Nuclear Energy: Consequences and Benefits

[Ava Nova]

In English 30, we discussed the ways in which the news is covering the Fukushima Daiichi plant. I had admitted to having a bit of comfort in the architecture of the plants despite concerns over a "meltdown." Given the latest update on the plant: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12754883 I have to acknowledge the limitations of this position (informed by scientists and engineers). The conflict at the nuclear plant site has the potential to produce vital and productive conversations about the legitimacy of nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source. As we discussed, comparisons to Chernobyl and early warnings about a "meltdown" seemed reflective of the sensationalist angle of mainstream news media. However, as Richburg suggests, what is happening at the Fukushima Daiichi plant is sure to evoke some type of reaction from us. In particular, this conflict asks us to (re)evaluate environmental problems and technological developments

If you are interested, please weigh in on this discussion.

[Elisabet Bjanes]

Nuclear power is one of the cleanest energy sources currently available in today's society. Unfortunately, with it comes the slight potential for the release of detrimental radiation.

As dozens of nuclear scientists race the clock to prevent a meltdown in the Fukushima Daiichi Plant, plants in China and all over Europe have been shut down pending safety issues. Personally, I think the reaction is way overblown. Fukushima survive one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history and a gigantic tsunami. I don't know about you, but the mere fact that the reactors are still standing, let alone functioning at all (even malfunctioning), is a testament to the genius of their design.

Everyone remembers the disaster of Chernobyl, but Fukushima differs in dozens of ways from the Russian disaster. the two main reasons are as follows. First, the Chernobyl reactors were not contained in a massive concrete and steel housing several feet thick. When the reaction got out of control, it released a massive plume of radioactive gas that spread across the globe and affected people as far away as Norway. Secondly, the coolant (absorbs extra neutrons) was made of graphite (carbon) which is flammable if enough heat is added. In April 1986, the graphite caught fire and burned for four days. Fukushima uses water as their coolant and water does not catch on fire.

While there is the risk of a meltdown, Fukushima has a huge concrete housing surrounding all of their reactors, greatly reducing the risk of the release of radioactive gas. Some radiation has escaped, but not enough to cause injury to human life. At this point, we have to wait and see whether or not the nuclear scientists are able to get the reactors under control. But just because we have one incident caused by a massive earthquake and a huge tsunami, that doesn't mean that all nuclear power is unsafe. On the contrary, it indicates that the other plants are extremely well built to survive such massive catastrophes.

[A Balko]

I agree with what you are saying Elisabet. Now I will admit that I do not know much at all about nuclear power plants nor the situation in Japan. The information I do know is what we discussed in class the other day and what I read in the articles posted on the Wiki. Therefore, I do not know enough to make an extremely informed decision, but quite a few of the articles I have read have indicated that the matter is not as threatening as everyone seems to think. The article entitled Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl mentions that the amount of radiation released is equivalent to the level of radiation released in one dental X-ray. I also agree with you on the fact that we should all realize how well-built these plants are. The fact that they are still standing after such a terrible earthquake and tsunami is a reflection of their strength and design. In one of the other articles entitled Scientist Joins Anti-Nuke Campaign I read that three men resigned from their jobs thirty-five years ago in fear that the design on the nuclear reactor was so flawed that it could lead to an accident. However, that design did in fact withstand a very large disaster, so it should say something about the design of this device. Again, I do not know very much at all about this topic, but from what I have read, I can agree with the points you have made.

[CaseyS]

I also am not very well-informed about nuclear energy and power plants, but I just have a question regarding what Elisabet posted stating that "plants in China and all over Europe have been shut down pending safety issues." Is this simply an overreaction, or do the operators of the plants have legitimate reasons to shut them down?

[ltusar]

My dad is a nuclear engineer, and he gave me some insight to the problems that have been going on in Japan. Hopefully this helps to explain where the radiation is coming from that has leaked into the environment. There are 6 reactors at the Fukushima power plant in Japan, which are all boiling water reactors. This type of reactor boils water in a boiler which creates the heat that is needed for nuclear reactions to take place. There were 3 reactors running at the time of the tsunami/earthquake, and all 3 were shut down. There has been some radiation leakage, but most people think this is due to the reactor. But actually, the main source of the radiation leakage is from the spent fuel pools. Spent fuel pools are storage pools for discharged fuel rods that were previously used in the reactor. These pools help the fuel rods cool down. The reason these are leaking radiation is because there was an explosion in the building that contained these spent fuel pools. The explosion occurred because there was damage to the pools during the earthquake and tsunami, resulting in a build up of heat and hydrogen from the fuel rods because they were not able to cool adequately. The temperature that ignited the explosion was around 2200 degrees Fahrenheit. Now, helicopters are dumping immense amounts of water on the building and pumps from the ground are spraying this building with water in order to help cool the spent fuel rods.

