Japan's Nuclear Reactors - Case Study Example

The Author's Name] [The Professor's Name] [The Course Title] [Date] Japan’s Nuclear Reactors Introduction Nuclear plants are not importantly the vital technology for use. The attitudes toward nuclear plants are changing and it results in closing the plants. Nuclear technology is not human friendly. The paper identifies and examines the distinctive features of two disciplinary approaches environmental approach and socioeconomic approach towards nuclear plants. Growth of nuclear power is a grave offer because nuclear power does not guide to the release of greenhouse gases, or to air pollutants. But nuclear power has very serious negative affects that have no equivalent in the other choices. A nuclear power plant mishap or a terror assault on a lodge or linked amenities can impose enormous health check and ecological harm. Removal of depleted nuclear fuel is by now a troublesome trouble, and will turn into much poorer if there is a large-scale increase. And the civilian nuclear-fuel cycle carries an inherent risk of nuclear weapon proliferation Thesis Statement According to the environmental approach nuclear reactors are anti-environment. The green approach wants clear global environment without any nuclear radiation. In the broader socioeconomic context, climate change and the potential role in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy supply security, price stability and progress made in spent fuel management have contributed to the improvement of public confidence in nuclear power. In some countries, however, public concerns about nuclear power remain a major obstacle. The paper states that people living nuclear reactor are not safe from its hazardous emissions. People Living Near Nuclear Reactors Those living near the Fukushima Daiichi facility would be at risk, but they appeared to be evacuated before the radioactive release could cause harm. The damaged nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power plant riveted public attention, but a more serious danger is posed by large collections of used fuel rods stored in less-protected conditions nearby. Scholars working from an "environmental justice" perspective have compared local information sources for minority groups living near nuclear material handling facilities, near (Superfund) hazardous waste dumps or in the presence of "significant industry using, storing, processing, or releasing chemicals." (McCallum, 349-361) For those living near the nuclear site, socioeconomic status predicted preference for broadcast sources (lower income) or print (higher SES), and newspapers were more often than television the source of information on environmental risks for residents living near the waste dumps or chemical release sites. (McCallum, 349-361) Japan has evacuated 70,000 people from an area in a 20-kilometer radius and advised some 140,000 who live in a radius of 20 to 30 kilometers from the station to remain indoors. (Marples edmontonjournal.com) At Fukushima, the authorities have had to deal with problems, including fires and steam explosions at four reactors - one at a suppression pool for spent fuel rods. The possibility of a major nuclear accident, involving multiple human and technical failures, is minimal. But such an accident, if it were to occur, could result in thousands of deaths. Perhaps millions more people would become ill, suffering from symptoms such as vomiting, fever, diarrhea, and loss of hair, or more serious conditions such as cancer and genetic defects. It is this risk that is behind the public outcry against nuclear power. The Benefit And Risks Of Nuclear Power in context of two thoughts The lodge portrayal of the climate confrontation has the value of illuminating the possible position of nuclear power: * Key development of nuclear power is not the crucial silver bullet that its supporters assert; * Therefore, nuclear power evaluation must be fair competition with the other option, other than considering the exclusive threats that go with nuclear power. Any how the climate confrontation is to be fulfilled is a political predicament of unparalleled complication and extent that features all cultures and the global society as a one place. The threat of nuclear weapons propagation that would unavoidably escort a chief universal growth of nuclear power would comprise a further biggest dare to the global community, a confrontation to which the reaction has been uncertain even earlier to such development. Easy concern and common sense thus argues in goodwill of a go-slow move toward to nuclear power growth awaiting international political restrictions and established new tools have been recognized that would provide sufficient indemnity beside the propagation danger or in expectancy of it is evident other than carbon-free and carbon-neutral technologies will not be sufficient to assemble the climate defiance. (world-nuclear.org) Myths and Realities Many people worry that a nuclear-power plant could explode like an atomic bomb, but this is simply not possible. Generally, the fuel in a nuclear reactor is only about 3 percent enriched uranium 235; over 90 percent enrichment is needed for a nuclear weapon. (Jones 174-192). The enrichment process is cumbersome, requiring elaborate technology, and most nations do not have that capability. Moreover, in the age of satellite technology, it is virtually impossible for any nation to construct a nuclear facility without being detected. Nuclear reactors generate both high-level and low-level radioactive wastes. High-level waste refers to that generated in the nuclear-reactor fuel cycle. Low-level waste includes gloves, clothing, tools, machine parts, and other items that may be contaminated with radioactivity. Extreme care is needed to handle and store these wastes. To prevent leakage of liquid radioactive waste, it has to be solidified in the form of glass or ceramics prior to disposal. (world-nuclear.org) Uranium fuel is not the only problem. The government plan anticipates that, when the nuclear fuel cycle is established, plutonium will be extracted from spent fuel and consumed in fast-breeder reactors. The