claytonsportfolio.yolasite.comclaytonsportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/English 2010 Fin… · Web viewThe world has many different sources ... and tsunami damaged the power plant

Clayton DaltonEnglish 2010

1

Nuclear Energy: Safety and Production Evaluation

The world has many different sources for energy. From clean energy to crude oil, none

has as much controversy as nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has the power to create huge

amounts of energy and is used to power cities in many different countries, but also it has the

ability to be catastrophic if mishandled.

When I first heard about nuclear reactors I always heard how dangerous they were.

How they could kill us all in a meltdown which would annihilate everything and everyone. With

a closer look I have learned that nuclear reactors are quite safe and provide an excellent

alternative energy source for our cities when used properly. It saves us billions of dollars in fuel

and when regulated well and efficiently it is very safe. That is not to say it is without fault.

Nuclear reactors work by using nuclear fission, which is when a heavy nucleus splits

spontaneously or on impact with another particle, with the release of energy. This is used to

heat water which in turn creates steam and turns turbines creating electricity. Bill Harris, the

Senior vice president of the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, in 1990 before the American

Legion national convention explains how the use of nuclear energy has helped save the United

States over $125 billion because we are not buying as much oil from Arab Oil embargos. The

graph below shows just how low of the amount of money is required per kilowatt of power. He

also explains how nuclear energy is much cleaner than crude oil as he states that it produces no

sulfur oxides, no nitrogen oxides, no carbon dioxides or other greenhouse gases. That article is

very outdated however it still stands that we save billions of dollars because we use nuclear


2

energy to power many cities and nuclear energy is still a very clean burning fuel , however it

does produce radioactive waste.

Radioactive waste is a problem due to the health hazards that come with it. In an article

from Magazine in an editorial , The Progressive, February 1990, they go through the problems

caused by nuclear energy. They argue that the nuclear waste produced by nuclear energy is so

toxic and problematic to dispose of that it costs more to clean up the waste then what is being

saved by using it in the first place. They argue that other sources such as solar, wind, and


3

hydroelectric should be used instead as there is no waste produced from these energy sources.

They also add in that we do not need nuclear energy if we just started practicing conserving

energy and using other sources.

While I agree that radioactive waste can cause many health problems , I however have

found that the amount of radioactive waste produced per amount of energy in a nuclear

reactor is quite small and when it is stored in a safe location away from civilization it is rather

harmless. It is also not as expensive in total then the amount we spend on fossil fuels and

foreign oil. I also agree that society should develop "green energy" sources such as solar, wind,

and hydroelectric, however these forms of energy cannot meet our current needs for energy in

our a country so we should continue using nuclear power until these can be advanced and mass

produced to a point to meet our energy needs.

When it comes to safety of nuclear reactors we all worry about how safe a nuclear

reactor is and whether an accident would cause catastrophic problems. There have only been

three significant incidents in history of a nuclear reactor having serious problems. The most

recent one would be the Fukushima accident in 2011 where a earthquake and tsunami

damaged the power plant and caused equipment failures which in turn caused meltdowns and

radiation to be spilt out. In a Testimony before the House of energy and Commerce Oversight

and investigations subcommittee, on April 6th, 2011, Martin Virgilio explains that in the wake of

the disaster in Japan the United States has begun upping its safety procedures for each of its

nuclear power plant. He argues that each plant has been designed based on its location to

withstand the natural disasters found around that location, such as earthquakes, tsunamis,


4

hurricanes, etc. He also explains how the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is making

inspections to make sure that the power plants are safe and will not suffer to the same problem

as the power plants in the Fukushima accident.

Another side of the argument, In a testimony before the House of energy and

Commerce Oversight and investigations subcommittee, on April 6th, 2011 Edwin Lyman

explains how with the aftermath of the Fukushima accident we could have prevented most of

the problems if the NRC had made severe-accident management plans required. The article

addresses the problem that most nuclear plants do not have safety procedures for incase of

terrorist attacks and major disasters. It also shows how certain problems such as the core

damage in the Fukushima accident, are very rare and the chance of that happening are so slim

that the NRC does not prepare workers for it. Edwin argues that the NRC should focus on

making safety procedures in case of accidents and work on making nuclear power plants more

protected from natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Which brings me to my next safety issue. With terrorism being waged round the world,

are the nuclear power plants safe from a terrorist threat? The answer is a questionable. Since

September 11th 2001, millions of dollars have been spent in the creation of more protection

and faster responses to drills in case of a scenario where terrorist threatened a nuclear reactor.

However even with the increased protection its skeptical because it's never happened we do

not know whether or not a terrorist group could or could not gain access to a nuclear reactor

and cause a catastrophe.


5

In conclusion I feel as if the safety of nuclear reactors are statistically safe and getting

safer. I also think they are very useful in today's society as they help lower prices on electricity

and produce far less waste then oil based energy sources, however the radioactive waste that

they do create needs to be stored in safe locations where they will not cause problems. I also

think that we should not just focus on nuclear energy but also on solar, wind, and hydroelectric

energy as well. I think that with the proper use and maintenance nuclear reactors will stay safe

and keep powering cities around the world.