In summary, the main source of radiation is coming from these spent fuel rods, not the reactor melting. But, there is potential that reactor number 2 could have released some radiation as well because of an explosion that occurred on March 15, which may have damaged the reactor's primary containment vessel, which is one of the levels of protection that encases the reactor. This explosion also occurred because of hydrogen build up.

To add on to Elisabet's statement that there has not been much radiation leakage, I was reading an article online that spoke of the effects of the radiation leakage thus far in Japan. There has been a warning sent out that adults should not feed their babies water because it is infected with more than double the legal limit of radioactive iodine. But, the article does mention that it is okay for adults to drink the water, which seems very odd to me. I would never want to drink water that I knew was contaminated with double the legal limit of radioactive iodine! The US Food and Drug Administration said all milk and dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables from four Japanese areas would be stopped from entering the country. So, it seems as if many precautions are being done to ensure that people are not damaged. To me it seems as if the most vulnerable people in this situation are babies and the elderly, who are people with weaker immune systems and bodies.

[cole5243]

I am very interested in the Nuclear Power Plant catastrophe though I lack a great amount of knowledge about how nuclear energy works. What is happening in Japan now can really affect my future and it deeply frightens me with the way nuclear energy has impacted the world throughout history. I’m also emotionally attached to this topic because I had a foreign exchange student from Tokyo who came to my high school during my sophomore year who I grew very close to. I keep in touch with her through Facebook, and I know she survived the earthquake and tsunami, but her conditions after the nuclear meltdowns are unknown.

I’ve read several of the articles posted on the Wiki about the nuclear power plants in Japan, but I feel like there is such a lack of communication with knowing how deadly the situation can be. The “Nuclear Power Plants Accident: A History” goes into depth with the nuclear alert levels. I’ve understood that right now Fukushima is at a five, two below Chernobyl’s nuclear disaster in 1986. If this is true, then why does International Business Times state that the consequences of Fukushima can be just as terrible, or worse than Chernobyl because of the possibility of it leaking a larger amount of long-term radioactive material? I’ve also read “Nuclear Crisis Spawns Criticism of Japanese Authorities,” which stated Naoto Kan, the Prime Minister of Japan just responded today, March 29, 2011 since the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami. That is a total of 18 days where he ignored questions about the conditions of his Country. Then it goes on to show Yukio Edano, the government’s chief spokesman say, “There is a high possibility that there has been at least some melting of the fuel rods.” I understand Japan is under a state of emergency since the disasters, but I feel like no one knows what is truly going on over there. It makes me extremely worried and scared for the lives of the people there, and for us, who can be harmed by these meltdowns as well.

Recent Article about Japanese Authorities:

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/asia/30japan.html?_r=1&hp

[Charlie P]

I was not initially too worried about this situation, thinking like Elisabet that if the reactor had survived a huge earthquake and a tsunami, then things would probably be alright soon. But there seems to be more and more bad news recently, as more contamination escapes and officials make increasingly grim statements. I don't know how this will end, but I think it is turning out to be much worse than we had hoped.

On a more general level, I think that this disaster raises very legitimate questions about nuclear power. I am a huge supporter of eliminating fossil fuels, but I think this disaster shows that not every alternative is necessarily worth it.

First of all, nuclear power is neither carbon-free nor totally sustainable. While better than fossil fuels, nuclear energy still releases more than twice is much carbon per unit of energy than solar power (see link). Furthermore, current reserves of uranium are expected to last for 230 years at current rates of consumption (see other link). This may seem like a long time, but if we ramped up nuclear production to replace fossil fuels, we might run out of uranium in our lifetime.

These concerns alone might not be enough to devalue nuclear power completely. After all, there is no perfect energy source. However, I think the current situation in the Fukushima Daiichi plant underscores that nuclear power inevitably will carry a risk of catastrophe that other energy sources do not. A failed nuclear reactor can permanently render an area uninhabitable, and cause many deaths, cancers, and deformities to boot. While it may take extreme events to cause such situations, extreme events do inevitably occur in the long run, and the presence of a nuclear reactor makes the aftermath that much worse. This is not to mention the waste we still do not have a solution for.

