Institute of Technology Essay

A minor news item feature in MSNBC last month, from which the above excerpt is taken, talks more or less a 38-year-old aging atomic king plant in the kingdom of Vermont that is solace efficient plainly shape ups 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 another(prenominal) 20 years. The plant meets one- ternary of the states electrical energy needs, and the the great unwashed of Vermont argon precise much dependent on it for the electrical energy, of course.But at the same time they require grown distrustful of the quality of focusing at the plant and the plants viability. The time to come of this plant may not be a national or international concern, but it is a crucial issue for the local people. The fundamental dilemma of the razet here reflects, in microcosm, the vastly larger business of the incoming of thermo atomic-generated elec tricity as such(prenominal) should we enthusiastic onlyy embrace it or wisely quit it? galore(postnominal) of the rapidly developing countries of the terra firma, especially, tend to be upbeat about the dominance of atomic berth, while in some of the developed countries where thermo thermonuclear magnate has been put to social function for generating electricity for several decades now there has been an increasing stage of opposition to the continued reliance on nuclear berth, from the point of view of threats it poses to the environment. As in the case of Vermont Yankee fountain plant, the basic conflict in the nuclear power sector is in the midst of the potential and the potential risk.The Vermont facility has unflurried the potential to supply a large fraction of the states electricity needs for a couple of decades more which is by no entertains a mean feat, but there are signs, such as the recent tritium natural spring detected at the plant, of the decreased reli ability and robustness of the plant. The Vermont news point provokes the question Can nuclear power plants be robust and certain in public? The rewards they proffer may outweigh the risks they pose, but even so, do the rewards far-off outweigh the risks so that the risks to the extent they are amaze stooge be considered acceptable?A number of countries of the demesne stir benefitted from nuclear power for several decades now with sole(prenominal) one acquire disaster to speak of so far. But how many closely averted disasters such as the Three-Mile Island chance of 1979 there might gain been it is uncorrectable to estimate. Because, as merchant ship be travel ton in the case of Vermont facility, there is apparently a widespread culture of leaks and lies in the nuclear power sector, which tends to neatly portion out up inefficiencies, mis watchfulness, breaches, increased risks and so on.The areas experience with nuclear-generated electricity so far could be seen as a trial or an experiment, establish on which we are compelled 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 initially expected when nuclear power technologies were developing in the 1950s? Or, should we in stages phase out our dependence on nuclear power and thrust to much safer alternatives, or should a middle way be follow?There are many sound-informed people who would like to see all nuclear power plants shut down how far are their hero-worships valid? Literature Review 1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2003, 2009) The Future of nuclear Power 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 to assessi ng the feasibility of nuclear power. deed 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 diminutive 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 allegiance and initiative. 2) Biello D. (2009). The Future of atomic Power An In-depth Report.Scientific American. Retrieved from http//www. scientificamerican. com/ spread abroad. cfm? id=nuclear-future This is a 4-part in-depth describe feature in the Scientific American magazine in early 2009. The first report, Find Fissile Fuel, explores the issue of availability of uranium and other stark materials for nuclear power. The second report, Reactivating atomic React ors for the Fight against Climate Change, examines the ongoing escalation in nuclear power production in the U. S. Spent thermonuclear Fuel, the third part, deals with the major(ip) issue of nuclear consume management.The final report, Atomic saddle Balancing the Risks and Rewards of a Power Source, asks the question Is it worth the minor feeling of a major catastrophe? 3) Department of avocation and Industry, U. K. (2007). The Future of thermonuclear Power The Role of Nuclear Power in a small(a) Carbon UK Economy. Retrieved from www. berr. gov. uk/files/file39197. pdf This is a UK government clean-living paper / consultation entry on the relevance of nuclear power in addressing the issues related to orbiculate warming and climate change and ensuring continued energy supplies.Though it is a document of advice and information provided to the UK government to help it pull out decisions, a setting of the particularities of the UK situation can be useful in more general co ntexts. In the UK, nuclear power is already making a evidential 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 new tone of voice at the History and Future of Nuclear Power. New York Pegasus BooksMahaffey, a senior research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute, has create verbally a 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 depicted to be while the risks cannot be tout ensemble mitigated it can still be utilise in a very safe manner. maven 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 noseband this gap by familiarizing his audience with the subject in an socialize and engaging manner, largely in a historical perspective. 