Modern concerns about global warming have rekindled ideas about nuclear power in the United States but one concern still remains: what is to be done with the waste? Right now most spent nuclear fuel is stored in large casks at the plants where it was used with plans in the works for a common location to store the waste for long periods of time. Long term storage is not the only option, technology exists to take this spent nuclear fuel and remove the unused plutonium and uranium from the waste products to create more fuel. The remaining waste would be stored in a long term facility as discussed above. This process is highly controversial due to economic and safety concerns, but could increase the capacity of a long term storage facility.
Clinton Bastin, a retired chemical engineer who worked for the United States Department of Energy, is a proponent of spent fuel reprocessing in his article “We Need to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Can Do It Safely, at a Reasonable Cost;” making the point that nuclear reprocessing is both economically feasible and safe with modern technology, blaming the failures of the past on poor management and misinformation. Frank von Hippel is a nuclear physicist and a professor at Princeton University; in his article “Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling,” von Hippel speaks out against reprocessing of nuclear fuel citing costs and dangers of potential terrorism.
One of the main controversies surrounding spent fuel reprocessing is safety. In his article von Hippel discusses the dangers of reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. When the nuclear fuel is processed to extract the plutonium and uranium, the plutonium could fall into the wrong hands and be used to create a nuclear bomb, as India did in 1974 with...
... middle of paper ...
...f spent fuel recycling. The idea of nuclear fuel reprocessing is worth investigating, as said by both von Hippel and Bastin, but it is not economically feasible at this time. If energy companies take it upon themselves to look into this technology, I feel that some of the burden could be lifted off of the shoulders of the government and the public and reprocessing could become a reality.
Works Cited
Bastin, Clinton. "We Need to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Can Do It Safely, at a Reasonable Cost." 21st Century Science and Technology. Summer 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. .
von Hippel, Frank N. "Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling." Scientific American 298.5 (2008). EBSCOhost. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. .
The Nuclear Metals Incorporation or the Starmet Corporation is located on a 2229 Main Street in Concord, Massachusetts. The site produced depleted uranium products for armor piercing ammunition. They also created metal powders for medical applications, photocopiers, and specialty metal products, such as beryllium tubing for aerospace needs. From1958 to 1985, the holding basin that contained all the industries waste such as depleted uranium and copper was unlined, which caused issues.
The article “Nuclear Waste” is an interesting perspective from Richard Muller. Muller is a very credited author and he speaks his mind about the situation where people are trying to figure out how to deal with nuclear waste around the U.S. There are many proposed ideas but Muller has a very simple and straight forward idea that he believes is the ideal decision. The essay he wrote can be interpreted in different ways but his motive for writing is very clear. Muller’s background is quite impressive because he is highly credited. When reading Muller’s essay, you notice points that supports his argument and truth about the situation around nuclear power.
One of the most talked about opposition toward nuclear fission is the radioactive waste it produces. A radioactive waste is what is left behind after using a reactor to make electricity. There are two levels of waste, low and high, but both are regulated by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. High level waste is made up of fuel that’s been used directly in the reactor that is highly radioactive but can still be disposed. Low level waste is the contaminated items that have been exposed to radiation. The nuclear wastes are then stored in a safe and secure location with different types of methods such as wet storage, dry storage, and away from reactor storage. Wet storage is the main method of disposing the waste because it is the
About 31 or more people had died from the tragic event in 1986 in Chernobyl, Russia from the accident itself or from thyroid cancer that developed after the incident later on down the road chernobyl was a horrific event and lead to more deaths even after the fact.Another nuclear related accident was when the TMI power planted almost melted down,it showed us that a lot can happen from one small problem such as a faulty pressure valve can over heat the reactor and this could cause a plant to meltdown.A problem we face everyday still is nuclear waste, we wonder where we can put it that allows the population to still be safe.The U.S. is doing a latter approach for nuclear waste and the location chosen for this is Yucca Mountain in Nevada. They feel waste is to dangerous to just leave it.A good thing about power plants is that they are safer than other methods in the working field.Nuclear power is useful but with the radiation given off or if the power plant exploded or something along those lines the radiation is stronger and more powerful and can spread across a location and kill many. Nuclear power is also safer having less deaths on the job compared to other generating sources known as oil refiners or other fossil fuel jobs.
Nuclear power is the generation of electricity from an atomic reaction. (World Statistics: Nuclear Energy Around the World n.d.) Though it produces zero carbon emissions there has been a decline in support for nuclear power and increased its support for alternative energies in the pursuit for a fossil free energy sector. Factors that have resulted in the reduction of support for nuclear energy include nuclear accidents and waste and the positives of renewable energy which include clean energy, sustainable and reduced health and environmental risks.
