NUCLEAR POWER DANGERS.   Term Paper ID:20895 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Problems of design & construction, regulation & bureaucracy, waste disposal, politics, costs, environment.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 4 sources, 11 Citations, MLA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Problems of design & construction, regulation & bureaucracy, waste disposal, politics, costs, environment. Paper Introduction: Many people have concluded that nuclear power is fundamentally evil (Morgan 7). Those who oppose nuclear power do so because, at least in a rough qualitative way, they have balanced the risks and benefits as they understand them and have concluded that no amount of readjustment in the organizations that manage the technology or in the nature and balance of the risks and benefits it brings will make nuclear power acceptable. Other people still view this issue as a balance of risks, costs, and benefits. Proponents of nuclear power argue that, with much re-education and some re-examining of current organizations and technology, the public can be persuaded to welcome back nuclear power (Morgan 7). Although nuclear power continues to play an active role in the energy planning of other nations, the U.S. nuclear power Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. All thisdemonstrates until scientists know how to deal with radioactivity in waysthat will be safe for the public, nuclear power should not be used. Phoenix,Arizona: University of Arizona.----------------------- 8 The other branch wouldcontinue to deal with the existing industry but should slowly shrink overtime as existing nuclear plants live out their useful lifetimes. Many people believe that these six problems can be resolved and thatnuclear power should make a comeback. As for the economics, John Collier, chairman of Nuclear Electric,which has 12 nuclear stations in Great Britain, argues that there is littleto choose in cost terms between reprocessing and dry storage. Simpler andmore capable organizations are needed that must have simpler and morerealistic mandates and greater authority. Two-thirds of THORP's business is supposed to comefrom Germany and Japan, among others. Many people have concluded that nuclear power is fundamentally evil(Morgan 7). Works Cited"Atomic Ants." Environment April 1993: 4."Hot Rods Need Cool Heads." Economist 14 Nov. Although nuclear power continues to play an active role in the energyplanning of other nations, the U.S. Many of the officials aretechnically mediocre and have been that way for most of their professionallives. Once ofthe recommendations from the first stage of the review would likely be acall for several major new effects in applied research (Morgan 8). The responsefrom the industry has been to add to or elaborate on existing safetysystems. A number of different approaches to reactor design have been proposedby nuclear engineers. It would greatly expand theability of British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), a state company, forreprocessing nuclear waste. No one wantsanother 3-Mile Island disaster. In the past, BNFL reprocessed fuel fromBritish reactors only. ScottishNuclear believes dry storage will be a much cheaper option. This policy would be taking theadaptive approach rather than the absolute approach--and is more realistic. Militarysystems, however, often push technology to the edge of performance and areinherently risky. It is asimple fact of geology and engineering that people do not know how to buildanything that will reliably last untended for thousands of years (Morgan).Those that oppose nuclear power also state that proponents are oftenthinking of the economic side of the controversy. Today's reactors are complex, so that the complexity itself hasbecome a source of risk. For example, in GreatBritain, in 1992, one of the biggest issues was whether to allow theThermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield in northwest Englandto start operating. Construction must be managed byproject teams that are experienced in managing complex social and technicalprocesses. Environmentalists, however, disagree. Even if waste is easier to store, itis still there, and more material is contaminated during reprocessing. Reprocessing,they say, does not solve the problem. Changes in the regulatory system also need to be made. "What Would It Take to Revitalize Nuclear Powerin the United States?" Environment March 1993: 6-9, 3 -32.Whipple, C. Scottish Nuclear, which runs nuclear power stationsnorth of the border, proposes to do that, if it can get planningpermission. It was a decision which, once taken, could be reversedonly at considerable cost (Hot rods 69). A critical element that pervadesmuch of the nuclear issue is a failure to treat the public with respect.With a change in philosophy and some bold new programs, these five problemscould be resolved domestically. Otherpeople still view this issue as a balance of risks, costs, and benefits.Proponents of nuclear power argue that, with much re-education and some re-examining of current organizations and technology, the public can bepersuaded to welcome back nuclear power (Morgan 7). Abetter option, they claim, is to put used fuel in dry stores--if one musthave an option at all. Also, the Department of Energy (DOE) implements NRCand EPA rules and regulations mostly at the beginning and the end ofnuclear fuel cycle (Morgan 3 ). For example, scientists at the University ofIdaho are studying a dozen harvester ant farms to help determine the safetyof nuclear waste disposal and storage facilities (Atomic Ants 24). To discover thesolution, researchers have interspersed layers of blue aquarium gravelthroughout a dozen experimental ant farms but beneath a barrier of thematerial used to contain radioactive cooling ponds. Issues that need to be considered in a