Institute of Technology Essay Example for Free

Institute of Technology EssayA minor news item become in MSNBC last month, from which the above excerpt is taken, talks roughly a 38-year-old aging atomic super source give in the put in of Vermont that is still efficient unless appears to pose increasing threat to the environment. The local and state authorities want it to be decommissioned, but the owner of the im lay, Entergy corp. , intends to run it for another 20 years. The plant meets terzetto of the states electricity needs, and the people of Vermont ar very much dependent on it for the electricity, of course. and at the same time they have grown distrustful of the quality of counsel at the plant and the plants viability. The future of this plant may not be a national or international concern, but it is a crucial gist for the local people. The fundamental dilemma of the situation here reflects, in microcosm, the vastly larger problem of the future of atomic-generated electricity as such should we enthu siastically grasp it or wisely abjure it?Many of the rapidly developing countries of the world, especially, tend to be upbeat ab show up(predicate) the latent of thermo thermo thermo thermo thermo atomic power, while in some of the developed countries where thermonuclear power has been put to economic consumption for generating electricity for several decades now there has been an increasing degree of opposition to the continued reliance on nuclear power, from the point of view of threats it poses to the environment. As in the case of Vermont Yankee power plant, the basic betrothal in the nuclear power sector is between the potential and the potential risk.The Vermont facility has still the potential to supply a large fraction of the states electricity needs for a duad of decades more which is by no means a mean feat, but there atomic number 18 signs, such as the recent tritium leak detected at the plant, of the decreased reliability and robustness of the plant. The Vermon t news twaddle provokes the question Can nuclear power plants be robust and reliable in general? The rewards they bid may outweigh the risks they pose, but even so, do the rewards further outweigh the risks so that the risks to the extent they argon present fire be considered acceptable?A number of countries of the world have benefitted from nuclear power for several decades now with only one major disaster to speak of so far. But how some(prenominal) closely averted disasters such as the Three-Mile Island incident of 1979 there might have been it is difficult to estimate. Because, as chamberpot be seen in the case of Vermont facility, there is apparently a widespread market-gardening of leaks and lies in the nuclear power sector, which tends to neatly cover up inefficiencies, mismanagement, breaches, increased risks and so on.The worlds experience with nuclear-generated electricity so far could be seen as a trial or an experiment, based on which we are compelled to take d ecisions regarding the future of nuclear power. Should the worlds reliance on nuclear power be dramatically expanded, as advocated by galore(postnominal) nuclear power enthusiasts and as was initially expected when nuclear power technologies were developing in the 1950s? Or, should we gradually phase out our dependence on nuclear power and switch to much safer alternatives, or should a middle way be adopted? at that place are many well-informed people who would homogeneous to see all nuclear power plants debar down how far are their idolatrys valid? Literature Review 1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2003, 2009) The future tense of nuclear strength An Interdisciplinary Study. Retrieved from http//web. mit. edu/nuclearpower/ The experts at MIT believe in nuclear power and prominently emphasize the gaffer advantage of absence of carbon emissions in its production. This study takes a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to assessing the feasibility of nuclear powe r.While the basic stance of MIT favors the increased use of nuclear power, the risks are not downplayed. The pops that the nuclear attention faces are tackled in a clear and detailed way. The study does succeed in inspiring impudence in the potential of nuclear power. Though the fears and concerns are not really eliminated, they are not exclusively vague forebodings of doom now but are based on actual facts and conditions. The challenges send away be dealt with, in principle, with more commitment and initiative. 2) Biello D. (2009). The Future of atomic Power An In-depth Report.Scientific American. Retrieved from http//www. scientificamerican. com/report. cfm? id=nuclear-future This is a 4-part in-depth report featured in the Scientific American magazine in early 2009. The first report, Find Fissile Fuel, explores the unfreeze of availability of uranium and other raw materials for nuclear power. The second report, Reactivating Nuclear Reactors for the Fight against Climate Ch ange, examines the on-going escalation in nuclear power production in the U. S. Spent Nuclear Fuel, the third part, deals with the major issue of nuclear waste management.The final report, nuclear Weight Balancing the Risks and Rewards of a Power Source, asks the question Is it worth the minor chance of a major catastrophe? 3) Department of Trade and Industry, U. K. (2007). The Future of Nuclear Power The quality of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon UK Economy. Retrieved from www. berr. gov. uk/files/file39197. pdf This is a UK establishment white radical / consultation document on the relevance of nuclear power in addressing the issues related to globular warming and climate change and ensuring continued heftiness supplies.Though it is a document of advice and information provided to the UK government to help it pee-pee decisions, a consideration of the particularities of the UK situation can be usable in more general contexts. In the UK, nuclear power is already making a si gnificant contribution to the electricity generating mix and this paper is inclined to the view that it could make an even more prominent contribution. 4) Mahaffey, J. (2009). Atomic modify A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power. New York Pegasus BooksMahaffey, a higher-ranking research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute, has written a book meant to interest laymen about nuclear power and its possibilities. He wants to show us that nuclear energy is not the monster it is pictured to be while the risks cannot be completely mitigated it can still be used in a very safe manner. One of the barriers to greater acceptance of nuclear power is the general strangeness of the subject, the degree of alienation between the common man and the tall-standing nuclear nuclear reactors.The author seeks to bridge this gap by familiarizing his audience with the subject in an entertaining and engaging manner, largely in a historic perspective. 