Nuclear Energy

Ontario”s nuclear power planets are damaging our environment and economic structure; nuclear power should be shut down and replaced with safer methods of power making. Ontario”s nuclear power is not the safe and clean way to produce power, Ontario”s nuclear plants are becoming outdated, nuclear waste is building up, and contamination is becoming more of a threat. Ontario thought that nuclear was clean, safe, and cheap way to produce power. During the 1950s, Ontario Hydro was looking for new sources of electricity to meet the growing demand.

In 1954, a partnership was formed between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), Ontario Hydro and Canadian General Electric to build Canada”s first nuclear power plant called NPD for Nuclear Power Demonstration. In 1962, NPD began supplying the province of Ontario with its first nuclear generated electricity. Ontario had found it”s new source of electricity, and they were not fully aware consequences that would happen after many years of use. Power projects (later AECL CANDU), based in Toronto. Ontario and Montreal, Quebec became responsible for implementing AECL”s nuclear power program and marketing CANDU reactors.

Nuclear power was cheap, if you did not have to worry about the waste. This was the answer to Ontario”s power problems, so they invested in the newest source of power at the time. Most people believed that nuclear power was a good change in Ontario”s power structure, and there would be no real problems in the future. Ontario needed a new source of power in the 1950s; they found it in nuclear power and it solved the problem. In the 1950s the average person did not have a lot of knowledge about nuclear energy, and nuclear studies were being held.

All people really knew was the positive side of things, the government and research body”s made videos that would try to describe nuclear energy to the public. The videos would talk about how great nuclear power and how abundant nuclear energy was. Making it sound like the answer to all our electric needs. The government and research body kind of jumped around the subject of nuclear waste, and the effects it could have on a human or the environment. The real truths about nuclear energy was not as widely known, and the majority of the people thought that nuclear energy was a positive step in the right direction.

Ontario has a huge problem with the build up of nuclear waste, and this waste could have a huge impact on our environment if something were to go wrong. Radioactive mops, rags, clothing, tools, and contaminated equipment such as filters and pressure tubes, are temporality stored in shallow underground containers at the Bruce Nuclear Complex and elsewhere. At Bruce, a radwaste incinerator reduces the volume of combustible radioactive waste materials. In 1975, St. Mary’s School in Port Hope was evacuated because of high radiation levels in the cafeteria.

It was soon learned that large volumes of radioactive wastes from uranium refining operations had been used as construction material in the school and all over town. Hundreds of homes were contaminated. There are 200 million tons of sand-like uranium tailings in Canada, mostly in Ontario and Saskatchewan. These radioactive wastes will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. They contain some of the most powerful carcinogens known: radium, radon gas, polonium, thorium and others. Radio-active tailings also result from phosphate ores and other ores rich in uranium.

In 1978, an Ontario Royal Commission recommended that a panel of world class ecologists study the long-term problem of radioactive tailings and that the future of nuclear power be assessed in view of their findings. The government has ignored these recommendations. Nuclear waste is biodegradable, but it takes it takes hundreds of thousands of years to do so, which could leave unimaginable results in the future. Lately Ontario”s nuclear power plants have been going threw horrible management, out dated equipment, and nuclear waste build up; resulting in economic breakdown.

Ontario”s nuclear plants have not had their equipment greatly updated, which is a big problem that could be costly to fix. When calculated in real 1998 dollars, total federal subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) for the last 46 years amount to $15. 8 billion. It should be noted that $15. 8 billion is a real cash subsidy to AECL, and does not include any opportunity cost? What the subsidies would have been worth if the government had invested in more cost competitive ventures. At a rate of 15%, the opportunity cost of government subsidies to AECL is $202 billion.

There is also federal financial support for other nuclear activities in progress or impending, including: the Whiteshell Laboratories privatization ($23. 1 million); the MAPLE reactors at Chalk River Laboratories ($120 million); the Canadian Neutron Facility ($400 million); radioactive waste management and decommissioning ($665 million); and reactor exports ($2. 5 billion considered). In Ontario the bad management and the old equipment has lead to major change in the way the plats work. Also this will cost billions of dollars to do.

In the long run Ontario”s nuclear do not make the money needed to stay open, with the costs of fixing them and reforming them it would just cost to much, so there is no point in doing so. Ontario has purposed to close down all of there nuclear plants, but they decided that is would be better to keep most of them open. There are much more safer, cleaner, and cheaper ways of producing power. We could invest solar, wind or tide power sources, all of which are safe. Leaving these nuclear plants open is like trying to heal your cut with a knife.

Ontario and its people don”t realize that with the build up of nuclear waste, we could be looking into major crises. Many of Ontario Hydro”s problems are monetary in origin. The corporation has had difficulty maintaining its nuclear facilities in accordance with the Atomic Energy Control Board”s safety requirements. Hydro”s restructuring efforts reflect past negligence in preventive, minor, and responsive maintenance. It is now faced with a situation wherein the demand for energy must be met through the means of an increasingly limited resource . . . money.