5) Smith, J & adenosine monophosphate 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 neighborhood of a nuclear power plant are naturally nark with fears that their installation does not turn out to be another Chernobyl. And if a nuclear facility is real having some known problems, as in the case of Vermont, these fears are vastly exacerbated.In this context it is very relevant to understand what caused Chernobyl and assess how likely is it for a similar disaster to happen again, for broadly similar reasons. Smith and Beresfords detailed yet unproblematic account of the Chernobyl incident is useful for developing a mental get word of the events that led to the 1986 mishap, what really occurred and how it was handled. Methodology This short paper is built nearly a minor incid ent 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 propose to survey the works cited in the literature review in order to glean the opinions and standpoint of their authors in regard to the risks and rewards turn overed by the use of nuclear power. A special focus is laid on the Chernobyl incident. Results The MIT study of 2003, later updated in 2009, is the one of the most authoritative studies in this field. It begins with what would appear like a sad note that despite the great squall nuclear power holds in regard to significantly restricting hides 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 glasshouse gas emissions which would occur if such a resurge nce of nuclear power did not take place. The golosh of modern reactor designs is considerably greatest to those of the earlier models, and there is very low risk of real accidents. However, the very low risk associated with modern nuclear reactors holds true only when their routine implements best practices. Proliferation is another major concern in regard to nuclear power generation. With increased use of nuclear power, there is increasing likelihood of misuse 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 security challenges of a global growth in nuclear usage. Especially, the kind of reprocessing system that is used in a majority of nuclear power using countries, including European Union, Japan and Russia, poses unwarranted risks of proliferation.Waste management is yet another major area of concern. Closed supply cycles involving reproce ssing are generally considered to offer waste management benefits, but the study is not convinced of their benefits improved receptive fuel cycles can offer just as many benefits and they present diminished 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 better way.However, the international safeguards regime needs to be improved, and greater efforts shake off to be put in by the government and the private go-ahead to develop better solutions for the waste disposal problem. Apart from the preventative, 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 misgui ded perceptions among the public present a great barrier for creating a movement to expand the worlds nuclear power capacity. This, the report suggests, can be dealt with by implementing an intensive program of public education. The quaternate 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 running 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 earlier o perational experience and learned lessons from previous nuclear events. They have added features to reduce the likelihood of plant failures and to limit the consequences when failures occur.(p. 105) From design to operations and maintenance, smashed 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 ex angstrom unitle, 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. scorn 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 technolog y. Seen from a safety perspective, nuclear power plants are like airlines a single disaster can create great fear among the public for air travel, but when we boldness 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 capacious nuclear reactor accident took place at the Chernobyl Power install 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 radioactive contents and waste products of the reactors core into the surroundings. Chernobyl is the scald nuclear disaster in the history. It has cast a heavy tracing on the entire nuclear industry which continues to darken the horizons.But we mustiness note that the Chernobyl disaster is a result of bad design intensify by bad management practices and a work culture wh ich flouted all safety considerations. One safety feature after another was on purpose suppressed in order to facilitate the test procedure serious warnings were callously disregarded. The Chernobyl meltdown occurred as a result of operator incompetence on a huge scale, as was acknowledged by the Soviet official report of the disaster. A group of technicians are directly trusty for this disaster, and they committed 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 tough features associated with the RBMK design of the Chernobyl reactors. A Chernobyl can neer happen in the westward world because the minimal industrial standards here are far supreme 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 advance d nations.But 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 come up in the volatile developing countries is in fact even difficult to outline even in broad terms. The major obstacle for the triad World Countries in embracing nuclear power is the cost. However, in a bid to develop environment-friendly energy sources, Western nations are engaged in bringing 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