to
have a consistent base load with spikes during certain months and certain times
of day; solar and wind energy require a
electricity-producing back up due to their intermittent nature (World Nuclear
Association, 2011).
Hydroelectric
power now supplies approximately 16% of the world’s electricity (World Nuclear
Association, 2011). Wind energy and
hydroelectric power work well together as the water supplies energy when the
wind is not blowing hard enough to do so (World Nuclear Association,
2011). However, hydroelectric plants
require bodies of water to operate. A
city or town in the middle of a plain or a desert would need a battery back up
with either wind or solar power providing the bulk of their energy. This requires two infrastructures in place if
the goal is to use renewable sources of energy.
There
is an increased interest in new nuclear plants as energy sources. This interest stems from the increase in
electricity demand as electricity demands are expected to increase by 21% by
2030 (NEI, 2010). Also, talk of “going
green” and protecting the environment is inundating our television, radio,
grocery stores, and politics. Consumers
are attracted to how nuclear plants burn “clean” and do not pollute the air,
have excellent performance, and provide price stability (NEI, 2010). In September of 2008, 74% of the people
surveyed on nuclear energy were in support of nuclear energy (NEI, 2010). MIT supported these claims in a study in 2009
that showed that nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide or other
atmospheric pollutants, was renewable, and was efficient (MIT, 2009).
Approximately
20% of the electricity in the United States comes from nuclear power. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is an
example of nuclear energy at use. The
TVA makes enough electricity from three plants to power three million homes in
the Tennessee Valley (TVA, 2010). The
TVA also has regular emergency tests and a prompt notification system to
provide information to the public in case of emergency (TVA, 2010).
Power
plants use heat to generate steam to create electricity. Nuclear power plants create this heat through
fission, or the splitting of atoms (U.SNRC, 2011). There are two types of nuclear reactors in
the United States. The first is the
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). This
type of reactor keeps water under pressure; water is heated, but not
boiled. The water in the steam generator
and the water in the reactor vessel do not mix (U.S.NRC, 2011). The second is the Boiling Water Reactor
(BWR). In this system, the heated water
boils to turn into steam. Both the BWR
and PWR turn the steam back into water to reuse it (US.NRCC, 2011).
Safety
features are built into plants. The
fission process can be stopped to allow a quick shut down. Reactors can be cooled by releasing steam or
by using cold water. Barriers are in
place to protect the environment and workers from radioactivity. Finally drills are practiced on a regular
basis so staff will be ready in the case of a real emergency (U.S.NRC, 2011).
In
the 1960’s and 1970’s, nuclear plants were issued a building permit based on
design only. However, starting in 1989,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission changed that by focusing more on safety and
allowing the public to be more involved (NEI, 2010). The three-step licensing process now involves
design certification, where the public has access to review and comment on the
proposed site and design. Early site
approval can happen at any point with the proposed site being held for years
until the design is approved and the construction begins. Early site approval includes a site safety
analysis, an environmental report, and emergency planning information. Finally, the combined construction and
operating license can be approved. This
step encompasses any resolutions of issues that arose in the first steps (NEI,
2010).
The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will license a nuclear power plant for forty
years. After the forty year time period,
the license is either reissued or the plant is shut down and decommissioned
(USNRC, 2011). When decommissioning a
nuclear plant, workers reduce the level of radiation until the land is safe to
be used for other things. Plants have up
to 60 years to complete closing. There
are three methods of decommissioning: 1)
dismantling, 2) safe storage of waste, and 3) entombment (USNRC, 2011).
When
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, politicians, and owners look for building
sites for a new nuclear plant, they look at three things. First, the state must not have a law that
bans nuclear plants. Currently,
California, Hawaii, Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all ban
nuclear plants (DePillis, 2009). Second,
they look at the topography of the proposed site. The site needs to be near water, needs at
least 500 acres of space, and needs to be near a growing population that will
have energy demands (DePillis, 2009).
Third, they look at the local community and whether or not they are
accepting of a nuclear plant (DePillis, 2009).
It makes things easier if there is little or no need to persuade the
populace of the need for a nuclear plant.
There
are, however, a few cons to nuclear power. For
one, nuclear plants cost more to build than regular plants due to the licensing
regulations listed above. Also, due to
past and recent headlines, there is a perceived adverse safety to health and
environment. There is also the question
of potential security risks and long-term management of nuclear waste (MIT,
2009). The populace surrounding a
proposed site for a nuclear plant will need the cons addressed.
Nuclear plants generate two types of waste.
The first is high-level waste.
This is spent fuel (fuel used in the nuclear reactor) and is highly
radioactive and very dangerous. This
type of waste must be cooled for several years either in deep pools inside the
plant or off-site (USNRC, 2011). The
second is low-level waste. This comes
from nuclear reactors, hospitals, or universities. Since it is not as dangerous as high-level
waste, it is traditionally shipped to a low-level waste disposal facility set
up by each state (USNRC, 2011).