In response to this problem, the energy formerly supplied through nuclear power is being replaced primarily with coal-driven electrical generation. Hydro has implemented a short-term, quick fix solution based on the same practices and assumptions, which originally lead to the failure of Ontario”s nuclear energy program. As of now Ontario stands by its nuclear power and they do not have any current plans to shut down or totally reform these plants. Ontario”s nuclear power plants are a Danger to our environment, the economy, and a danger to the people, us; we should shut down all of these plants and replace them with safer methods.

Case 2 Nuclear Energy: Making a Comeback? In the 2010 State of the Union address, the president called for more clean-energy jobs, with expansion of nuclear power as an alternative energy source. He declared, “To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. ” Other countries, such as Great Britain, are already planning to build new nuclear plants.

Although none have been built in the United States for many years, the 104 currently operating plants generate almost 20 percent of America’s electricity. Wind and solar energy together generate less than 5 percent. An alloy of enriched uranium powers nuclear reactors. How large is the world’s supply of uranium? How long will it last? Uranium, a metal, is relatively common and can be found in rocks and even seawater as well as in ore deposits in the earth. With 24 percent, Australia has the largest supply overall, but Kazakhstan recently declared that it had surpassed Australia’s output.

Canada has less than 10 percent of the world’s supply, but has the highest concentration of top-quality ore. Worldwide, about 67,00 tons of uranium are used each year. At current demand, that supply is expected to last about 70 years. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) predicts that nuclear reactor capacity will increase by about 27 percent in the next decade and that the demand for uranium will grow by 33 percent in response. There is some debate about when the demand for uranium will be greater than the supply that can be mined economically.

Antinuclear activists point out that mineral resources are nonrenewable. Just as the world will eventually run out of oil and coal, it will also run out of uranium. Some analysts believe that this will happen sooner rather than later. Environmentalists object to destructive mining techniques. In Australia, activists are concerned with the land rights of indigenous Australians. Another potential roadblock is that uranium mining in general is impeded by a lack of infrastructure and a shortage of experienced workers, factors that drive up processing costs.

And, a still-unsolved and crucial problem is how to manage safe, long-term storage of spent nuclear rods, which continue to emit radioactivity. The World Nuclear Association disagrees with these assessments. First, not all uranium deposits have been discovered. Since 1975, the number of known deposits has tripled. Advances in geological research and more exploration will detect many more. As mining techniques improve, known deposits that are currently unreachable will become economically accessible.

The WNA predicts that at current rates of usage, known supplies will last 200 years rather than 70 or 80. Second, ore deposits are not the only sources of uranium. It is also found in nuclear weapons, available because of various disarmament treaties. The end of the Cold War in the late 1980s also meant the end of the nuclear arms race. Nuclear warheads contain high-quality enriched uranium. Utility companies and governments also have stockpiles of the metal. Third, research is ongoing to make enrichment facilities and reactors more energy efficient.

Fourth, unlike oil or coal, uranium can be recycled from spent nuclear fuel rods and from tailings (uranium left over from the enrichment process). These techniques should also improve over time. Other sources, such as phosphates and seawater, could become economically viable in the future. Questions for Critical Thinking 1. What factors do you think will affect the supply and demand curve for nuclear energy? 2. Describe what type of competition you predict will arise in the nuclear energy industry.

Jeaniqua Stanford January 17, 2013 ACP 110-02 Definition Paper Wonder is a feeling of curiosity, amazement, and surprise. Wonder can happen at any given moment, but most times it is not truly wonder. Most times when someone believes something as wonderful, they simply mistake it for wonderful. Instead what they are feeling is simply curiosity or amazement. Wonder is so much deeper than those simple emotions, it is to a point that when you feel wonder you become speechless. When you see, feel, hear, touch, or taste something that makes you feel speechless, like you literally have no words that can explain how you are feeling.

If you ask people what wonder is, you will stump them. They will not know how to explain what exactly they feel when they feel wonder. Wonder is one of those emotions that is hard to explain. You know it when you feel it but you cannot explain it. In the ACP 11O-02 course at Roosevelt University, the students were asked what they believed wonder was. The students looked around, some even looked out the window, hoping that they would not be called on. This question is not one that is asked every day, so people do not normally have an answer ready for it.

They probably would have to think about it for a long time until they can sum up at least one sentence for what wonder is. When sitting in the ACP course, the general definition of wonder that came from the discussion, was something that makes you feel amazement. Something that is wonderful to most people would be birth, or pregnancy. The whole process of having a child, psychically having it, is speechless. Mothers say that it hurts like nothing they have ever felt, but the emotion they feel once it is over and they get to hold the life they have been nurturing for nine months, is indescribable.

The joy that takes over their faces is a moment that should be remembered, and most likely is. Wondrous things are everywhere in the world and if a person just happens to be at the right and at the right time, than they might get to experience it. It is hard to say that something inanimate is wonderful, because it is hard to explain. Trying to find the words to say what a person feels about life itself is difficult. It is wonderful because even though it is explained and can be scientifically described, words truly cannot describe life.