Thus, even though I am an alternative energy enthusiast who generally supports nuclear power, I must disagree with Elisabet. I think the Fukushima Daiichi plant shows that nuclear power carries an unacceptable risk, one that is increasingly unnecessary as alternative fuel sources like wind and solar are developed. While the odds of disaster may be low, I'd rather just pay a little more for electricity than play Russian roulette with the environment.

wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_carbon_footprint_of_nuclear_energy
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

[Kim K]

I feel as though many of my thoughts have been stated already, although I don’t know very much about nuclear energy. I agree with Elisabet and also think the recent events demonstrate the amazing engineering that went into the Fukushima Daiichi Plant. It does seem like those who oppose nuclear energy overblow the dangers of nuclear energy with scare tactics, but I also agree with Charlie. It is hard to know exactly how dangerous the leaking radiation will be, but if it proves to be to detrimental then I may side against nuclear energy. Even though many nuclear plants have a very low chance for catastrophe, the chance still exists and humans would have to take the consequences into account.

But throughout all the reading, I have been wondering a bit about the seawater (this will show just how unknowledgable I really am…) What happens to the seawater that is dumped into the melting reactor; does it all evaporate? So then where does all the salt go, does it buildup? Does the seawater become radioactive on contact with the rods and how do they purify the water again? Will they need to purify the seawater that they’re dumping on the plant and is the runoff just flowing back into the ocean?

[EBjanes]

Kim - the seawater pumped into the reactor is left in the reactor indefinitely. During the three mile island disaster, the reactor was flooded with water from the Susquehanna River. That water is still in the ruined reactor. There is talk of slowly removing it, but it's so full of contaminated radiation, that dealing with it is impractical, dangerous and very expensive. The water is being pumped into the reactor housings, which is supposedly sealed, preventing that water from escaping. However, if the containment structures have been compromised, as evidence indicates to some degree, that water can slowly evaporate. Once the reactors are cooled to the point where they are no longer in danger of exploding, the entire thing will be sealed with concrete. It may even be encased in a large concrete dome, like the one that currently covers the reactors in Chernobyl.

[tommyturner]

With the unfortunate disasters in Chernobyl and in Japan, a lot of people have become skeptical about nuclear energy and how safe it really is. As these disasters have demonstrated, there are risks involved when operating a nuclear power plant and only so much can be done to prevent them. There are pros and cons to all forms of energy, and each have their respective risks that must considered in order to produce the energy. Natural gas lines can break, oil rigs can explode, coal mines can collapse, and coal and fossil fuels pollute the environment. Nuclear energy seems like an ideal alternative to these, but disasters can happen and cause destruction and disorder on a large scale.
But what if it was all scaled down? A New-Mexico based company, Hyperion, is in the process of marketing a miniature reactor. The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground. It can power up to 20,000 homes and generate electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour. The reactors are only a few meters in diameter and would have to be refueled every 7 to 10 years. The reactor is based on a 50 year old design that has proved to be safe for student use, and there could never be a Chernobyl type event because there are no moving parts.
An even smaller version is being designed by Toshiba, which would be used to fuel smaller homes and could power a single building for up to 40 years. These micro reactors are safe, inexpensive, and produce clean, reliable energy. Last year, Hyperion announced an agreement with Savannah River Nuclear Solutions to build a demonstration site at the Savannah River for testing and licensing purposes. We are still a ways off from seeing micro reactors implemented on a larger scale, but the potential it has is significant. Micro reactors can produce clean, affordable nuclear energy a lot safer than enormous power plants can, and they are far less likely to cause a national commotion should something go wrong.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Power_Generation

[Kim K]

Thanks EBJames! That pretty much answered all my questions!
Kim

[Seyi Ajayi]

I agree that despite this incident, nuclear energy should still be overall viewed as a safe, clean type of energy. However, I believe that the danger of the release of radiation is too great for nuclear energy to be used as a main source of energy in the future, especially when there are better alternatives. Alternative energies such as solar energy are environmentally friendly, renewable, and possess long-term economic benefits. I believe that it is not worth the risk of disasters like this happening again and we should put more resources into developing solar energy as a main source of energy in the future.

[N Romano]

Basically Agreeing with what has been said already, Nuclear is safe and clean etc, etc.

However with regards to the destruction and the damage that the plant sustained during the earthquake, japan is basically totally in an earthquake zone, so not allowing them to build these plants is comparable to not allowing people to build tall buildings in San Francisco because they might be destroyed but people do it anyway.

When building anything anywhere there lies risk, japan took that risk in order to provide energy to it's people. But some might say "why dont they use solar or wind power those are completely safe" well Japan is a highly condensed and small island nation, so it does not have much free area that can be used for such purposes, and they needed the energy source that has the highest output with the smallest area consumed and Nuclear power fit that bill exactly