idea of being able to make fuel from ashes appealed to most Japanese, living in a nation of scarce natural resources. The prototype fast-breeder reactor Monju was shut down in December 1995, however, after the discovery that Sodium coolant compound was leaking from its cooling system, setting off a fire. (Jones 174-192). The reactor had begun generating power just a few months before it was shut down. It has not yet been determined when it might be restarted. To allay concerns abroad that Japan could go nuclear, the nation has a policy not to stockpile plutonium. Instead of using the plutonium for fast-breeder reactors, a plan has been developed to mix plutonium with uranium for use in light-water reactors as "mixed oxide" (MOX) fuel. This plan has been Put on hold, however, beCause of a scandal involving falsification of data by manufacturers. There is an estimated 300 tons of weapon-grade plutonium in the world, however, and, as nuclear disarmament progresses, there is a good possibility that more plutonium will flow into the civilian market (Jones 174-192). Japan is the only nation that continues to pursue plans to perfect a domestic nuclear fuel cycle technology. France, which had been ahead of Japan in technological development in this field, withdrew, in part because it could not surmount the technological problems encountered with its Super-Phoenix demonstration fast-breeder reactor, and partly because it was found that the cost of generating power from fast-breeder reactors was extremely high. (world-nuclear.org) The United States, Britain and Germany abandoned the field long ago. As an industrial nation with few natural resources, Japan's fundamental policy on nuclear energy has been to perfect a domestic nuclear fuel cycle to ensure a stable supply of energy. This policy is now being profoundly shaken. Among the many reasons for this crisis of public policy are these: * The strong global tendency to withdraw from the nuclear energy industry, except in China, Russia and a few other countries; * The merits of domestic uranium enrichment and processing are diminished by an oversupply of enriched uranium fuel; * The cessation of operations at the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor since late 1995, undermining the plutonium-use program itself; * The recent accident, delaying Japan's implementation of a "plutonium thermal use" program under which the growing accumulation of reprocessed plutonium would be burned in light-water reactors to dispel the suspicions abroad that Japan could use the plutonium for military applications. The list could go on and on. Conclusion Electricity generated by nuclear energy now represents 36 percent of Japan's electricity consumption. Japan should stop further construction of nuclear facilities and suspend reprocessing plutonium at home. At the same time, greater efforts should be made to develop "soft energies," such as wind and solar power generation. Expenditures for this endeavor should be substantially increased. Japan's nuclear power industry today finds itself in an abnormal situation. Having grown complacent under the safety myth, Japan has been operating reactors for more than 30 years, yet even now has not decided where to put a permanent site for disposal of high-level nuclear waste. (Marples 61-83) The nuclear fuel cycle program was formulated on the assumption-in the context of the Cold War and strained North-South relations-that oil resources might be in short supply and the price of uranium fuel would soar. The program formulated to deal with this situation is now an anachronism. Japan's nuclear energy policy lacks the flexibility needed to adapt to change. Works Cited Jones, S.R.; Watson, D.C.; Wilkinson, Withe environmental impact of nuclear power. L. (British Nuclear Fuels pic, Risley (United Kingdom)). Energy and Environment (Brentwood) (United Kingdom), Volume 4, Number 2, 2007, pp. 174-192. The main issues which give rise to public concern about the environmental impact of the nuclear industry are addressed and an attempt is made to place them in a proper perspective. The health effects of radiation exposure are outlined and the deviation of radiological protection standards is described. A summary of major accidental releases of radioactivity is given and routine discharges to the environment are examined in terms both of their local and global effects. Data on exposure of the general public to discharges from United Kingdom installations are included. A comparative summary of the risks to life associated with electricity production from different power sources taking into account accidents and routine operation is provided. This shows that the uranium fuel cycle compares favorably with alternative power sources where available data permits an assessment to be made. McCallum B. David. (2006). "Communicating about Environmental Risks: How the Public Uses and Perceives Information Sources," Health Education Quarterly 18 349 -361, particularly 352. The above work draws the attention towards environmental risks and hazards of uranium depletion. It also give suggestions to take steps to save the environment. Marples, David. "Why Fukushima isn't a rerun of Chornobyl." Ukrainian Weekly. 27 Mar. (2011) 61-83. Retrieved from http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Fukushima+rerun+Chornobyl/4453910/story.html The article gives the detail of Japans’ nuclear plants and it briefly compares the Japan’s and Russia’s nuclear plants. Radioactive waste disposal and storage is presented in terms of waste from power plants, fuel processing and uranium mining. The main conclusions drawn are that the effect of nuclear power generation on the global environment in normal operation is insignificant, that the local environmental impact of nuclear power plants, uranium mines and fuel processing plants is less than that of most other large industrial facilities, and that the safety record of reactors built to Western designs is extremely good. Nuclear Power in Japan. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html (2011) The above link is a useful source about Japans’ nuclear power plants. Read More