Yes, life is the way people go about living on the earth and what they do, but what else is it? How exactly did it happen? Religious people would say that God created man, the planet, and everything else on it. But then scientists would say that we evolved from other beings that roamed the earth before us. If you go for the scientists’ thoughts on life, than the religious people could easily counter that argument with a question on who created everything that we evolved from. Wonder is that emotion that everybody confuses with other things, is it really wonder or is it amazement.

Can you explain how you feel or are there no words for how you feel? Those are the questions people need to ask when thinking about what is wonderful to them. The definition of wonder is something that leaves you speechless and curious for more information on it. Life is the one thing that is wondrous to most people because it is unexplainable. A person can guess all they want about how life came about, but they will never find the true answer of it, unless they find someone or something that has been alive for the entirety of earth’s existence.

This study contains information on five different types of energy beginnings. It is a literature survey that compares two renewable ( solar and air current ) beginnings and two non-renewable ( coal and natural gas ) beginnings to atomic energy. The comparing is based on factors such as use, cost ( both capital costs and running costs ) , safety and stableness, storage of waste and the impact on the environment. The beginnings are separately compared to atomic energy. In the comparings merely the factors relevant to the two energy beginnings being compared at any given clip are considered factors are non repeated in the comparing. It besides looks at whether the media ‘s portraiture of the dangers of atomic energy is accurate or whether it overestimates the dangers involved in bring forthing atomic power. The purpose of the study was to find the viability of atomic energy as a beginning of power to back up electricity demands of the population in the hereafter.

This is a literature survey turn toing the portraiture of atomic energy by the media and its viability as an energy beginning in comparing to other methods of bring forthing electricity. The study compares Nuclear energy to energy generated by coal, natural gases, air current and the Sun ( i.e. solar energy ) . The energy types are separately compared to Nuclear energy. Each subdivision high spots specific jobs and advantages associated with Nuclear energy as it relates to the energy to which it is being compared. Factors taken into consideration include the costs involved with the assorted types of energy, how much it is being used globally, impact on the environment, storage of waste, safety and stableness. The study was written to run into the demands laid down by JSQ216, a 2nd twelvemonth technology topic at the University of Pretoria.

The study was completed by apportioning each of the four group members a specific energy to research and comparison to atomic energy. The research was so completed by utilizing journal articles, books, cyberspace sites and nearing two applied scientists about the job. The information was processed, the dependability of the beginnings assessed and a short part of the study was generated by each group member. All four parts were so put together for the concluding study.

Figure 1: Break down of solar energy [ 2 ] The Sun has been around since the beginning of clip but merely late has it been used as a beginning of renewable energy. Approximately 120000 TW of solar energy is absorbed by the Earth ‘s surface which is equal to 10000 times the entire planetary demand for energy. Merely 0.1 % of this energy would be required to fulfill the universe ‘s present ingestion of fuels. [ 1 ]

There are three chief ways to tackle the Sun energy. These include solar cells which convert sunshine straight into electricity. Solar H2O heating where heat from the Sun is used to heat H2O inside panels on roof tops. And in conclusion solar furnaces that make usage of mirrors to concentrate the suns energy into a little infinite to bring forth high temperatures. As illustrated by figure 1.

There are close to 440 atomic power workss in the universe today which supply 16 % of the universe ‘s energy demand, nevertheless merely 1 % is functional energy with the remainder being atomic waste. If 1 % of the country where there is recoverable energy utilised solar energy devices all the universe ‘s energy demands could be met with solar energy entirely. If 10 % of the country were to be utilized so in two old ages the electricity produced would be equal to all known militias of fossil fuels. [ 1 ]

Cost jobs with solar energy are the high capital costs involved in the installing of solar panels which can be really expensive. The demand to hive away energy because of solar handiness due to factors such as clip of twenty-four hours and conditions conditions is besides dearly-won. States at higher heights with day-to-day cloud screen will hold an economic disadvantage due to long distance transportation of energy. Care of panels besides has to be considered. Nuclear energy is soon cheaper than solar power nevertheless the building of the installations and the disposal of radioactive waste is dearly-won and can impact the environment. [ 3 ]

Solar power is comparatively safe to utilize every bit long as you do non look straight into the Sun ‘s beams or come into contact with hot solar panels. In the instance of atomic power it is besides safe to utilize as the atomic reactors are equipped with excess systems to do certain there is no atomic meltdown. This makes it a really stable energy beginning. Nuclear energy starts to acquire more unsafe in the signifier of exhausted fuel rods and radioactive waste. Even though atomic energy is dependable and stable as a whole, when something does travel wrong it can go really serious and really unsafe.

Solar energy does non hold any signifier of waste as replaced panels and constituents can be reused or recycled. Nuclear energy has two types of waste merchandises, the spent fuel rods which if non stored decently in pools of H2O to chill down could go really unstable. The other signifier is radioactive gasses and other waste merchandises that if released into the ambiance can present assorted hazards.