comprehensivereview of reactor design include safety, reliability, complexity, cost,design maturity, and ease of assembly, and decommissioning. His companyhas signed a contract with BNFL to reprocess fuel from its Magnox andadvanced gas-cooled reactors for the next 15 years, but it is buildingample storage space for used fuel at its new plant at Sizewell. nuclear power industry has declined.Five basic problems plague the current U.S. Also, these teams must be in a position to learn from repeatedexperience. If the blue pebblesmake their way to the surface of the experimental farms, the scientistswill know that the harvesters can penetrate the barrier and, at the coolingponds of an active nuclear plant, spread contamination into the outlyingareas--possibly--because the experiment is not foolproof. A sixth problem, involving the moreeffective management of nuclear weapons and their proliferation, willrequire collective international solutions. nuclear power system: thenation has been building the wrong kind of reactors; has taken the wrongapproach to regulation; has taken the wrong approach to handlingradioactive wastes; and has failed to resolve issue that can be solved onlythrough high-level political will and leadership (Morgan 8). If nuclear power is to have future inthe United States, as many think it should, the industry must make use ofstandard designs and mass production. While it may be important to continueresearch in the safe disposal of nuclear wastes, since there are wastedisposal plants that may need future attention, it may take many years todevelop a system that works. Such asystematic review is unlikely to be accomplished in a few months. However, these increased levels could alsobe the result of wind activity or even rat movement. The moment society adopted the notion thatwaste disposal should be absolute--so that it will never do damage toanyone under any circumstances--that policy was set up for failure.Proponents of nuclear power also argue that by changing this policy to oneof fixing waste disposal so that it poses no significant risk of damage, aslong as it is monitored occasionally, and then securing wastes so that itis unlikely to cause significant damage even if it is not monitored in thefuture, then geologists and engineers could produce workable designs tomeet any reasonable level of safety. The best strategy would be to establish a new regulatory organizationthat contains two very separate branches. One branch, staffed largely withnew people, would oversee the new nuclear industry. BNFL has argued that reprocessing is still the safest and cheapestway to handle waste. Despite grand justifications, thenuclear power regulatory system serves no purpose beyond providing work forfunctionaries in the industry, the agencies, and a group of parasiticconsulting organizations (Morgan 3 ). The plant has been builtwithout public money, paid for by advance orders from Japan and Germany.Almost all of its capacity in the first 1 years has been booked, and it is4 percent booked for the following decade. Some argue that the problem with nuclear waste disposalis one of public philosophy. There are two reasons why a fundamentally new reactor-designphilosophy is needed if nuclear power is to work. In addition, ant hillsnear old coolant water disposal ponds contain three times the radioactivityof normal surface soil samples. On the other hand, many people believe that nuclear power will neverbe safe because no one knows what to do with nuclear wastes. "Reinventing Radioactive Waste Management: Why 'Getting itRight the First Time' Won't Work." Waste Management '89. Nuclear power in the UnitedStates is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), whichgrants licenses and monitors utilities for safety violations, and by theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), which sets standards for exposureand waste disposal. 1992: 69-7 .Morgan, Granger M. First, the design fortoday's nuclear reactors evolved incrementally from the design of reactorsdeveloped for the propulsion of submarines and other naval ships. The NRC/EPA/DOE regulatory system is a bureaucratic quagmire,according to proponents of nuclear power. Those who oppose nuclear power do so because, at least in arough qualitative way, they have balanced the risks and benefits as theyunderstand them and have concluded that no amount of readjustment in theorganizations that manage the technology or in the nature and balance ofthe risks and benefits it brings will make nuclear power acceptable. Once the technology was transferred to civilianapplications, concerns about reactor safety began to grow. Although some strong forces work against such developments,thoughtful regulatory strategy should substantially counter thesepressures. The newregulations should work toward a system in which change is not an admissionof error, but an indication that things are working as they should(Whipple). If THORP were makingairplanes, it would be a national marvel, but it is doing something thatmost other nuclear countries refuse to do at home. Unfortunately, this approach does not allow for error. Many believeBNFL's plan is based on its own economics and that politicians, are buyinginto it because of the jobs it will provide for their constituents. Sinceharvester ants burrow 1 feet deep to construct their abodes, theentomologists suspect that the ants simultaneously transport radioactivematerial lying beneath the topsoil to the surface. Their commitment is often to self-preservation rather than to thefuture of the industry in this country. Another change in the manufacturing philosophy of nuclear reactorswould be to stop customizing them. The plant will bring many good jobsto an area where jobs of any kind are scarce. The controversy surrounding nuclear power is one that cannot beresolved simply. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.