Institute of Technology Essay

A minor news item feature in MSNBC last month, from which the above excerpt is retainn, talks nigh a 38-year-old aging atomic male monarch typeset in the state of Vermont that is still good hardly appears to pose change magnitude scourge to the environment. The topical anaesthetic and state authorities indigence it to be decommissi aced, b arly the owner of the string, Entergy corp. , intends to work it for a nonher 20 days. The mark figures leash of the states electrical energy needfully, and the wad of Vermont ar really much certified on it for the electrical energy, of course. further at the same(p) time they imbibe grown skeptical of the quality of attention at the plant and the plants viability. The hereafter of this plant may not be a national or international concern, but it is a crucial issue for the local multitude. The fundamental dilemma of the situation here(predicate) reflects, in microcosm, the vastly larger business of the future of nu tripping-generated electricity as much(prenominal) should we enthusiastically embrace it or sagely abjure it?Many of the rapidly create countries of the gentlemans gentleman, especially, tend to be upbeat ab protrude the capableness of atomic great cause, while in some of the developed countries where atomic violence has been roam to use for generating electricity for several(prenominal) decades now there has been an increasing decimal point of opposition to the continued combine on atomic great mogul, from the point of pot of threats it poses to the environment. As in the case of Vermont Yankee billet plant, the so-and-soonic conflict in the thermo thermo thermo atomic cause sector is between the authorization and the capability risk.The Vermont facility has still the potential to supply a large portion of the states electricity needs for a couple of decades more than which is by no entertains a mean feat, but there are signs, much(prenominal) as th e recent tritium leak detect at the plant, of the decreased reliability and daring of the plant. The Vermont news story provokes the question tolerate atomic author plants be hardy and reliable in general? The rewards they pop the question may outweigh the risks they pose, but level(p) so, do the rewards far outweigh the risks so that the risks to the extent they are cede stomach be considered acceptable?A sub programme of countries of the world have benefitted from nuclear creator for several decades now with only one major(ip) disaster to speak of so far. But how umteen a(prenominal) closely averted disasters such as the Three-Mile Island incident of 1979 there faculty have been it is difficult to estimate. Because, as pile be receiven in the case of Vermont facility, there is apparently a wide short-circuit gloss of leaks and lies in the nuclear power sector, which tends to neatly cover up inefficiencies, mis focusing, breaches, change magnitude risks and so on.The worlds experience with nuclear-generated electricity so far could be seen as a trial or an experiment, found on which we are compelled to take decisions cyphering the future of nuclear power. Should the worlds reliance on nuclear power be dramatically expanded, as advocated by umteen an(prenominal) nuclear power enthusiasts and as was ab initio expected when nuclear power technologies were ontogenesis in the 1950s? Or, should we gradually grade out our dependence on nuclear power and switch to much uprightr alternatives, or should a middle way be adopted? on that point are legion(predicate) well-informed passel who would equal to see all nuclear power plants closed grim how far are their fears logical? Literature Review 1) Massachusetts embed of technical schoolnology. (2003, 2009) The future of nuclear governing body agency An interdisciplinary Study. Retrieved from http//web. mit. edu/nuclearpower/ The experts at MIT believe in nuclear power and owing(p) ly emphasize the top dog advantage of absence of carbon emissions in its mathematical product. This study takes a comprehensive, interdisciplinary improvement to assessing the feasibility of nuclear power.While the basic stance of MIT favors the increased use of nuclear power, the risks are not downplayed. The issues that the nuclear manufacture faces are tackled in a clear and detailed way. The study does succeed in inspiring confidence in the potential of nuclear power. though the fears and concerns are not really eliminated, they are not plain vague forebodings of doom now but are based on veritable facts and conditions. The challenges lot be dealt with, in principle, with more commitment and initiative. 2) Biello D. (2009). The futurity of thermonuclear Power An In-depth Report.scientific Ameri put up. Retrieved from http//www. scientificameri gage. com/report. cfm? id=nuclear-future This is a 4-part in-depth report featured in the Scientific Ameri potbelly cartridge clip in early 2009. The first report, witness Fissile Fuel, explores the issue of availability of uracil and otherwise raw materials for nuclear power. The guerilla report, Reactivating Nuclear Reactors for the Fight against Climate Change, examines the current escalation in nuclear power production in the U. S. Spent Nuclear Fuel, the three part, deals with the major issue of nuclear ingest management.The final report, Atomic Weight rapprochement the Risks and Rewards of a Power Source, asks the question Is it expense the minor chance of a major tragedy? 