Solar energy produces no waste or pollution. Waste from atomic power must be sealed and stored resistance for long periods of clip. This waste must be kept safe from external factors and from human contact in order to forestall a menace.

Such a menace is presently under manner at the Fukushima Daiichi power works in Japan where a pool of exhausted fuel rods caught fire this twelvemonth.

Solar power is a renewable power beginning therefore it is environmentally friendly. It is soundless and requires no fuel hence there is no pollution. It even decreases the sum of harmful green house gasses. Although there are many advantages to solar energy there is still the fact that a big sum of panels is required to bring forth the needful electricity. This becomes really dearly-won. It is dependable and has no hazards that are associated with atomic energy. Nuclear energy on the other manus is non a renewable beginning and if non handled in the right manner could impact the environment in a negative manner. Even though it does non lend to planetary heating like other fossil fuels, the waste gasses it does bring forth could potentially do radioactive illnesss and malignant neoplastic disease in worlds and other life signifiers.

A sum-up of the advantages and disadvantages of solar and atomic energy can be found in the tabular arraies below

Table 1: Advantages of Solar and Nuclear Energy

Solar Energy

Nuclear Energy

Renewable energy beginning

Does non breathe green house gasses

Has no volatile waste

Plenty of resources available

Once panels are in topographic point the energy is free

Cheaper than solar power

Table 2: Disadvantages of Solar and Nuclear Energy

Solar Energy

Nuclear Energy

Does non work at dark

Radioactive waste

Presently really expensive

Long-run storage required for waste merchandises

Requires large Fieldss in order to reap a suited sum of energy

Some reactors produce Pu which can be used to do atomic arms

All around the universe we require every energy beginning that we can acquire including atomic. All energy beginnings have both pros and cons. Even though atomic energy is portrayed as an unstable beginning of energy it is in fact one of the most dependable and stable types in the universe today. The downside is in its waste that if treated falsely could set down in the custodies of terrorists. In the following 20 old ages at that place will be emerging economic systems throughout the Earth that will necessitate low cost, environmentally friendly alternate energy beginnings and Nuclear power is expected to fulfill this demand.

Wind Energy

Wind power is the coevals of electricity through the usage of air current to whirl turbines, which in bend, convert the air current ‘s kinetic energy into electricity. [ 1 ] The procedure of utilizing air current as a power beginning has been in usage throughout history from around the twelfth century where windmills were used to mill grain. [ 2 ]

Wind power coevals uses wind turbines to do electricity, air current Millss for mechanical power and air current pumps for pumping H2O. [ 2 ] It is a renewable energy beginning that non many states have attempted to develop.

Wind Power Worldwide June 2010 [ 3 ]

State

Capacity

( MW )

USA

36.3

China

33.8

Germany

26.4

Spain

19.5

India

12.1

Rest of the World

46.9

Entire

175.00Table 3: Wind Power Worldwide June 2010

In June 2010, The World Wind Energy Association ( WWEA ) published that 5 states entirely accounted for about 73 % of the universe ‘s entire air current energy production viz. USA, China, Germany, Spain and India. [ 3 ]

Figure 2: World Electricity Production 2008

On the other manus, atomic energy production seems to be far more popular in a batch of states with some states such as the USA and France holding no less than 104 and 59 atomic reactors in operation severally [ 4 ] in early 2010.

A survey done in 2008 to happen the per centum of each type of energy that is globally produced showed that air current signifiers portion of merely 2.8 % whereas atomic energy histories for 13.4 % of the universe ‘s entire power.

The chief disadvantage of air current power is the undependability of the air current itself. In most countries the air current ‘s strength is excessively low to whirl a turbine. However, if wind energy were to be used in unison with solar and/or geothermic energy it could be developed into a stable and dependable beginning of power. The air current turbines themselves are rather safe with merely a few reported instances worldwide of damaged blades caused by bad conditions, none of which has resulted in any known hurts. [ 5 ]

Nuclear reactor workss make usage of radioactive stuffs to bring forth electricity. The thought that these stuffs could go unstable and acquire out of control is one of the chief concerns ( along with radiation toxic condition ) for states bring forthing atomic energy. The Chernobyl atomic catastrophe of 1986 lead to better, more efficient protocols being put into pattern go forthing most states to believe that they are now better prepared to manage any destabilizing of the atomic stuffs. [ 6 ]

However, weave energy remains theoretically a batch safer than atomic workss even with all the safety safeguards they take. The effects are much higher for a atomic catastrophe than for a air current turbine failure.

Wind turbines do non breathe any waste merchandises as they do non fire any kind of fossil fuels or radioactive stuffs, so there is no concern over where to hive away or dispose of emanations safely- unlike atomic energy. The radioactive stuffs ( like Uranium and Plutonium ) that are used up in atomic power workss continue to bring forth unsafe radiation for 1000s of old ages after they have been used up as a fuel for atomic energy. The most effectual manner to hive away these depleted stuffs has non yet been found but for now they are being kept in belowground storage pools where they will non be harmful to anybody. [ 7 ]

The initial apparatus of both air current turbines and atomic power workss are rather dearly-won. But one time built, wind turbines are cheaper to keep than the power workss, but they are both comparatively cheaper to keep than their fossil fuel opposite numbers with the atomic stuffs enduring a really long clip and with air current being a free resource to be used.