The need for nuclear energy is more widespread today than it has been for decades. Drastic climate change and the rising prices of fossil fuels such as oil have made many scientists seek an alternative energy source. Although nuclear energy has been around for decades, the use of it has always been approached by pessimism. Because, the misuse of nuclear energy could spell disaster for any country involved in the process. Events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Japan’s Fukushima accident are reminders of how nuclear energy can go wrong. However, the continued use of fossils fuels can spell disaster for the international and domestic security of any country that is dependent on the energy source. Fossil fuel is a limited resource, meaning that the continued use of this energy source can run out one day and this could mean disaster to any country dependent on fossil fuels. Therefore, the continued use of such an energy source could spell disaster for a country's domestic and international security in the future. An alternative energy source is needed in order to control the world's consumption of fossil fuels, nuclear energy is that energy source. Although nuclear energy has been establish as a feasible energy source, it has not yet caught on due to certain nuclear events. Events like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reinforce the belief of nuclear energy as a dangerous risk. But, we can see France as a perfect example of using nuclear energy without any nuclear disasters. Nuclear energy can be the energy source we need to be free from fossil fuels, and benefits outweigh the cons of nuclear energy.
In addition to the potential dangers of accidents in generating stations, nuclear waste is a continuing problem that is growing exponentially. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for about 600 years and disposing these wastes or storing them is an immense problem. Everyone wants the energy generated by power plants, but no one wants to take responsibility for the waste. Thus far, it is stored deep in the earth, but these storage areas are potentially dangerous and will eventually run out. Some have suggested sending the waste into space, but no one is sure of the repercussions.
Note that nuclear energy is another alternate fuel source, which would be like a really expensive Prius that sometimes leaks radiation when it suffers a major breakdown. Which is a scary thought because many Prius owners don’t even know how to change a flat tire.
...rought up for the substitute of nuclear energy, will also work but it is not much developed yet except for special circumstances because of its high cost. If we can get over the fear of the worst case scenario but only then could we appreciate the good of nuclear energy and how it will help us. Now that the misinterpretations have been explained maybe understanding the most certain future in nuclear energy is not that unrealistic.
Nuclear power, the use of exothermic nuclear processes to produce an enormous amount of electricity and heat for domestic, medical, military and industrial purposes i.e. “By the end of 2012 2346.3 kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity was generated by nuclear reactors around the world” (International atomic energy agency Vienna, 2013, p.13). However, with that been said it is evident that the process of generating electricity from a nuclear reactor has numerous health and environmental safety issues.
...iest thing, human urine. It kind of makes sense. It’s easy to get and really cheap to make. It’s actually very inventive.one I never will understand is the BMW that runs on human poop.(www.alternative-energy-news.info) That’s a little too far if you ask me, but again it’s easy to find and really cheap to make and easy to produce. In fact they are focusing on a lot of fuel to come from waste. Whether it be from humans, animals, plants, or anything else in the environment. Thinking about it alternate energy will help us immensely in the long run, despite the costs. That’s only the beginning. After all the spending and installing we will save a lot more after than before.
One of the greatest events of twentieth century was the use of radioisotope as a source of energy and as medical and industrial tools. Using radioactivity has been a global issue owing to its very nature. When it is used for peaceful purposes, it is a triumph of science because it can solve energy problems in the form of nuclear energy but the side effects in the form of harmful radiation and harmful radioactive waste is the real limitations of science. This essay will attempt to analyze the application of science in the use of radioactivity and radioactive isotopes and how science is not so effective in dealing with the side effects.
The greatest disadvantages of nuclear energy are the risks posed to mankind and the environment by radioactive materials. ‘On average a nuclear plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel cla...
...outcompete fossil fuels, but by using different forms of alternative energy fossil fuels use could be reduced drastically. Now is the time for a conversion from fossil fuels to alternative energy.
Wastes are the products of our consumptions in our daily life routines such as lunch, work, school and other things we do. Little things such as throwing out a piece of paper, we are producing waste by the seconds. After we consume a product we usually throw out what’s left that can’t be consumed any further. Results in producing waste, substance that are born after it’s been use or consume by us. At the end of each day we throw out a bag full of garbage, all of the materials in that bag (paper towels, cans, leftover foods and many other material’s) all of these are waste. Hospitals produce medical waste such as use needles for treating patients. Corporations produce papers, plastics, tires, steels, cans and many other type of solid waste which contribute to the pollutions that cause health risk and other environmental issues.