It
1987, Yucca Mountain, NV was a proposed site for disposal of high-level waste. The heated debates and high emotions of the
time reached all the way to Arizona. The
government suggested the waste be stored for no more than 100 years since there
was no local support for permanent storage; the opposing force argued it would
be dangerous and costly to truck nuclear waste hundreds of miles to Yucca and
hundreds of miles back to their plants for processing when technology was able
to process the waste (Whaley, 2009). The
site was originally approved; however, it is not currently being federally funded.
One
of the largest hurdles builders of nuclear plants need to overcome is the
opinion of the local population. There
have been three widely publicized nuclear meltdowns in recent years. The negative press and probable cancers
caused by the radiation leaks causes the general public to pause before
accepting a nuclear plant near their home.
Even though nuclear plants undergo stringent safety inspections and have
had few accidents that have been proven to cause damage to the environment and
cancers to humans, those few cases stick out in human memory.
The
latest was the melt down caused by a March 2011 tsunami at the Fukushima
Duiichi Nuclear Plant in Japan. The news
was filled with information on contaminated land, water, and fish
supplies. There has been no
substantiated reports of cancer by nuclear run off; however, there has not been enough time to gather the necessary data.
The
only major accident in the United States happened in March of 1979 at
Three-Mile Island near Harrisburg, PA.
There are two plants at Three Mile Island, TMI-1 and TMI-2. TMI-1 began construction in 1968 and began
generating electricity in 1974 (Smithsonian, n.d.). TMI-2 started construction in 1969 and began
operating in 1978. The reactor’s operators
of TMI-2 falsified operational data in order to avoid interruptions of the
reactor’s operation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Smithsonian, n.d.). In the beginning, the controllers underestimated the
damage, and two days later, the Nuclear Regulator Commission over-estimated the
danger. Unsubstantiated reports then cause
evacuations and calls for potassium iodide solution for anyone suffering from
thyroid problems (Smithsonian, n.d.).
The extent of the damage came to light in 1983 during a computer-controlled
ultrasonic survey (Smithsonian, n.d.). There have been no substantiated illnesses
linked to the accident.
Another
well-known nuclear accident is Chernobyl.
A sudden surge in power at the Unit 4 reactor of Chernobyl, Ukraine on
April 26, 1986, caused massive amounts of radioactive material to be released
into the environment (USNRC, 2009). No
humans live in the area still. The
evacuated residents and workers are still being monitored for nuclear-caused
cancers and illnesses. There have been
deaths and radiation illness linked to the accident in those who were on-site
at the time; however, there have been no substantiated illnesses in those being
monitored.
These
three cases demonstrate how human error and lack
of communication can cause accidents that may or may not cause illness and
environmental damage. Sensationalism in the press can cause strong emotion in the populace before all the facts can be gathered. These cases also
bring forth questions the public would need answered before a nuclear plant can
be built near their homes. The new
regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allow for more communication
between nuclear committees and the general public. This allows for the public to know exactly
what safety measures are in place and how potentially dangerous meltdowns will
be prevented. It also will allow for the
public to know exactly how nuclear energy can be beneficial to their community.
Nuclear energy tends to be consistent
and stable, as stated in the MIT study, and it is renewable. If the regulators have a good plan for the storage
of nuclear waste and strong safeguards in place, there would be less apprehension about a plant being built 25
miles or 12.5 miles from where people live.
References:
DePillis,
Lydia (2009) A Nuclear Power Plant with A View.
Retrieved on January 15, 2012, from www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/07/a_nuclear_power_plant_with_a_view.html
MIT
(2009) The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Retrieved January 15, 2012, from
web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
NEI
(2010) Licensing New Nuclear Power
Plants. Retrieved on January 15, 2012,
from www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/factsheet/licensingnewnuclearpowerplants/
Smithsonian
(n.d.) Three Mile Island: The Inside Story. Retrieved on January 16, 2012, from
americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/
TVA
(2010) Nuclear Energy. Retrieved on January 15, 2012, from http://www.tva.gov/pwer/nuclear/index.htm
USNRC
(2009) Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Plant Accident. Retrieved on
January 15, 2012, from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/facts-sheets/
USNRC
(2011) Students’ Corner. Retrieved on January 15, 2012, from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students.html
Whaley,
Sean (2009) Reno Chamber Hears Pros,
Cons of Yucca Mountain Project.
Retrieved on January 15, 2012, from www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2009/11/12/reno-chamber-hears-pros-cons-of-yucca-mountain-project/
World
Nuclear Association (2011) Renewable
Energy and Electricity. Retrieved on
January 15, 2012, from world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html
No comments:
Post a Comment