Environmental Impact:

Both air current and atomic energy as it is being produced, is friendly to the environing environment ( except in the tragic instance where radiation is leaked from the power works ) . However, wind turbines do do more noise than the power workss which is riotous to any locals remaining near the turbines. [ 8 ]

The sum of infinite that a air current turbine takes is less than that of an mean atomic power works and the break to the environment during building is worse for the power workss because they take so much longer to be built. [ 8 ]

Coal Energy

Coal, the most abundant and low-cost of the fossil fuels ( 1 ) , is a non-renewable energy beginning. It has been used as a beginning of energy for 1000s of old ages and has legion of import utilizations such as in electricity coevals, steel and cement industry, and industrial procedure warming. Coal frequently proves to be the lone alternate when low-cost, cleaner energy beginnings are unable to run into the turning energy demand faced with today ( 1 ) .

Fossil fuels are formed from the organic remains of prehistoric workss and animate beings that have undergone alterations due to heat and force per unit area over 1000000s of old ages. The procedure is still taking topographic point today but the rate of energy storage is little. The one-year biomass production stored this manner represents merely about 0.001 % of the current universe energy usage ( 2 ) . Even though wood coal can be made unnaturally, it is non possible to bring forth it at the rate of ingestion ( 3 ) . Therefore, coal is regarded as a non-renewable energy beginning and is bound to acquire depleted. Harmonizing to BP ‘s ( British Petroleum ) Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, there is a estimated 826001 million dozenss of proved coal militias worldwide, or 119 old ages reserves-to-production ratio ( length of clip that the staying coal militias would last if production were to go on at the old twelvemonth ‘s rate ) ( 4 ) . However, compared to other fossil fuels, coal militias are the largest 1s and are more equally distributed worldwide.

Nuclear energy is besides a non-renewable beginning as it is reliant upon a finite beginning of fuel that can be exhausted. Although, the universe ‘s known uranium resources increased by 15 % in two old ages to 2007 owing to increased mineral geographic expedition The U ( and sometimes Pu ) used in atomic power is a natural resource and is a common metal found in stones all over the universe. The World Nuclear Association suggested that there is about ( 13 ) 160 old ages of supply at today ‘s rate of ingestion.

Coal is chiefly used as a solid fuel to bring forth electricity and heat. The coal is normally pulverized and so combusted in a furnace with a boiler for the coevals of electricity. The steam which consequences from the burning is so used to whirl turbines, which drives the generators therefore making electricity. When coal is heated at about 1000 grades Celsius in an airless environment, Coke is produced. The Coke is so used is used to smelt Fe ore for the production of steel.

A byproduct of this warming is Coal gas, which is a composing of methane and H, is produced. Coal gas was used for residential lighting and cookery in the 1940s ; but it was really dearly-won and so it was stopped. However, in recent times, these gasification procedures are being developed to be more cost effectual and so coal gas is frequently used as fuel for engines.

Nuclear power workss create electricity through a procedure called fission in which subatomic atoms called neutrons split uranium atoms, bring forthing enormous sums of energy. The consequence of the fission of these big atoms is the creative activity of smaller atoms and radiation. The energy produced is so absorbed by H2O which heats it and so stream is produced. The steam is so used to whirl turbines as in the instance with coal power workss.

Harmonizing to the Key World Energy Statistics 2010 ( 5 ) , 27 % of the worldwide energy demand was fulfilled by coal in 2009.Coal was the 2nd largest beginning of energy followed by Oil providing 33.2 % . China is a major manufacturer with coal with coal ever playing a dominant function in its primary energy ingestion. China consumed a high 46,9 % of the coal supplied and produced the most coal ( 45,6 % ) harmonizing to the BP Statistical World Energy Review 2010.

World primary energy demand is expected to go on to turn steadily, as it has over the

last two decennaries Harmonizing to the International Energy Outlook 2010 ( an appraisal by the Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) of the mentality for international energy markets through 2035 ) , universe ingestion of coal additions by 56 % over the following two decennaries ( 6 ) .

Nuclear energy supplies the universe 5.8 % of the universe ‘s ingestion which is less than a one-fourth of what coal supplies. This is expected as there are merely 442 operable atomic power Stationss world-wide, the first one being created about 50 old ages ago which is comparatively recent.