(Marples edmontonjournal.com) At Fukushima, the authorities have had to deal with problems, including fires and steam explosions at four reactors - one at a suppression pool for spent fuel rods. The possibility of a major nuclear accident, involving multiple human and technical failures, is minimal. But such an accident, if it were to occur, could result in thousands of deaths. Perhaps millions more people would become ill, suffering from symptoms such as vomiting, fever, diarrhea, and loss of hair, or more serious conditions such as cancer and genetic defects.

It is this risk that is behind the public outcry against nuclear power. The Benefit And Risks Of Nuclear Power in context of two thoughts The lodge portrayal of the climate confrontation has the value of illuminating the possible position of nuclear power: * Key development of nuclear power is not the crucial silver bullet that its supporters assert; * Therefore, nuclear power evaluation must be fair competition with the other option, other than considering the exclusive threats that go with nuclear power.

Any how the climate confrontation is to be fulfilled is a political predicament of unparalleled complication and extent that features all cultures and the global society as a one place. The threat of nuclear weapons propagation that would unavoidably escort a chief universal growth of nuclear power would comprise a further biggest dare to the global community, a confrontation to which the reaction has been uncertain even earlier to such development. Easy concern and common sense thus argues in goodwill of a go-slow move toward to nuclear power growth awaiting international political restrictions and established new tools have been recognized that would provide sufficient indemnity beside the propagation danger or in expectancy of it is evident other than carbon-free and carbon-neutral technologies will not be sufficient to assemble the climate defiance.

(world-nuclear.org) Myths and Realities Many people worry that a nuclear-power plant could explode like an atomic bomb, but this is simply not possible. Generally, the fuel in a nuclear reactor is only about 3 percent enriched uranium 235; over 90 percent enrichment is needed for a nuclear weapon. (Jones 174-192). The enrichment process is cumbersome, requiring elaborate technology, and most nations do not have that capability. Moreover, in the age of satellite technology, it is virtually impossible for any nation to construct a nuclear facility without being detected.

Nuclear reactors generate both high-level and low-level radioactive wastes. High-level waste refers to that generated in the nuclear-reactor fuel cycle. Low-level waste includes gloves, clothing, tools, machine parts, and other items that may be contaminated with radioactivity. Extreme care is needed to handle and store these wastes. To prevent leakage of liquid radioactive waste, it has to be solidified in the form of glass or ceramics prior to disposal. (world-nuclear.org) Uranium fuel is not the only problem.

The government plan anticipates that, when the nuclear fuel cycle is established, plutonium will be extracted from spent fuel and consumed in fast-breeder reactors. The idea of being able to make fuel from ashes appealed to most Japanese, living in a nation of scarce natural resources. The prototype fast-breeder reactor Monju was shut down in December 1995, however, after the discovery that Sodium coolant compound was leaking from its cooling system, setting off a fire. (Jones 174-192). The reactor had begun generating power just a few months before it was shut down.

It has not yet been determined when it might be restarted. To allay concerns abroad that Japan could go nuclear, the nation has a policy not to stockpile plutonium. Instead of using the plutonium for fast-breeder reactors, a plan has been developed to mix plutonium with uranium for use in light-water reactors as "mixed oxide" (MOX) fuel. This plan has been Put on hold, however, beCause of a scandal involving falsification of data by manufacturers.

Read More