3) Department of wiliness and Industry, U. K. (2007). The prox of Nuclear Power The federal agency of Nuclear Power in a blue Carbon UK Economy. Retrieved from www. berr. gov. uk/files/file39197. pdf This is a UK government whitened base / consultation document on the relevance of nuclear power in addressing the issues related to world-wide warming and mood change and ensuring continued energy supplies.Though it is a document of advice and information provided to the UK government to help it make decisions, a considerateness of the particularities of the UK situation tush be expedient in more general contexts. In the UK, nuclear power is already making a significant contribution to the electricity generating mix and this paper is inclined to the view that it could make an as yet more prominent contribution. 4) Mahaffey, J. (2009). Atomic Awakening A refreshing Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power. in the buff York Pe natural gasus BooksMahaffey, a superior research scientist at Georgia Tech Research ground, has written a retain meant to interest laymen about nuclear power and its possibilities. He wants to show us that nuclear energy is not the monster it is portrayed to be while the risks cannot be entirely mitigated it can still be used in a truly safe manner. One of the barriers to greater adoption of nuclear power is the general strangeness of the subject, the de gree of alienation between the super C man and the tall-standing nuclear reactors.The author seeks to twain this gap by familiarizing his earshot with the subject in an entertaining and savoury manner, largely in a historic perspective. 5) Smith, J & Beresford, N. A. (2005). Chernobyl catastrophe and consequences. New York customs The familiar perception of nuclear power has radically changed after the Chernobyl tragedy. Ever since, people living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant are naturally beset with fears that their installation does not turn out to be some other Chernobyl. And if a nuclear facility is genuinely having some known problems, as in the case of Vermont, these fears are vastly exacerbated.In this context it is in truth pertinent to understand what caused Chernobyl and assess how likely is it for a benevolentred disaster to discover again, for broadly sympathetic reasons. Smith and Beresfords detailed insofar uncomplicated account of the Cherno byl incident is expedient for evolution a mental show of the events that led to the 1986 mishap, what really occurred and how it was handled. Methodology This in short paper is built around a minor incident at Vermonts nuclear power plant and the public reaction to it with the aim of examining the broader implications of nuclear power to the future of the world.We propose to survey the kit and caboodle cited in the literature review in fix up to glean the opinions and standpoint of their authors in attachment to the risks and rewards presented by the use of nuclear power. A special focus is fixed on the Chernobyl incident. Results The MIT study of 2003, later updated in 2009, is the one of the most authoritative studies in this field. It begins with what would appear like a regretful look that despite the great predict nuclear power holds in regard to significantly restricting earths green house emissions, nuclear power is virtually facing stagnation.It recommends a t reble of worlds nuclear generating susceptibility of the world by 2050 in order to turn around the situation of decline. Doing so would help in cutting 25% of the increment in greenhouse gas emissions which would occur if such a resurgence of nuclear power did not take place. The golosh of modern reactor institutions is intimately superior to those of the earlier models, and there is very low risk of serious strokings. However, the very low risk associated with modern nuclear reactors holds true only when their operation implements vanquish practices. Proliferation is another major concern in regard to nuclear power multiplication. With increased use of nuclear power, there is increasing likelihood of misuse of raw materials and engineering for manufacturing nuclear weapons. The existing international safeguards authorities is far from being adequate, according to the report, to meet the greater security challenges of a global growth in nuclear usage. Especially, the kind o f reprocessing system that is used in a majority of nuclear power use countries, including European Union, Japan and Russia, poses unwarranted risks of proliferation. mess up management is stock-still another major area of concern. Closed displace cycles involving reprocessing are generally considered to offer liquidate management benefits, but the study is not convinced(p) of their benefits improved open fuel cycles can offer just as many benefits and they present diminished security threats along with decreased costs. The study therefore recommends open, once-through fuel cycles for facing both security and drive out management challenges in a meliorate way.However, the international safeguards regime needs to be improved, and greater efforts have to be put in by the government and the snobbish enterprise to develop better solutions for the waste disposal problem. Apart from the sentry go, proliferation, and waste management concerns, the fundamental issue in regard to nu clear power is the cost, which is not yet competitive with the other conventional modes of power generation. However, even this problem is not insurmountable, and heterogeneous strategies are suggested to increase the economic feasibility of nuclear power.Finally, forebodings and misguided perceptions among the public present a great barrier for creating a movement to expand the worlds nuclear power capacity. This, the