The extraction of coal involves two types of excavation: surface ( strip ) excavation and resistance

excavation. Surface excavation involves the remotion of coal sedimentations near to Earth ‘s surface whereas underground excavation is taking sedimentations found 100s of metres below the Earth ‘s surface. Underground mining histories to about 60 % of the universe ‘s coal production ( 7 ) and requires the creative activity of shafts and tunnels that are dug in to the coal beds. There have been legion tragic happenings in the history of coal excavation as it is a really hazardous concern and lay waste toing accidents occur in all states that produce commercial measures of this mineral. Most mining accidents occur as a consequence of cave-ins, methane detonations, mine wall failures, vehicle hits or the implosion therapy of the mine shafts. Besides asphyxiation, gas toxic condition, respiratory complaints ( chiefly Black Lung Disease ) were common. Over 100,000 mineworkers have dies over the past century in coal-mining accidents in the U.S ( 2nd largest manufacturers of coal ) merely ( 8 ) . However, most of these hazards have been reduced in contemporary mines owing to modern engineering and wellness and safety Acts of the Apostless puting stricter criterions. Nevertheless, in lesser developed states and some underdeveloped states, continue to see important Numberss of excavation human deaths each twelvemonth.

The copiousness of coal makes it easy accessible and the usage of cheaper manners of transit makes this resource an cheap signifier of energy when compared to energies such as solar, air current or hydro. It is besides somewhat cheaper than the costs involved in bring forthing atomic energy. When comparing the economic sciences in bring forthing energy from these two beginnings, it is of import to see several different types costs associated with both coal and atomic energy.

This includes costs associated with the fuel used in the production of energy which tend to be lower in a atomic works even though more intricate stairss are involved in the production of the fuel assemblies used in the reactors. Transportation system costs are, nevertheless, high for coal because a significantly big sum of coal is needed to bring forth the same energy as with the atomic fuel.

The capital costs are the costs associated with the initial building of the works and the alterations forms an of import portion when comparing the costs. For a atomic works, these costs are normally higher than for any other energy signifiers as the edifices used for containment or the safety-related equipment demand to run into higher criterions than those met by traditional coal workss. On the other manus, coal workss are required to include scrubbers to take airborne pollutants as a consequence of the combustion of the coal.

Another consideration is the operation and care costs involved. These are the costs involved in the daily operation of the coal and atomic workss. This includes labor costs, stuff costs, authorities fees and belongings revenue enhancements. It is found that the costs are really similar in both the workss.

The costs associated with the byproduct waste should besides be taken into history. For a coal workss, this is the coal ash and for a atomic works, these costs include a charge levied by the authorities for ultimate storage of the high degree waste. This charge is a level fee based on energy usage. The waste costs for atomic energy is well higher than the costs for coal workss.

Therefore, the costs involved in bring forthing coal and atomic energy are approximately the same ( 9 ) .

The combustion of coal is known to lend to planetary heating, and is linked to environmental and wellness issues such as acerb rain, smog and asthma owing to the particulate emanations that are emitted from power Stationss. Harmonizing to the World Health Organisation, it is estimated that air pollution kills more than 2 million people yearly ( 10 ) . Coal is the largest subscriber to the human-made addition of CO2, a nursery gas which causes planetary heating and clime alteration in the air ( 11 ) . Strip excavation causes big countries of land to be temporarily disturbed and this causes dirt eroding and impacts on local biodiversity as after the land has been scraped and quarried for coal, it is normally abandoned. The waste after coal has been combusted is frequently disposed of in landfills or “ surface impoundings, ” which are lined with compacted clay dirt and a fictile sheet. As rain filters through the toxic ash cavities over old ages, the toxic metals are leached out into the local environment. Coal sludge is the liquid coal waste generated by rinsing coal and is known to incorporate toxins, and so leaks or spills can foul belowground and surface Waterss. ( 12 )

Natural Gas Energy

The Natural Gas used in power production is a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas made chiefly of methane and other hydrocarbons ( including C2H6, propane, butanes and pentanes ) . It besides contains C dioxide, He, H sulfide and N, in smaller measures. Natural gas is a molecular compound with Van Der Waal attractive force between its molecules [ 1 ] . It has a boiling point of -161oC and is stable at a broad assortment of temperatures and force per unit areas [ 1 ] . Natural gas is transported in its liquid signifier as it taken up 600 times less infinite as a liquid than it does as a gas and weighs 55 % less than the same volume of H2O. It is a consequence of the decomposition of workss and animate beings and is found in pockets beneath the Earth and ocean.

Natural gas is an of import beginning of power in the modern universe. Harmonizing to Makogen ( 2010:49 ) if we were to utilize 17 to 20 % of the universe ‘s natural gas resources, we would be able to supply the universe with energy for 200 old ages. Although it presently merely accounts for 20 % of the universe ‘s energy, the demand is expected to increase well over the following 20 old ages. It is a cleaner fuel beginning than any other dodo fuel [ 2 ] breathing about no sulfur dioxide and far less C dioxide and NHx than either oil or coal. Natural gases can besides be used in concurrence with other power coevals methods, such as biomass [ 3 ] , to bring forth energy which will alter the sum of pollutants emitted.