5) Smith, J Beresford, N. A. ( 2005). Chernobyl catastrophe and consequences. New York Springer The semipublic perception of nuclear power has radically changed by and by 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 another Chernobyl. And if a nuclear facility is very having some known problems, as in the case of Vermont, these fears are vastly exacerbated.In this context it is very pertinent to understand what caused Chernobyl and assess how likely is it for a similar disaster to communicate again, for broadly similar reasons. Smith and Beresfords detailed provided uncomplicated account of the Chernobyl incident is useful for developing a mental picture of the events that led to the 1986 mishap, what really occurred and how it was handled. Methodology This short paper is make around a minor incident at Vermonts nuclear power plant and the public reaction to it with the aim of examin ing the broader implications of nuclear power to the future of the world.We propose to survey the works cited in the literary works review in order to glean the opinions and standpoint of their authors in regard to the risks and rewards presented by the use of nuclear power. A special focus is laid on the Chernobyl incident. Results The MIT study of 2003, later updated in 2009, is the one of the closely authoritative studies in this field. It begins with what would appear like a sad note that despite the great look for nuclear power holds in regard to significantly restricting earths green stick out emissions, nuclear power is virtually facing stagnation.It recommends a tripling of worlds nuclear generating cogency 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 revival of nuclear power did not take place. The safety of modern reactor designs is c onsiderably superior to those of the rather models, and there is very low risk of serious accidents. However, the very low risk associated with modern nuclear reactors holds true only when their operation implements best practices. Proliferation is another major concern in regard to nuclear power generation. With increased use of nuclear power, there is increasing likelihood of misuse of raw materials and engineering science for manufacturing nuclear weapons. The existing international safeguards government activity is far from being adequate, according to the report, to meet the greater warranter challenges of a global growth in nuclear usage. Especially, the kind of reprocessing system that is used in a majority of nuclear power using countries, including European Union, Japan and Russia, poses unwarranted risks of proliferation.Waste management is yet another major area of concern. Closed terminate cycles involving reprocessing are generally considered to offer waste managem ent benefits, but the study is not convinced of their benefits improved open fuel cycles can offer solely 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 waste management challenges in a better way.However, the international safeguards regime needs to be improved, and greater efforts have to be put in by the government and the insular enterprise to develop better solutions for the waste disposal problem. Apart from the safety, proliferation, and waste management concerns, the fundamental issue in regard to nuclear 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 various strategies are suggested to increase the economic feasibility of nuclear power.Finally, forebodings and misdirect perceptions among the public present a great barrier for creat ing 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 quaternary 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 some 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 rather impressive confidential information 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 safety and security risks posed by nuclear installations. It stresses on the additional safety features added to the latest models of nuclear reactors Designers of nuclear power stations have taken this earlier operational experience and learned lessons fro m previous nuclear events. They have added features to reduce 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 best 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 capable to lethal doses of radiation), whereas the Bhopal incident which took place in 1984 in India killed over 15,000 of the citys inhabitants.Despite the portentous public fears, the safety record of the nuclear industry world wide is relatively very solid. in that location 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, nucle ar 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 compare 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 embed in Ukraine. A small test procedure that was being conducted went completely out of control, settlementing in two non-nuclear explosions that demolished the heavy ceiling of the reactor and expelled the radioactive contents and waste products of the reactors core into the surroundings. Chernobyl is the worst nuclear disaster in the history. It has cast a heavy swarthiness on the entire nuclear industry which continues to darken the horizons.But we must note that the Chernobyl disaster is a result of bad design compounded by bad management practices and a work culture which flouted all safety considerations. One safe ty feature after another was deliberately suppressed in order to facilitate 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 ordained report of the disaster. A group of technicians are directly responsible for this disaster, and they committed six serious violations or errors besides many others.Many of the operators as well as managers in charge at Chernobyl actually knew very little about nuclear technology. Moreover, there were certain high-risk features associated with the RBMK design of the Chernobyl reactors. A Chernobyl can never happen in the Western 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 whe n 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 volatile developing countries is in fact even difficult to outline even in broad terms. The major obstacle for the terzetto World Countries in embracing nuclear power is the cost. However, in a bid 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 adverse 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 Want 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). Chernobyl catastrophe and consequences. New York Springer