Pros: Nuclear Power
The big scare that comes with Nuclear Power is the business with radioactive materials being produced. Everyone knows that radiation is bad, but what does anyone really know about it? For instance, the typical person is exposed to 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources. Now think about a medical X-ray; just one involves striking the user with about 100 billion. This number seems like quite a jump, which means that it's dangerous, right? To some extent, yes, but one must consider that the probability of one particle of radiation to cause cancer or a genetic disease is one in 30 million billion (that's 18 zeros).
A Nuclear Power Plant produces "radioactive" materials which are products that actively emit radiation. Humans may come into contact with this radiation through small energy releases during routine operation, accidents in plants, accidents transporting, and from waste systems. Now consider taking all of the radiation from every nuclear power plant accident, release, or other problem. This accounts for only 0.2% of the natural radiation that a human will be exposed to in his lifetime. Since natural radiation causes about 1% of all cancer, nuclear radiation only raises a person's risk of developing cancer by 0.002%, reducing a life expectancy by less than one hour.
(The above information is a summary of what is found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm)
Next, let's consider the radiation that other sources of power emit, for instance: coal. Coal plants have been used in America since the 1880s, when workers had to shovel wood and coal into furnaces by hand to produce steam energy. New technologies have built upon a pulverized coal firing system in order to keep a more uniform temperature and efficient energy production. However, coal plants are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide (greenhouse emissions), sulfur, and nitrogen oxides (which both cause acid rain). A study in 1978 by J.P. McBride tested the amount of uranium and thorium content from Tennessee and Alabama coal plants and compared it to the exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The results showed that the amount of radiation ingested in people living near coal plants was higher than those living around nuclear power plants. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
But everyone knows coal is dirty, and it's going out of fashion anyway; what about gasoline? Simply put, the amount of power generated from a nuclear power plant is equal to that of 150 billion gallons of gasoline. Also, fossil fuels are becoming more and more expensive as their supply gradually dwindles. Fossil fuels cannot be created. They are formed from organic waste stored for over millions of years very far underground. Countries in the Middle East are known for their oil resources, but recent unrest has driven up prices. Then comes in the topic of off-shore drilling so that the rest of the world can break the monopoly in the Middle East, but with accidents such as the BP oil spill, not many people are in favor of this option.
So what’s the fuss with Nuclear Power? Why are so many people scared of it? Oh, they probably heard about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most recently the meltdown in Japan. But how many fatalities does that leave on the Nuclear side of the energy debate? Here is a graph from world-nuclear.org summarizing the severe accidents in energy chains for electricity:
And a chart comparing the accident statistics in primary energy production:
The big scare that comes with Nuclear Power is the business with radioactive materials being produced. Everyone knows that radiation is bad, but what does anyone really know about it? For instance, the typical person is exposed to 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources. Now think about a medical X-ray; just one involves striking the user with about 100 billion. This number seems like quite a jump, which means that it's dangerous, right? To some extent, yes, but one must consider that the probability of one particle of radiation to cause cancer or a genetic disease is one in 30 million billion (that's 18 zeros).
A Nuclear Power Plant produces "radioactive" materials which are products that actively emit radiation. Humans may come into contact with this radiation through small energy releases during routine operation, accidents in plants, accidents transporting, and from waste systems. Now consider taking all of the radiation from every nuclear power plant accident, release, or other problem. This accounts for only 0.2% of the natural radiation that a human will be exposed to in his lifetime. Since natural radiation causes about 1% of all cancer, nuclear radiation only raises a person's risk of developing cancer by 0.002%, reducing a life expectancy by less than one hour.
(The above information is a summary of what is found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm)
Next, let's consider the radiation that other sources of power emit, for instance: coal. Coal plants have been used in America since the 1880s, when workers had to shovel wood and coal into furnaces by hand to produce steam energy. New technologies have built upon a pulverized coal firing system in order to keep a more uniform temperature and efficient energy production. However, coal plants are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide (greenhouse emissions), sulfur, and nitrogen oxides (which both cause acid rain). A study in 1978 by J.P. McBride tested the amount of uranium and thorium content from Tennessee and Alabama coal plants and compared it to the exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The results showed that the amount of radiation ingested in people living near coal plants was higher than those living around nuclear power plants. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
But everyone knows coal is dirty, and it's going out of fashion anyway; what about gasoline? Simply put, the amount of power generated from a nuclear power plant is equal to that of 150 billion gallons of gasoline. Also, fossil fuels are becoming more and more expensive as their supply gradually dwindles. Fossil fuels cannot be created. They are formed from organic waste stored for over millions of years very far underground. Countries in the Middle East are known for their oil resources, but recent unrest has driven up prices. Then comes in the topic of off-shore drilling so that the rest of the world can break the monopoly in the Middle East, but with accidents such as the BP oil spill, not many people are in favor of this option.
So what’s the fuss with Nuclear Power? Why are so many people scared of it? Oh, they probably heard about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most recently the meltdown in Japan. But how many fatalities does that leave on the Nuclear side of the energy debate? Here is a graph from world-nuclear.org summarizing the severe accidents in energy chains for electricity:
Summary of severe* accidents in energy chains for electricity 1969-2000
| OECD |
| Non-OECD |
|
Energy chain | Fatalities | Fatalities/TWy | Fatalities | Fatalities/TWy |
| Coal | 2259 | 157 | 18,000 | 597 |
| Natural gas | 1043 | 85 | 1000 | 111 |
| Hydro | 14 | 3 | 30,000 | 10,285 |
| Nuclear | 0 | 0 | 31 | 48 |
Data from Paul Scherrer Institut, in OECD 2010. * severe = more than 5 fatalities
And a chart comparing the accident statistics in primary energy production:
Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production
(Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of total primary energy)
Fuel | Immediate fatalities 1970-92 | Who? | Normalised to deaths per TWy* electricity |
| Coal | 6400 | workers | 342 |
| Natural gas | 1200 | workers & public | 85 |
| Hydro | 4000 | public | 883 |
| Nuclear | 31 | workers | 8 |
* Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned.
“Japan depends on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its electricity, second only to the United States and France. Until now, the threat of a nuclear reactor meltdown has been an abstract gamble that most Japanese citizens, politicians and business leaders have been willing to take.”
As with every new technology, there are risks along with the benefits. The crisis in Japan has done well in reminding the world of this and one can only hope for the safety of that country. But to deny them the right to nuclear power simply because the country is known for earthquakes is essentially calling the Japanese people stupid. Technology is growing and it’s every country’s right to decide on which utilities to make use of. I suppose it’s up to every individual to develop his own opinions on the situation.
(I also posted this to the class document, but I figured I would put it on blog for easy access)
No comments:
Post a Comment