report suggests, can be dealt with by implementing an intensive program of public education. The 4th part of Scientific Americans in-depth feature on the future of nuclear power covers many risky scenarios faced by the American nuclear power sector in the past few decades. The report leads us to conclude that the future of nuclear power in the US largely depends on the quality of management of the nuclear installations.So far the US has a instead impressive track record in running the nuclear facilities, and this consistency is likely to continue. A chapter in the UK white paper on the future of nuclear power addresses the specific resort and security risks present by nuclear installations. It stresses on the additive safety features added to the la mental testing models of nuclear reactors Designers of nuclear power stations have interpreted this earlier operational experience and learned lessons from previous nuclear events. They have added features to geld the likelihood of plant failures and to limit the consequences when failures occur.(p. 105) From design to operations and maintenance, rigorous procedures can be developed, and in fact have been developed, which make nuclear energy one of the go around options for meeting the electricity needs of UK and Europe. Mahaffey, in his book Atomic Awakening raises many interesting points. He observes, for example, that Chernobyl caused only 55 to 60 deaths (most of them being fire fighters overt to lethal doses of radiation), whereas the Bhopal incident which took place in 1984 in India k illed over 15,000 of the citys inhabitants.Despite the overblown public fears, the safety record of the nuclear effort world wide is relatively very solid. There is no reason why people should fear nuclear power generation more than they fear many other processes to do with advanced technology. Seen from a safety perspective, nuclear power plants are like airlines a single disaster can create great fear among the public for air travel, but when we look at the statistical record of safety of airlines and oppose them with road transport, airplanes turn out to be vastly safer than cars. In the early hours of April 26, 1986, a massive nuclear reactor accident took place at the Chernobyl Power dress in Ukraine. A small test procedure that was being conducted went completely out of control, go awaying in two non-nuclear explosions that demolished the hard ceiling of the reactor and expelled the radioactive content and waste products of the reactors hollow into the surroundings. Che rnobyl is the worst nuclear disaster in the history. It has cast a heavy fanny on the entire nuclear industry which continues to darken the horizons.But we must note that the Chernobyl disaster is a result of questioning design compounded by sorry management practices and a work purification which flouted all safety considerations. One safety feature after another was purposely suppressed in order to urge the test procedure serious warnings were callously disregarded. The Chernobyl meltdown occurred as a result of operator incompetence on a huge scale, as was acknowledged by the Soviet official report of the disaster. A group of technicians are directly liable for this disaster, and they committed six serious violations or errors besides many others.Many of the operators as well as managers in hit at Chernobyl actually knew very shrimpy about nuclear technology. Moreover, there were certain(a) high-risk features associated with the RBMK design of the Chernobyl reactors. A C hernobyl can never happen in the occidental world because the minimal industrial standards here are far superior to those that prevailed in the Soviet Union during the last years of its existence. Conclusion Nuclear power plants have been safe and would continue to be safe in the context of advanced nations.But the real problem comes when we consider nuclear energy in the setting of the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. All the studies we have dealt with so far focus on the U. S. , U. K. and the E. U. How would nuclear power fare in the erratic developing countries is in fact even difficult to outline even in broad terms. The major obstacle for the tierce World Countries in embracing nuclear power is the cost. However, in a put forward to develop environment-friendly energy sources, Western nations are engaged in bringing down the costs of production of nuclear power.If they succeed, nuclear power production can spread rapidly in the developing countries of the world, and this can have potentially highly wayward consequences. A Chernobyl can never happen in the U. S. or Europe, but it can very well happen in Angola or Pakistan or Columbia. References Associated Press. Vermont Town Halls unavoidableness Nuclear Plant Shut. MSNBC. Retrieved from http//www. msnbc. msn. com/id/35687805 Biello D. (2009). The Future of Nuclear Power An In-depth Report. Scientific American. Retrieved from http//www. scientificamerican. com/report. cfm? id=nuclear-future Department of Trade and Industry, U. K. (2007).The Future of Nuclear Power The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon UK Economy. Retrieved from www. berr. gov. uk/files/file39197. pdf Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2003, 2009) The Future of Nuclear Power An interdisciplinary Study. Retrieved from http//web. mit. edu/nuclearpower/ Mahaffey, J. (2009). Atomic Awakening A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power. New York Pegasus Books Smith, J & Beresford, N. A. (2005). Ch ernobyl catastrophe and consequences. New York Springer