The Nuclear Energy - Essay Example

“Cleanness” of the nuclear energy “How many people want to live near a nuclear power station?” – is a question I have found in Alexis Rowell article “Ten Reasons Why New Nuclear Was a Mistake” (Rowell). Indeed, how many people feel safe knowing a nuclear energy is processing somewhere in the neighborhood? The point is that speaking of nuclear power the word “near” is inappropriate. Almost everywhere is near for a damage nuclear energy may cause, and until somewhere on Earth there’s a nuclear power in processing, this is an issue for everyone. Nuclear energy should not be developed, because it is very dangerous, and also has high possibility to destroy the environment. To understand what damage a nuclear energy developing process causes, firstly it’s necessary to understand what a nuclear energy developing process is. A nuclear energy is an energy obtained from atoms’ connections. All things in the universe are made from number of atoms (as well as human body), and exist in shapes we used to see because of these atoms’ connections. The power which connects atoms with each other is called “strong force” (“Nuclear Energy”). To get a nuclear energy atoms’ connections must be broken and “strong force” (which is really a great force, because 1 kg of uranium in the splitting process produces so much energy it is equal to an energy which can be produced from 2 millions kg of coal) must be received and put under control to create electricity. Not every material though can be used to produce a nuclear energy. Commonly, it’s a special sort of uranium which is used in the process. Nuclear energy produced from this process is usually called “a clean energy”, but after the producing a special byproduct is left – a radioactive waste. Once it’s left radioactive waste can stay radioactive for thousands of years, and radiate (“Nuclear Energy”). Usually an apology of nuclear energy is about energy itself. Indeed, when ecologist like Patric Moore in his article “Going Nuclear” reasons why this source of energy is healthier for people and global environment than the common burn fossil fuels (natural gas, oil and coal) using it’s hard to raise a voice against (Moore). Pollution from burn fossil fuels is well-known, as well as the damage it causes on environment and global warming. But it’s not the “clearness” of energy what is need to be argued, but the associated process and those risks every nuclear power station potentially bears. From nuclear energy producing process a great danger comes as well as a possible bad payoff. It’s clear from the description that nuclear energy producing process is highly technological and complicated, so something can easily go wrong. To deal with such sort of energy nuclear power station needs a highly professional personnel to be fully concentrated on its work. Professional and always modern equipment should run like clockwork. Also nuclear power stations are big centralized plants working constantly. To keep it in an appropriate condition is expansive and serious business. To found a new nuclear power station is also a big deal. It can’t be just found in a random place. Alexis Rowell reminds of Fukushima example where nuclear disaster happened because station was situated on semiotic fault line (Rowell). Energy producing process is very powerful and radioactive every time, so an accident on nuclear power station can’t be compared to one on any other station. Despite that nuclear disasters are rare in comparison with accidents on other power stations, consequences are widespread. In the U.S. the biggest nuclear disaster had happened in 1979 at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Pennsylvania and “no deaths or injuries were reported” (“Timeline: Nuclear Plant Accidents”). But it wasn’t the biggest one in the world. On opposite side of the Earth, the greatest nuclear disaster had happened in 1986 at Chernobyl plant, Soviet Union (now Ukraine). It had exploded in April, 26 and set a fire which lasted for nine days, producing “at least 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is released into the air” and caused a great effect on the environment and on people (“Timeline: Nuclear Plant Accidents”). The thing is the damage from radiation is not always visible at once. It affects things around in a very specific and a very mean way. Though at first, two workers had been killed by the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear plant, later 47 workers died from Acute Radiation Sickness (“Timeline: Nuclear Plant Accidents”). “Radioactive material can be extremely toxic, causing burns and increasing the risk for cancers, blood diseases, and bone decay” (“Nuclear Energy”). To stop a nine-days-long disaster thousands of people were involved. By remaining on plant’s territory for all this time, and dealing with radioactive materials left, and with things already affected by radiation thousands of saviors themselves had received a great dose of radiation and later suffered from a variety of diseases. Saviors were men mostly, and later an effect from this radiation had an impact on their children. Despite that, in a few days the whole town Chernobyl was evacuated from the radiation area. “More than 100,000 people were relocated” (“Nuclear Energy”). In a hurry people left their houses, homes, and personal things – whole past lives of citizens were left behind in order to save their health, because with radiation every next moment under its influence can be deathful. Chernobyl has stayed like frozen – a ghost-town which has never recovered from the nuclear disaster. Fish and forests around had died. There’re tales about how radiation has changed Chernobyl’s flora and fauna, funny and tragically at the same time: tales about huge red plants and population of animals affected by radiation and mutated. What’s most frightening, whenever and wherever nuclear disaster happens it affects much bigger territory than an accident on gas or oil station, and influence on the environment is greater than one can imagine. “Radioactive deposits from Chernobyl are found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere” (“Timeline: Nuclear Plant Accidents”). So every time I hear about how safe and “clean” nuclear energy is, I have a question to ask: do we need to take this risk and keep using nuclear energy? Is it the only “clean” source of energy we have? In his article Patric Moore speaks less about wind and solar power, reasoning that these sources of energy are “intermittent and unpredictable” (Moore). And yet wind and solar sources of energy are known to be the most ethical ones, because nothing is burned or unnaturally split from its original condition. Earth receives solar energy every day and constantly there are winds blowing around the Earth, so people just need to become able to “pick” an energy that already is naturally given to them. Alexis Rowell admits that not nuclear sources of energy are also less centralized (Rowell). And indeed, how more comfortable is to have a wind farm nearby, or a personal roof-integrated solar array which works easier than a huge dangerous nuclear power plant, and can be switched off and on when it’s needed, and what’s more important it will never cause a widespread damage. On the contrary, with nuclear energy it’s like sitting on a nuclear bomb every day. If there’re still reasons left to use nuclear energy, some words should be said about the nuclear waste problem. Despite the danger coming from the process itself, there’s a danger left after. Radioactive waste left after the nuclear energy producing can have no practical utility and usually is needed to be utilized. And yet there’s no ideal way how it must be done (Rowell). Commonly, radioactive waste is kept in special leak-proof containers and/or subjected to a deep geological repository. It means radioactive waste is located deep under the earth in geologically stable environment in cloak-rooms in order to keep waste there in a long-term isolation for thousands of years. To keep using nuclear energy means that one day people will live on radioactive cemeteries. Though not necessary, because humankind now has come with a more “humanistic” idea how to deal with the radioactive waste: the idea is to become able to throw it into space. Consequences can be unpredictable. What I cannot understand, is why such unethical and potentially cruel for the environment, and dangerous for present and future generations way of producing energy is still widely used. Now in U.S. there’re more than 100 nuclear reactors on a go (“Nuclear Energy”). Each of them potentially bears a great danger and a great grief. Works Cited “Timeline: Nuclear Plant Accidents”. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5165736.stm “Nuclear Energy”. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/nuclear-energy/?ar_a=1 Moore, P. “Going Nuclear”. Washington Post. April 16, 2006. Rowell, A. “Ten Reasons Why New Nuclear Was a Mistake – even before Fukushima”. Transition Culture. March 15, 2011. Retrieved from http://transitionculture.org/2011/03/15/ten-reasons-why-new-nuclear-was-a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexis-rowell/ Read More