Energy Emergency in the UK - Case Study Example

Energy Policy Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Energy Emergency in UK 3 Nuclear Energy is the only answer to the future energy gap 4 It is better to move on with other reliable energy sources except the nuclear energy 6 Conclusion 8 Reference 10 Bibliography 12 Appendix 13 Energy Emergency in UK For the last few years, the incidents of load shedding have increased across UK. In London, suddenly the lifts stop in the mid way, air-conditioners stop working, these unpleasant events are happening physically. The statistics is appalling; within eight years, the energy demand could exceed the supply by about 23% at peak hours. The economy could lose £108 billion every year (Ringshaw, 2007). The issue of the time is how to tackle this insufficient energy supply. Nuclear energy accounts for 20% of the electricity supply in Britain; but it has its own pros and cons. Zeroing down on one energy sources is getting tricky. The science of nuclear fission was originated in between 1895 to 1945. From that year, all the technological development started to take place. Consideration was given to exploit this in a controlled way to develop electricity out of it. Since the year of 1956, the prime attention was to evolution of nuclear power plants (World Nuclear Association, 2009). Thus the history, started in Europe with the science of radiation, is now growing in the whole world; but the future is yet to be decided. In the coming thirty years, the energy demand in UK is expected to increase drastically. There should be some constant source of energy which can be used in future. Nuclear energy has contributed a substantial amount to energy supply in UK; but there are implications of the same. The dreadful Chernobyl accident, in the year of 1986, has come out with a threat to the nuclear power stations. In that accident two people died on the night, the accident took place; other 28 fireman died in few weeks as an outcome of acute poisoning through radiation (World Nuclear Association, 2009). This incident has put a question mark in front of the nuclear power stations. A number of people support nuclear power stations with an argument that the nuclear energy is needed to tackle the environmental change and manage the future energy demands more securely. Nuclear Energy is the only answer to the future energy gap Albert Einstein said," If you succeed in using the nuclear-physical findings for peaceful purposes, it will open the way to a new paradise" (Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, n.d). One of the most important requirements for sustainable economic progress is a sufficient source of energy. The current sources of power are the burning of oil, coal and gases. The problem would arise when these sources would run out in future. The energy is expected to be insufficient to meet up the energy needs within next forty years (Kirby, 2004). Solar energy would be there but there is a huge cost involved in this. For this reason this energy is not yet developed, excluding some special developments. As per the scientists who are in favor of the nuclear energy, it is said that the nuclear energy is expected to be a bit cheaper than these types of sources. An advantage of nuclear energy is that the sources would not get ran out, even in far future. The fundamental fact about this energy is that the fission of an atom of uranium can produce 10 million times the energy produced by the ignition of an atom of coal or carbon (McCarthy, n.d). So it is very much obvious that no source of energy can compete with nuclear energy in filling up the gap of the energy requirement. It is the most sustainable source of energy. Global warming is the main environmental concern in today’s world. The climate is expected to change drastically for the emissions of green house gases. The major advantage of the nuclear energy is that the emission of the carbon-di-oxide would be much lesser in the case of nuclear reactors. The plutonium, separated from the other nuclear wastes, can be re-used as a reactor fuel. Many people are fussing over the fact that terrorists attack can put a nuclear power station on blast; but the fact is a nuclear plant can not be blown up as bomb. For a bomb, the conversion of uranium or plutonium into the fission particles happens in some few seconds; while a power station is big enough to convert its fissionable material before the generation of adequate heat to flutter apart. So it is very much improbable for a nuclear power plant to blast like a bomb (McCarthy, n.d). As per the World Nuclear Association, the utilization of nuclear power for the generation of electricity can be considered safe to a great extent. On an average, every year thousands of workers die in the coal mines to gather this source of energy. There are substantial health and environmental consequences which can arise from using fossil fuels. Even if the death consequences for all the energy sources are taken into account, the least fatalities are in nuclear energy plants (World Nuclear Association, 2008). To attain optimum safety the nuclear plants, in western world, function using a safety approach names as ‘defense-in-depth’, having multiple safety features. The key features of this safety approach include high quality in designs as well as in construction, diversified system to control the damage to the fuel and to control the impacts of radioactive emissions as much as possible and a few more. Even the nuclear power stations are designed with the help of sensors in a way that in a course of earthquake, these plants would be shut down automatically (World Nuclear Association, 2008). It is better to move on with other reliable energy sources except the nuclear energy As per some scientists and engineers, nuclear energy is not an answer to nuclear problem. Even in most optimistic scenario, if the Government builds 10 new nuclear reactors by the year of 2024, the carbon emission in air in supposed to cut by only four percent; though it is very much unlikely to build ten reactors in two decades, given the track record of nuclear industry. The most recent reactor was built in Finland; the completion date had been delayed by 18 months and moreover its cost exceeded the budget by 2 billion. So it is an obvious fact that the cost incurred in building a nuclear reactor is huge. It would be wrong to say that nuclear power would address the probable gap in the energy supply. This power is only capable to produce electricity; but there are other services which are mainly work with gas. Nuclear energy would marginally deal with the energy gap in future; the contribution would be very much less compared to the future requirement. The main concern should be about the radioactive waste of these nuclear power stations. There is yet to get any safe way to handle this matter. The Government is planning to conceal it into the deep underground. There is, although, no guarantee that these waste would not impact the environment in future. This extremely radioactive waste can seep out into the environment, tainting the food chains as well as the supply of the water. Allowing the establishment of some more new nuclear reactors would mean the environment