Are nuclear power plants a sustainable source of energy?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Human beings live on a planet that is relied on for survival. For thousands of years, mankind has been dependant on the environment and nature. Since the Stone Age, where man used resources from nature to make basic tools and nomadic Hunter-gatherers searched for food, through to the modern times of today, where humans exploit the natural environment for their own well being and economic success.
The topic of Nuclear power plants are of hot debate at the moment, everyone around the globe is discussing whether they are a sustainable source of energy or not.
Nuclear power plants are an alternative source of energy; nuclear power plants use the power of the atom to generate electricity. The steps in which the power is created is as follows: Step 1: Tiny parts of the uranium, known as atoms, are made to split, or fission. Step 2: During fission, even smaller particles of the atom, called neutrons, are released. Step 3: The neutrons strike more uranium atoms, resulting in the release of heat needed to release energy, which results in electricity power.
This source of energy allegedly has a very low fuel cost and has minuscule pollution in comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants have the image of being clean with hardly any emissions. The results are: cleaner air, no interference with the earth's climate, avoids ground-level ozone formation and prevention of acid rain. Some would say that this form of energy supply is economical and cost-effective because of the steady fuel prices, high plant performance and the modernized plants. However it is evident that the planning, building, and operating of a nuclear power plant are a prolonged, costly, and extremely complex process.
The topic of Nuclear power plants has been a major point of discussion recently, due to the earthquake in Japan, which has brought on a lot of debate on the sustainability and ethics of nuclear power plants, as it is evident that they are very harmful when caused to malfunction. In relation to this, the article called “Sociology Theory and the Environment” by Frederick H. Butlel, Peter Dickens, Riley E.Dunlop and August Gijswijt, talks about how this topic has been of major concern, as for many years ecologists have become more than just scientists as they have contributed to the environmental debate. Problems such as radioactive fallout, pesticide poisoning, over pollution and the like have all have been main topics of distress, which the environment and the people surrounding it have to face.
On the 11th March 2011 the earthquake off the coast of Japan was recorded to be the biggest earthquake yet, as it measured nine on the Richter Scale. The earthquake caused a tsunami, which brought about most of the destruction. Thousands of people were left dead or missing, with their homes and families destroyed, and their natural habitat demolished. This issue has evidently affected the social environment and the people surrounding it. As a result of the earthquake, the worst affected was an old nuclear power station on the Japanese coast, which resulted in a fire, that brought about several explosions resulting in radiation leaks at the station. In numerous surrounding areas radioactive material has been identified. This natural disaster has caused many issues that all inter-relate. Huge damage to the social environment has been done as thousands of people were evacuated further from their homes.
The crises in Japan has not directly affected South Africa’s nuclear plant Koeberg, however it has some what influenced the decisions of South Africa’s future plans for the nuclear power plants.
The Koeberg power plant is situated 30 kilometers North West of Cape Town, which is situated far from the coalfields of Mpumalanga. Thus it was considered to be more economical to build a nuclear power station, instead of transporting coal to a power station in Cape Town. The location in Duynefontein, Melkbos was chosen because The Duynefontein area is renowned to be geologically stable, The cold water of the Atlantic Ocean is ideal for cooling and Eskom’s national grid is easily accessible from there.
There are two strong and often emotional points of view that exist, namely: there is an on-going debate about Nuclear power as an energy source. Many view it as rather sustainable energy as it is said that Nuclear power decreases carbon emissions, although others such as Greenpeace International seem to believe that nuclear power plants can cause many threats to people and the natural environment.
Nuclear power plants are known to many for creating environmental benefits, thus allegedly being an environmentally friendly source of energy. To name some of the advantages of nuclear power plants there is that it allegedly emits few carbon emissions therefore not contributing to the issue of global warming, it is apparent that the nuclear plants do not give off sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulates. A single nuclear power plant can generate a huge amount of electricity, the running costs are reasonably low, the nuclear reactors have a long life span, and fuel appears to be copious, although this is of huge debate. “When nuclear power is produced, nothing is burned in a conventional sense. Heat is produced through nuclear fission, not oxidation. Nuclear power does produce spent fuels of roughly the same mass and volume as the fuel that the reactor takes in. These spent fuels are kept within the reactor’s fuel assemblies, thus unlike fossil fuels, which emit stack gasses to the ambient environment, solid wastes at nuclear power plants are contained throughout the generation process. No particulates or ash are emitted.” [1]
[1] John Moens. (Date unknown). Nuclear Power and the Environment. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html. Last accessed 23 April 2011.