6

Sources

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Nuclear Power June 10, 2011 • Volume 21, Issue 22 Can Nuclear Energy Answer Global Power Needs?" CQ Researcher. Sage Publications, 10 June 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://library.cqpress.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2011061006>.- Bill HarrisSenior vice president of the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness. From an address before the American Legion national convention, Indianapolis, Aug. 25, 1990.

http://library.cqpress.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1991022206

- The ProgressiveMagazine in an editorial. From The Progressive, February 1990


-Martin VirgilioDeputy Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Testimony before the House of energy and Commerce Oversight and investigations subcommittee, April. 6, 2011.


-Edwin LymanSenior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists. Testimony before the House energy and Commerce Oversight and investigations Subcommittee, April 6, 2011.


Dettmering, Chris. "The Feasibility of Nuclear Energy as a Major Power Source." FIS RSS. FIS RSS, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=3115>.-The Feasibility of Nuclear Energy as a Major Power Source

written by Chris Dettmering

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=3115

Stoiber, Carl. "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors." Safety of Nuclear Reactors. OECD/NEA 2010,

Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources. NEA No. 6861., 2007.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=3115










7

Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html>.Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

"NEI: Nuclear Energy Institute." Nuclear Energy Institute. Ventyx Velocity Suite, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncosts/>.U.S. Electricity Production Costs (1995-2011)

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncosts/





8

Nuclear Energy Position Paper

With societies needs for energy becoming greater I feel we must find a means to

generate more and cleaner energy. With fossil fuels declining, we must make use of other

energy sources to sustain our great cities. I think that Nuclear energy, research and funding are

an answer to the problem. Nuclear power generates around 11% of the worlds energy needs

from rather small amounts of fuel, without the pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels.

That is not to say that nuclear power has its drawbacks such as radioactive waste and dangers

of nuclear meltdowns.

Nuclear energy is produced in two different ways. The first and most commonly used in

nuclear power plants is nuclear fission. With nuclear fission, an atom of uranium is knocked

apart by a fast moving neutron that breaks the atom apart into two lighter atoms. This causes a

chain reaction and produces energy at a massive level. Through this process we can produce

electricity with nuclear reactors heating water, which creates steam, which then turns turbines

as depicted in the picture below. Nuclear fission can also found in the first nuclear bomb that

was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. The second way nuclear energy can be produced is by

nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is when two atoms combine to produce a heavier atom. This can

be found in the Sun, and other stars. (Exception of brown dwarfs) When atoms are fused

together they create massive amounts of energy even more than nuclear fission, however the


9

creation of a nuclear fusion power plant is only in the makings. Both sources of energy create

massive amounts of energy with relatively little fuel.

With all of these benefits, why do we not see more nuclear power plants one might ask?

Nuclear energy is relatively safe when all the safety procedures are followed, however

accidents in a nuclear power plant can be catastrophic for those around it. An example is 1986,

Chernobyl, Ukraine where a nuclear power plant had a meltdown and caused severe nuclear

fallout to the surrounding area. People were subjugated to intense radiation and had to be

evacuated from their homes. Fear of disasters such as these are often the reason more nuclear

power plants are not found all over the world.

Another reason is nuclear fission also creates a radioactive byproduct. With radioactive

waste sometimes, taking over 100,000 years to lose that radioactivity it is hard to dispose of the

waste. The amount of waste produced is relatively small but very dangerous with the only way

to protect people from it is to bury it very deep into the Earth away from people. There is also

the fear of terrorism with nuclear power plants. Nuclear material falling into the wrong hands


10

could have catastrophic effects. With safety being an issue with nuclear power plants, agencies

such as the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) have been formed to inspect equipment and

make sure safety procedures are in place in case of an accident or terrorist threat. Society also

needs to control the distribution of said radioactive material and make sure it is being used as

fuel and not for making atomic weapons.

Advocates of nuclear energy such as Bill Harris argue that nuclear energy is a much

cleaner fuel than fossil fuels. Using examples such as France, Harris states “In France, where

over 70 percent of electricity comes from nuclear energy—far more than in the U.S.—there

have been even more dramatic environmental benefits,” and later when he adds in “Total

pollution from the French power system decreased by 80–90 percent.” As nuclear energy does

not produce carbon dioxides, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, or other greenhouse gases it does

not cause global warming, nor cause air pollution.

Fossil fuels are slowly running out and the price of it are going up as well. Nuclear

energy on the other hand has gone down. Nuclear fission can eventually run out as well with

needing uranium, however if we could harness the power of nuclear fusion the amount of fuel

from that could go almost indefinitely. It would also be very clean energy. The problem lies in

the fact that to make a fusion reaction there must be immensely high temperatures and

densities, such as found in the sun. With research producing positive results with super heated

plasmas and magnetic confinement reactors, there still however is no working fusion reactor.

The lack of funding to nuclear fusion reactors is also a problem as research costs money, and


11

lack of slows down development exponentially. With the results of being an almost unlimited

energy source why would we not fund that!