and society has got some highly destructive wastage to deal with. This waste would remain so dreadful for some million years and thereafter leave a disgraceful inheritance to the future generation. Having so many terrorist attacks here and there, it will not be so illusory to say that there could be terrorist attack on a nuclear power station; and if that happen, the outcome, then and thereafter, would be horrible. Apart from such terrorist attacks directly on the nuclear power stations; in some other ways also that can happen. The radioactive wastage of the nuclear reactors is transported around the UK by bus, train or sea; every time it put the local people on risk to get contaminated by those highly radioactive molecules. When these vehicles carry those wastage, no police or security personnel rides with them. The concern should be about the security and safety of the local people. If one of those carriers gets involved in terrorist attacks, a huge number of people would be exposed to dreadful diseases like cancer. So the security and safety of the local people seem to be in jeopardy. The safety of these nuclear power stations is still under dusky state. It has been some 24 years, the Chernobyl accident took place, but still the environment and the human habitants are suffering from the consequences. Nuclear power is still dangerous, despite arguing over the matter of improvement in safety features. Scientists agreed on the fact that another accident with the same intensity could happen anywhere anytime. Even in a way, the climate change, itself, is a cause of threatening to the nuclear power stations. Most of these stations are built at the coastal sides. If the environment gets affected, the sea level is expected to increase over its normal level. Now, that could be a problem for the nuclear reactors, as they are vulnerable to the increase in sea levels, including the erosion as well as flooding disasters. Nuclear wastages are taken to Sellafield, Cumbria for the reprocessing of the same. During the reprocessing, plutonium is estranged from the other wastes. This plutonium is supposed to be re-used in reactors; but in reality this plutonium never got used to generate electricity. The UK now is sitting over a huge pile of this deadly plutonium and no such plans are there to tackle with the problem. As mentioned earlier, one of the hazardous problems of using nuclear energy is its deadly wastes. The radioactive materials can be even used in the nuclear weapons; some of them can be used in the making of dirty bombs. Even just a single particle of the Plutonium can be fatal. The establishment of new nuclear power stations demands a huge pile of money. The construction and generation cost for this industry is quite mammoth than those of the other renewable power industries. Adding to it there is cost regarding the disposal of the lethal wastes and technology build up. The cost to clean up the existing nuclear stations and its nuclear wastes, have estimated to be £100 billion. This amount is supposed to come from the civics of UK (Greenpeace, n.d). Conclusion Many people possess the same thinking as that of the scientist, James Lovelock, in the case ‘Energy Policy’. They feel that nuclear energy can be the only answer towards the anticipated energy crisis in future. This may be true, but the concern is how much ethical is to use this energy for the human needs in future; where even still now environment and human habitants are carrying the deadly consequences of Chernobyl accident. The statistics say that the fatalities in other energy sources were much more than those in nuclear energy; but the apprehension is the fatalities in case of nuclear power could go on for a long periods and it could be disaster for mankind, when it would happen. As per a number of people it is very much necessary to leave the nuclear technology back and look forward to enhance the other energy sources. These sources would not be sustainable for a long period of time in future. Theses energy sources can put a bad impact on the environments around. Climate change can put a dreadful impact on the whole human being. That can be lessened by the use of nuclear energy, but up to a certain level. There came the question, would that suffice to avoid the bad impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. The nuclear waste, if not taken care of, can be lethal for future generations. Nuclear energy can be an answer to the future energy gap, but only if the concerns about this are taken care of. Every human has his own right to live. The energy division should take care of the fact that they do not get affected by the deadly radioactive emissions from nuclear reactors. A proper process needs to be identified to bury those deadly radioactive wastes of nuclear reactors and to re-use the left over plutonium. Safety and security should be main concern in any case, any situation. If one can introduce a safe and secured way to produce nuclear power without any impact on human as well as on the environment, it is a better resource to invest in. If these can not be met in any case it is better to leave this back and make a forward leap towards the other renewable energies. Research and development is needed in every area to make it sustainable, even in far future. In that case, decentralizing the energy system in UK and production of energy locally can be a solution in the future. Reference Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. No Date. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ecolo.org/ [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Greenpeace. No Date. Nuclear power - the problems. [Online]. Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Kirby, A. November 9, 2004. Energy: Meeting soaring demand. [Online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/3995135.stm [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. McCarthy, J. No Date. Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy. [Online]. Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Ringshaw, G. May 20, 2007. Fears over looming energy crisis in UK. [Online]. Available at: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1813006.ece [Accessed on January 21, 2010]. World Nuclear Association. June, 2008. Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. [Online]. Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. World Nuclear Association. November, 2009. Chernobyl Accident. [Online]. Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Bibliography Damveld, H. & Berg, R. January, 2000. Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Ethics. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scientific/nuclear_waste_ethics.pdf [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Edugreen. No Date. Nuclear Energy. [Online]. Available at: http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/n_renew/nuclear.htm [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Robertson, L. A. J. September, 1996. A Submission to the Environmental Assessment Panel for Nuclear Fuel Waste. [Online]. Available at: http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/eisrev2.htm [Accessed on January 22, 2010]. Appendix (Source: World Nuclear Association, 2008) Read More