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.
A local Cape Town article from the Cape Times called “Nuke risk for Koeberg” by Melanie Gosling an environmental writer, is used as a medium to further the debate of nuclear power plants effect on the environment, with a specific and locally based core of discussion, the Koeberg nuclear power plant. This article is about the Koeberg nuclear plant station that lies eight kilometers from the Milnerton fault line. Eskom, the state utility that supplies 95% of South Africa’s electricity, has stated that they are aware of the fault line and the dangers of it. Like an earthquake much like the one that was experienced 200 years ago which measured roughly 6.3 on the righter scale. When building Koeberg, Eskom designed the nuclear power station to be able to withstand any earthquake measuring up to 7 on the righter scale. This is done through the solid foundation and aspects that absorb horizontal and vertical movement. This is a trustful action of the safety precautions of the Cape Town nuclear power plant, although it is not fully reliable as earthquakes will always be a threat to Cape Town as it is evident through the Japan disaster that just about anything possible can happen. "Given the events in Japan, we want to assure the public that perfectly clean steam will issue from next to the reactor during the routine shut," [1]
It has been said that South Africa plans to expand their nuclear power by opening more nuclear power plants. In fact it is believed that the country has an integrated resource plan and are thinking about building about six new nuclear power plants by the year 2023. Each one of these six nuclear power plants will have the capacity of around 1600MW. Obviously they plan to show special attention to safety after learning from past disasters. “We are looking at how to draw lessons out of what has happened to Japan in terms of design and safety systems.” [2] Therefore it is obvious that South Africa is for nuclear power. In comparison to this, Germany feels otherwise, as they are currently demolishing most of their nuclear power plants, especially the ones built before 1980.
[1] © 2011 24.Com. (14 March 2011). Steam from Koeberg 'no cause for alarm'. Available: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Steam-from-Koeberg-no-cause-for-alarm-20110314. Last accessed 24 April 2011.
[2] Admin. (9 July 2010). Why is nuclear energy experiencing a resurgence?. Available: www.rainharvest.co.za. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
The article by Melanie Gosling expresses the reality that the nuclear power plant can easily be disrupted and could cause massive damage to the environment, focusing on a local example but using global examples (Japan and New Zealand) to determine risk factors. Those who are anti-nuclear power plants are slightly hypothetical as their beliefs are based on what could happen if a nuclear plant was to be disrupted, which is understood by what has happened in the past, thus accusations are estimations of what would happen, they are not exactly reliable facts.
It is a fact that people generally assume that nature will always be available, self-regenerating and that it can be exploited by man without any long-term costs. Therefore nature has been viewed as something that is constant, something that will never run out. Although this act of taking advantage of our environment has led to the damage us humans in nature face today, the over use of nature as an economic factor has generated a significant cost to society. As the damaged environment effects the people of society. In reference to Hans Immler’s theory, which focuses on the role of the natural environment and its neglect, one could say that because of people taking advantage of the natural environment, the natural environment is taking massive strain, such as global warming. This is affecting the people, for example the recent earthquake in Japan; this was proof of the natural environments discomfort. Another example would be the worst nuclear disaster ever, the Chernobyl disaster, which affected the natural environment and thousands of people surrounding it, which is still apparent. A very moving video of a young girl with a brain tumour from the toxins of Chernobyl expresses these much later effects of the disaster.
The article “The Construction of Environmental ‘Awareness’ ” by I.Lanthier and L.Olivier talks about how the environment has become a major area of concern in society, and because of the exploitation of nature, people have started to fight against it and help protect our sensitive environment. As well as the protection of the environment, peoples health is also of concern as ones health is directly involved with the health of the environment, this obligation is from a medical discourse.
Cosmology is an important concept within this discussion as it focuses on the interrelationship between mankind and the environment. This holistic view requires that individuals must have a macrocosmic vision of the world. They must be aware of how their actions impact on the environment and the planet. The different ideologies on nuclear power plants are somewhat based on the different relationships between humans and nature. It seems that both opinions have different views on what is best for the environment. As those that are in favour of nuclear power suppose that they are helping the issue of global warming, as it is believed that nuclear power generates fewer carbon emissions. Those that are anti-nuclear, think that the damage that nuclear power plants could potentially do to the environment is not a risk worth taking.