With critics arguing that other forms of energy would be better then nuclear, such as

wind, solar, and geothermal. I would agree that those are great sources for clean energy;

however, they do not produce enough energy to fuel the ever-growing society and needs that

come with it. Nuclear energy can meet those needs and when there is a working nuclear fusion

reactor, the energy of the world could be met as well.

With research still being conducted on nuclear energy it seems that there still is much to

be learned about it. Such as finding out ways to safely dispose of nuclear waste and or even

getting rid of nuclear waste as a byproduct altogether. As well as ways to better protect nuclear

power plants from things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks. The benefits of nuclear

energy are only getting better with research and technology.

In conclusion, I think nuclear energy is a double-edged sword. On the one side, it

produces a very large amount of energy and is cleaner than fossil fuels. On the other it has very

dangerous waste produced from it and if mishandled can cause major problems. I think that

with proper safety procedures and more understanding of how to treat and dispose of nuclear

waste nuclear energy is going to be one of the decisive energy sources in the future. I also feel

that we should be giving more funding for nuclear fusion research as it could be the future for

energy needs everywhere, as it will be able to make an almost unlimited energy source.


12

Sources

Gorton, Jennifer. "Energy Resources: Nuclear Power." Energy Resources: Nuclear Power. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm>.

"Nuclear Fusion Power." Nuclear Fusion Power. Nuclear Science Division/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/14/2.html>.

"The Economics of Nuclear Power." Nuclear Power Economics. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html>.

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Nuclear Power June 10, 2011 • Volume 21, Issue 22 Can Nuclear Energy Answer Global Power Needs?" CQ Researcher. Sage Publications, 10 June 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://library.cqpress.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2011061006>.

Hewitt, P. G. (2010). Conceptual Physics (11th ed.). Jim Smith.

"Nuclear Power in France." World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html>.

Nuclear Reactors." Cameco. Cameco Corp, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. <http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/uranium_science/nuclear_reactors/>.

Sources

Energy Resources webpage

http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm

Energy from Nuclear Science

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/14/2.html

World Nuclear Association

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/14/2.html

http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/nuclear.htm


13

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Bill HarrisSenior vice president of the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness. From an address before the American Legion national convention, Indianapolis, Aug. 25, 1990.


Hewitt, P. G. (2010). Conceptual Physics (11th ed.). Jim Smith.

Nuclear Power in France


English 2010 Reflection




http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html


14

Throughout my college experience I have often had to write papers, most of the time

the subject is given to me other times I have to choose them. In my English 2010 class I was

able to choose the subject that would encompass all of my papers from the beginning of the

semester to the end. All of my papers were on nuclear energy and its pros and cons, which

ended up being more difficult to write about based on all the different genres we ended up

writing in.

The first genre we wrote in was the profile/memoir, this proved to be the most difficult

to find information on because I had no personal experience with nuclear energy as I have

never really investigated it. When I was talking about it with my family my Grandmother

overheard and provided her insight on how nuclear energy has affected her personally. I

learned quite a bit about my grandmother that I never knew before, that I would have never

asked about if I hadn't decided to write on my subject matter. This course helped me realize

that everyone has experiences in life that should be recorded and talked about to further

generations that can help us see the past and learn from it.

The second genre we wrote in was a report/evaluation. This genre helped my research

skills, as I had to find out about nuclear reactors, how they worked, costs and efficiency, and

how safe they were. After doing my research I almost had a change of heart on the subject, I

realized that what I knew about the subject was mostly just biased opinions and non-factual

information. Now that I understood the way everything worked my evaluation on it helped me

with the third genre.


15

The third genre was a position/proposal. With the research from my previous paper my

position on nuclear energy changed. I went from being against it to actually wanting to promote

it. Now it's not to say that I was completely for it, I felt that it still had problems but not as many

as I previously thought, and nowhere near as severe. When I wrote the position paper I almost

had an argument within my brain, of flip flopping on each side of the argument. I decided to

embrace it and write my position as being not solid on either side of the argument but saying

what I liked and disliked about it.

Overall this course has taught me how a subject can be talked about in many different

genres, and medias. It has shown me that giving the time to research something can give you a

completely different perspective on it. Judging something based on what someone says is not

the same as actively going out and finding the answers for yourself. Hearing other people's

opinions within the class also helped, and the encouragement of hearing people say they liked a

paper really helped me feel better about writing another one. The last thing I would like to say

about this class is that I really started looking at my writing after the midterm. Not just my

current English class but all of them, they all seem so generic and formulaic. After reading that

line from the discussion, "Writing is not a linear process." I feel as if my writing has been a linear

process, and given the different ways to produce evidence from this course I would like to make future

writing less so.

Link to my Eportfolio

http://claytonsportfolio.yolasite.com

http://claytonsportfolio.yolasite.com/

Documents

claytonsportfolio.yolasite.comclaytonsportfolio.yolasite.com/resources/English 2010 Fin… · Web viewThe world has many different sources ... and tsunami damaged the power plant