Nuclear Stationss do non bring forth the same pollutants as fossil fuels do but blow direction remains the primary concern in atomic engineering. The waste merchandises of a atomic station are isotopes with highly long half-lives. The storage of these waste merchandises means making a safe storage infinite that needs to last longer than all the human civilizations combined. There are three different degrees of atomic waste, high degree, medium degree and low degree. Low degree waste is non really unsafe and disposing of it is non a job. The danger comes in with high degree radioactive waste. The waste is encased in concrete membranophones and buried up to a kilometer and a half into the land [ 5 ] . However, high degree radioactive waste can non be stored near any other high degree radioactive waste as it will interact with the other waste. It is besides of import to happen stable land in which to hive away the waste, as concrete can check and interrupt in the event of an temblor or shudder. South Africa is one of the safer places to hive away atomic waste as it has a geologically stable countryside. Some countries, like the northern Karoo, have experienced about 30 000 old ages of stableness. In between the remotion of the waste from usage and the concluding storage of the waste it needs to be left to soak in H2O for a period of clip, to acquire rid of some of the residuary radiation. In this clip the fuel rods need to be safely guarded as the waste merchandises are used in the creative activity of dirty bombs and atomic bombs. A soiled bomb is a normal bomb incorporating high degree radioactive waste and is detonated above a metropolis, leting the radioactive atoms to pollute the H2O supply in add-on to other harm. [ 5 ] Plutonium, one of the waste merchandises of a atomic power station, is a primary constituent in atom bombs and the rods frequently have to be processed to take all Pu before they can be disposed. The usage to which the waste merchandises can be used besides means that steps need to be taken in guaranting that any state with a atomic power station does non utilize the waste in a atomic arms plan. It besides leaves a state more vulnerable to atomic onslaught as should a dirty or atom bomb land near a atomic station the merchandises of the two would respond with each other, compounding harm.

The waste from a atomic station can be greatly reduced by the right direction of the station but it still remains a serious menace. Cold merger could theoretically bring forth energy without radioactive waste but experiments with cold merger have produced really small energy, non even plenty to power a light bulb. Cold merger is besides regarded as a cozenage by many scientists and has the same ill fame as “ ageless gesture ” and “ free energy ” in many scientific circles [ 9 ] .

The degree of efficiency of natural gas as a power beginning is, nevertheless, really much dependant on the engineering used to bring forth the power. In a comparing of different engineerings [ 4 ] it was found that Natural Gas combined rhythm engineering was the most efficient of the Natural Gas engineerings. The engineerings were compared based on efficiency, capital costs, care costs, the service life and electricity costs ( calculated based on the cost of the fuel, the care costs, capital cost and service life ) . The capital costs of the combined rhythm engineering were merely over a‚¬500 with an expected care cost of less than a‚¬0.005 per kg Watt hr and a service life of 20 old ages ( i.e. the clip the works operates before equipment demands to be replaced. ) A atomic station has to replace its one tierce of its fuel rods yearly [ 5 ]

Relatively, a atomic station ‘s capital costs are higher than any other fuel beginning [ 6 ] but they produce electricity at a really low cost which offsets the initial high cost. This can be seen in figure 2, below, which shows a comparing of the cost to bring forth energy for assorted engineerings. The cost of power from a atomic works besides tends to stay stable [ 7 ] even if the cost of uranium varies as up top 75 % of the fuel cost in a atomic works is to cover the start-up cost. On the other manus, natural gas monetary values are really dependent on the supply and so monetary values tend to change. Natural gas is besides capable to carbon revenue enhancements in some states because of its emanations, which reduces its cost efficiency.

Figure 3: Cost of Energy Generation for Different Technologies

Location besides plays a really of import function in finding whether or non natural gas or atomic energy is the most efficient solution of a state. A state that is abundant in fossil fuels and does non pay C revenue enhancements would happen that natural gas was a far more suited engineering. However, when it becomes necessary to import natural gases, the supply security of the works becomes compromised and it Nuclear may be a more financially feasible option.

Both Nuclear and Natural Gas beginnings have the advantages of being able to provide on demand. Most renewable energy resources are offered on an as-available footing [ 8 ] . This means that you do non necessitate to run a coal station alongside a atomic station in instance it does non bring forth adequate energy to run into demand.

Decision

Media is wrong in portraiture, excessively utmost but still non safe

Waste disposal is unsafe, careful consideration as to storage installations

Safety, security

Vulnerability to atomic onslaught

The invention of nuclear bomb has been one of the most significant events in the history of humanity. It not only changed the conduct of military warfare, but also completely transformed the geo-political equation by placing humanity’s level of control on its own future through coming in possession of such omni potent means that could wipe out every form of life from earth overnight. The memories of the atomic attack on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived as a constant reminder of the supreme havoc that atomic bombs can inflict. These memories are reinforced further by the repeated instances of nuclear testing and research into the production of atomic weapons that are much more powerful and lethal in comparison of their predecessors.

The pursuance of the research into atomic and nuclear weapons, or the weapons of mass destruction, has created a deep ideological and political divide in the world. On the one hand are people supporting nuclear weapons, arguing them as essential tools  to maintain prospects of global peace and also as means to ensure the safety of nations possessing them. While on the other side are people, who see nuclear weapons inherently as a threat to the survival of mankind and campaigning for a world without fear and apprehensions; for a world of the post nuclear age where the veil of the threat of an impending catastrophe is forever lifted over.