The disadvantages of nuclear power plants would be the mining, as the mining of uranium does not have low emissions and the mining destroys landscapes, as well as this during the process of the mining, radioactive substances are emitted. Solid waste from a nuclear plant or from a fossil fuel plant can be toxic, which is extremely damaging to the social environment and the people surrounding it. Although this is only possible if the nuclear plant was to explode or malfunction. Waste from the nuclear power plant is managed to the point of disposal, while a substantial part of the fossil fuel waste, especially stack gases and particulates are unmanaged after release from the plant. Waste from a nuclear plant differs from a fossil fuel plant’s waste, as its volume and mass are small in relation to the amount of electricity produced. This is of coarse an advantage however, the nuclear waste also differs from fossil fuels in the sense that spent fuel is radioactive while only an insignificant share of the waste from a fossil plant is radioactive.
Mining can also contaminate water that leaks into groundwater, harming the natural environment. Nuclear power plants need a great deal of water, especially for the cooling towers. The water intake and discharge has a rather negative effect on the aquatic systems. The issue of radioactive waste is not only an issue of today but it will be an issue that will affect people and the environment in the far future. It is said that for every three units of thermal energy generated, there are two units of waste heat that is distributed into the environment.
In the past, accidents have happened such as radiation problems that have caused huge damage, which is clearly the reason for the concern about nuclear power plants as a sustainable source of energy. This fact is expressed through many articles; one being the article by John Hannigan called “Environmental Discourse”. He states that even in the 1950’s uranium poisoning affected thousands of workers that worked on the mines as well as communities that were downwind from the uranium mines. It also states that environmental groups were very concerned about nuclear power as being an alternative energy choice. 25 years ago an extremely devastating nuclear accident happened with the Ukraine nuclear power plant, Chernobyl. At the time, this disaster rippled huge problems for the people and the natural environment. It is devastatingly apparent that the effects from this accident are still being experienced today.
“We are telling the stories of just a few of those thousands, to bring to light the reality of nuclear energy. Independent scientists and economists know that nuclear energy is the most expensive electricity source available, counting the cost of building, running and decommissioning the power stations. But an economic analysis alone cannot calculate the costs due to the damage done to our genes, the very foundation of life.” [1]
[1] Greenpeace International. (2011). No more Chernobyl’s. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/nomorechernobyls/. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
In terms of humans and nature, it is apparent that both the internal nature and the external nature would both be damaged if something were to go wrong with a nuclear power plant. The external nature being the environment and the internal being people own internal nature. This insight is learnt from the article: “Introduction: Society, Nature and Enlightenment”.
Nuclear power generation throughout the world is rather diverse. Today, 30 countries have nuclear power generation capacity; the amount of electricity and energy coming from the numerous power plants varies a lot. There are roughly 439 nuclear power plants around the world. The expansion in nuclear power generation is centered in Asia. A total of 20 of the 35 plants under construction are in Asia.
On a global scale, the different countries all have their own opinion on the general topic of nuclear plants. A lot of countries have their own power plants such as France, Spain, Australia, Finland just to name a few. Although after the Japan earthquake the attention, thoughts and opinions to nuclear power plants has been magnified of late from all over the globe. Countries have been forced to rethink the strategy of their nuclear power plants and become more rigorous within security stress tests. Countries such as France have found themselves investigating their pro-nuclear stance, as question of sustainability and safety were raised after the disaster in Japan. A lot of question about nuclear power plants has been of major discussion recently.
Areva is a company that aims to create innovative and unique solutions for power generation. Their niche is Nuclear power and renewable energies, which have connotations of being “clean” as they emit very little pollution. The company taps into the need of new energy sources with less CO2. The company, Areva has a new advertising campaign, which aims to express the concept of the company providing solutions for power generation with the benefit of less CO2. The campaign is named: “Energy: one powerful story” which is expressed through an animated film of cinematic proportions. .
The story is about Areva’s plan of having a source of energy with less CO2 with greater safety and security and a heightened sense of ethics.
The aim of Areva is to fight global warming, as well as this the company aims to meet societies demand for energy over the long run. It is evident that energy has become a societal issue as the demand is rising along with the worlds increasing population. Of coarse one has to keep in mind, the environmental preservation is of major concern. Areva’s solutions are evident to be rather effective as they are efficient.
Another advert on the issue is the industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) campaign known as the “clear air” campaign, which promotes a “nuclear renaissance”. The advertising campaign aims to build public support for a generation of new nuclear power plants. It is apparent that this campaign is in favour of nuclear plants, as they want to expand growth by creating new plants.
This act of positivity for the issue is contradicted through another campaign explored, that campaign being the Greenpeace Switzerland: Campaign against nuclear plants. This advertisement consists of a video that expresses the negative effects from the Nuclear plants, it is represented through people all over falling over (looks like they are all fainting) the idea behind the campaign is that the nuclear plants will damage and harm the social environment and the people surrounding it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)