There are various discourses on Nature and the Environment. Based on Hajers definition of discourse, from the article “Environmental Sociology” it can be explained as a way of interpreting the world around us by studying many different ‘story-lines’. This helps one to analyse situations, create meaning for reality, and find alternatives and suitable ways to prompt appropriate action.
The environmental discourse maintains that the driving force of technology has been the cause of many environmental and human disasters. By mastering nature, by scientists obsessing with discovery, with no concern for the long-term repercussions of their scientific ‘revolutions’, nature has seriously been exploited. The environmentalist discourse attempts to put nature back at the centre of concerns and to reintroduce an ethic of responsibility in mankind. Environmentalists feel that the scientists have a microcosmic vision, rather than a holistic one. This is where those that are anti-nuclear come in, as they believe that if a nuclear power plant were to malfunction, the damage on the environment would be disastrous, and supposedly they think those that are in favour of nuclear power plants are taking advantage of the environment.
‘Ecocide’ is the genocide of the environment. Environmentalists say that it is the absence of respect for the environment, through things such as genetic manipulation and cloning, the use of nuclear experiments and the associated radioactive waste. Which are aspects associated with nuclear power plants, thus the article is possibly saying that the nuclear power plants lack respect for the environment, thus the exploitation and disruption of the natural environment.
Genetic research has market another important moment in the environmental movement. Modern medicine, the development of bacteriological weapons, experimental medicine, etc are all areas where we can compare the effects of the environment on the quality of individual health. Health is linked to the quality of the environment; therefore medicine has helped make the state of the environment an important concern. Health is now seen as being influenced by many relationships and by the environment. One needs to balance the forces that influence ones health. In relation to the nuclear power plants as an aspect that affects human’s health, people have learned that low-level radiation exposure on the workers of the nuclear industry has affected their health. “It seems evident that public health would be better served in the long term by these alternatives than by increasing the number of nuclear power plants in the United States and the rest of the world.” [1] This statement is referring to using alternative sources of “clean” sources of power rather than nuclear power.
[1] Richard W. Clapp. (1 November 2005). Guest Editorial: Nuclear Power and Public Health. Available: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.113-a720. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
Throughout researching the different opinions and discussion points of the issue Nuclear power plants one would conclude that the sustainability and ethicality of the topic needs to be explored much further. With the information examined it is evident that the two points of opinions have very strong ideologies and beliefs. There is no disagreement that the need for a clean source of energy is extremely vital for the environment, as the environment has been taken advantage of in the past as an economic resource. Although the question is, what form should that clean energy be in? The sustainability of nuclear power plants is controversial; People against nuclear power believe that using a combination of alternative methods of “clean” energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal energy is the answer. These methods of energy also have environmental issues, although it is believed that these issues are not as disruptive as the nuclear power plants issues. “In fact, there are several other carbon-free or low-carbon options that are currently more cost-effective than nuclear power; these include wind power, combined-cycle gas power plants, and end-use efficiency measures. According to a recent analysis, nuclear power saves as little as half as much carbon per dollar as wind power and cogeneration, and from several-fold to at least tenfold less carbon per dollar as end-use efficiency” [1]
As discussed before, the major effects of a nuclear power plant to the natural environment and the people surrounding it are that there are human health effects, there is room for potential disasters such as environmental contamination, there is an extremely high cost of building nuclear power plants, there are unresolved problems of permanent and secure storage of high radioactive waste and there is still damage to the environment. On the other hand, If nuclear power plants are that clean source of energy, it is safe to say that huge effort is being put into improving the source as international research is currently being done to help prevent disasters like the past from happening. A lot of focus on safety improvements is being investigated; scientists are trying to generate passively safe plants and use of nuclear fusion for the future. Nuclear fusion has the capability to be safer as well as creating less radioactive waste from the nuclear plants. Severe thought needs to be made before making decisions to build additional nuclear power plants, as South Africa plan on doing so. “Nuclear power is not a solution for climate change. The massive subsidies needed to keep the nuclear industry alive are slowing and undermine the renewable energy revolution that is the real solution to climate change.”[2]
[1] Richard W. Clapp. (1 November 2005). Guest Editorial: Nuclear Power and Public Health. Available: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.113-a720. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
[2] Greenpeace International. (2011). No more Chernobyls. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/nomorechernobyls/. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
References:
Websites:
· Rose Kivi. (2 February 2011). How does nuclear energy affect the environment? Available: www.ehow.com. Last accessed 15 April 2011.