This paper shall look into the debate on the nuclear policy and relevance of nuclear weapons as a medium to ensure global peace, while critically evaluating the arguments presented on both the sides. It shall also look into the prospects of a nuclear free world and the visions such world entails for humanity.

Constructing a nuclear doctrine

The debate on the feasibility and utility of nuclear weapons has raged since the day the first military use of nuclear weapons was reported on 6th August, 2006  (Katz, 1987). The standard argument of the advocates of nuclear doctrine have centered on the deterrent effect of the nuclear weapons against any potential attack or threat of aggression (Franklin, 1991). One of the most frequently cited example is that of role played by nuclear weapons in bringing a swift end to the Second World War, with minimum possible casualty in the process (Graham, 2005). They validly argue that without the strikes, Japan would have continued to fight till the last man down, taking up the number of casualties on both sides as well as war expenditures to enormous levels (Franklin, 1991).

Since then, the nuclear doctrine has been religiously incorporated in the defense strategy of every major nation, with immense literature created to cite the absolutely necessity and inevitability of nuclear weapons as the only possibly way to ensure global peace and a war free world (Franklin, 1991). Post the end of the Cold War proponents of the nuclear policy have further argued the necessity of effective nuclear policy, especially in the view of the dangers posted by spilling of nuclear weapons in the hands of some of the non responsible nations (Graham, 2005).

However, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has been severely arraigned by the critics for its short comings and narrow visions that it take of subtlety of world geo-politics and the overly simplistic way in which it treats the question of deterrence and global peace (Gottemoeller, 2002 ). Nuclear policy and the race on building up nuclear arsenal have been criticized from ethical, moral, political, practical and strategic point of view over more than half a century, especially in the context of the modern history of humanity that has been torn apart by unimaginable horrors of wars and genocide in the 20th century (Muller, 2004).

Thinkers, intellectuals and scientists and many military strategists have strongly argued for a nuclear free world, based on the strong premises that peace is impossible to achieve from those tools that have capacity to utterly destroy life (Cimbala and Scouras, 2002; Cortright, 1999). Their argument is persuasive to reason as it is ironical as a concept and theory to achieve peace by destruction. The only probable way by which nuclear weapons can bring peace is through complete annihilation of people, creating a world where no life would exists to conflict and compete.

Even the history of the post nuclear world does not inspire any confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent (Graham, 2005). In more than sixty years after the end of Second World War, innumerable conflicts and at least three wars of international proportion, involving nations equipped with nuclear power have belied the theory that nuclear weapons can act as any potential deterrent to wars (Cimbala and Scouras, 2002).

It only creates a danger in escalation of threats of nuclear arm race, where nations without nuclear weapons are trying to possess these coveted means of mass destruction, to create a world of nuclear mutual self destruction (Franklin, 2002). It’s a fact that technology can not be limited as a prerogative to a limited number of nations, as the this dangerous technology spreads out, there are every possible chances that it can be utilized by at some point of time, by some irresponsible and unaccountable regime to create a havoc of unparalleled magnitude (Muller, 2004).

The theory of nuclear deterrence also looses its credibility in the face of rise of terrorism as the new danger facing the new world (Graham, 2005). Nuclear deterrence did not act as any deterrent to the attack on the World Trade Centers in 2001, or in London bombing in 2006. On the contrary they create a new and infinitely more powerful threat where possible proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups can jeopardize the entire concept of national defense strategies of many nations.

Conclusion

Nuclear weapons can not act as means to achieve global peace. They are weapons of mass destruction, weapons that can kill hundred of thousands of people instantly, razing civilizations to dust, leaving behind death and a scarred earth that would be inhabitable for many generations. This trail of death can not be a harbinger of peace. Global peace can only be achieved by systematic end of nuclear arsenals, and strictly banning the research, testing and possession of nuclear weapons.

Reference

1. H. Bruce Franklin. 1991.The Nightmare Considered: Critical Essays on Nuclear War Literature.: Nancy Anisfield – editor. Bowling Green State University Popular Press. Bowling Green, OH.
2. Gottemoeller. Rose. 2002. Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Time for Control. Taina Susiluoto – editor. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Place of Publication: Geneva.
3. Milton S. Katz. 1987. Ban the Bomb: A History of SANE, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. Praeger. New York.
4. Richard R. Muller. 2004. Getting Mad: A Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, Its Origins and Practice. Henry D. Sokolski – editor. Strategic Studies Institute. Carlisle Barracks, PA.
5. Stephen J. Cimbala and Scouras, J.  2002. A New Nuclear Century: Strategic Stability and Arms Control. Praeger. Westport, CT.
6. Thomas Graham Jr. 2005. Sixty Years After Hiroshima, A Nuclear Era. Current History. Research Library Core.
7. David Cortright. 1999. Ban the Bomb. Sojourner. Humanities Module.