· Siegfried G.Karsten. (The American Journal of Economics and Sociology © 1987). Nature in Economic Theories. Available: www.jstor.org/pss/3486706. Last accessed 13 April 2011.
· U.S. Energy Information Administration. (26 April 2011). Today in energy. Available: www.eia.doe.gov/. Last accessed 12 April 2011.
· © 2011 AREVA. (7 January 2011). Energy: One Powerful Story. Available: www.areva.com/searchmedias. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
· Anup Shah. (30 December 2009). Climate Justice and Equity. Available: www.globalissues.org/. Last accessed 15 April 2011.
· Anup Shah. (4 October 2009). Climate Change Flexibility Mechanisms. Available: www.globalissues.org/. Last accessed 15 April 2011.
· Wall street journal. (6 February 2006). The Nuclear 'Renaissance'. Available: www.prwatch.org/node/4435. Last accessed 14 April 2011.
· Joey Devilla. (22 August 2008). Nuclear Power. Available: www.globalnerdy.com/tag/nuclear-power/. Last accessed 14 April 2011.
· Dr Samual Fenwick. (21 February 2011). Southern Africa: The push for clean energy. Available: www.energy-resource.co.za. Last accessed 15 April 2011.
· Admin. (9 July 2010). Why is nuclear energy experiencing resurgence? Available: www.rainharvest.co.za. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
· © World Nuclear Association. (March 2011). Nuclear Power in South Africa. Available: www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf88.html. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
· Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (25 April 2011). Nuclear Power. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power. Last accessed 14 April 2011.
· dizzo95. (21 July 2008). Nuclear Power station. Available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igf96TS3Els. Last accessed 25 April 2011.
· Thinkquest98, Team 17940. (Unknown date). The Nuclear Fission Power Plant. Available: http://library.thinkquest.org. Last accessed 23 April 2011.
· FEMA. (8 April 2011). Nuclear Power Plant Emergency. Available: www.fema.gov/hazard/nuclear/index.shtm. Last accessed 23 April 2011.
· © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011. (2011). Fukushima nuclear power plant update: get all the data. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/18/japan-nuclear-power-plant-updates. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
· © 2011 24.Com. (14 March 2011). Steam from Koeberg 'no cause for alarm'. Available: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Steam-from-Koeberg-no-cause-for-alarm-20110314. Last accessed 24 April 2011.
· Olivia Boyd. (4 August 2010). Scaling Up Solar: The Global Implications of a New Study that Says Solar Power Is Cost Competitive with Nuclear Power. Available: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/011462.html. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
· Justin Johnson. (2005). Environmental Discourse Analysis. Available: http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/cis/wp/johnsoja/index.html. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
· Richard W. Clapp. (1 November 2005). Guest Editorial: Nuclear Power and Public Health. Available: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.113-a720. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
· Christina MacPherson. (7 October 2010). ‘Emission free’ nuclear power is more greenwash Greenpeace Internationa. Available: http://nuclear-news.net/2010/10/07/canadain-advertising-regulator-rules-against-emission-free-nuclear-power/. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
· 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.
· Robert Visser. (19 April 2009). Nuclear power: a dangerous waste of time- cover page. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/nuclear-power-a-dangerous-wast/. Last accessed 22 April 2011.
· Justin. (21 October 2010). Tell BNP Paribas: STOP dangerous nuclear investments. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/tell-bnp-paribas-stop-dangerous-nuclear-inves/blog/26725. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
· Greenpeace International. (2011). No more Chernobyl’s. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/nomorechernobyls/. Last accessed 16 April 2011.
Greenpeace International. (8 April 2011). Food for Thought. Available: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/nomorechernobyls/. Last accessed 12 April 2011.
Articles:
· Introduction: Society, Nature and Enlightenment, Society Nature and Enlightenment. Pg1-11.
· Gilles Ailland, Why we look at animals? Why we look at animals. Pg24-36.
· Frederick H. Butlel, Peter Dickens, Riley E.Dunlop and August Gijswijt. Sociological Theory and the Environment: An overview and introduction. Sociological Theory and the Environment. Pg37-52.
· Isabelle Lanthier and Lawrence Olivier. The Construction of Environmental 'Awareness'. Humans in Nature, pg89-97.
· John Hannigan. Environmental Sociology. Environmental Discourse, Second edition, pg12-23.
Films:
· Guggenheim, D. (Dir) 2006.An Inconvenient Truth. Documentary Film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)