America needs to pay better attention to what is happening in Japan. This is our opportunity to learn and prepare our own Nuclear Plants in the event of such a crisis. We currently have 100 commercial nuclear power reactor units licensed to operate in the U.S. These operate in 31 of the 48 contiguous states. The nuclear power reactor units provide the U.S. with approximately 20 percent of its electricity. By reviewing Americas history of some recent natural disasters, I intend to build a case that an incident such as Fukushima could happen her in the U.S. I find it essential that these lessons be taken seriously to strengthen nuclear safety and it eventually leading to a complete phasing out of nuclear energy. So let us take a moment and briefly review a brief review of the tragedies of the Tohoku-Oki earthquake is the largest recorded earthquake at a 9.0 and caused a nearly 50-Foot Tsunami to strike the country already crippled by the mega quake. It has been three years now since the quake and Tsunami hit Japan. In the moments following Fukushima Daiichi’s reactors main power supplies went down, a safety measure assured that, back-up generators would take over and supply the much needed cooling of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. However, the World Nuclear Associates (WNA) recounts what occurred in the two hours that followed a combination of Mother Nature and human arrogance met in what was a series of unfortunate and disastrous events for the power plant and the villages surrounding it. Fukushima Daiichi suffered unimaginable damage to the units involved 1, 2, and 3 and still affected the off-line Unit 4. In the first moments of the calamity trouble was an imminent threat to the units 1, 2, and 3 as they begin to experi... ... middle of paper ... ...e able to withstand 7.0 and was built in the 1990’s with better technology and materials. Still unconvinced, that it cannot happen here in the U.S. On January 26th, 1700, the coast of British Columbia, Canada, Washington, Oregon and the Northern portions of California were hit by a dynamic duo of a 9.0-earthquake and tsunami that left its geological-mark for the scientists of today. Lawmakers warned the U.S. Department of Energy that the United State's nuclear power plants are more susceptible to earthquakes than previously thought. California itself has two coastal nuclear power plants built less than a half a mile from a fault line. The U.S. Department of Energy has yet to formulate a plan to deal with not only the age of our nuclear plants whose life expectancy is only 100 years, but also the significance of such a catastrophic incident happening on our shores.
design made the car very strong and durable that is one main reason you see many
The scenario mentioned above was based on the rupture located along the Cascadia fault line. This fault system runs from Northern California to Vancouver Island about 700 miles off the shore (FOX5). Scientists use to believe that the San Andreas Fault was where a large earthquake tsunami would originate, but recently their attention has shifted to the Cascadia subduction zone which is now said to be much more dangerous than previously thought (FOX5). Recent earthquake events have added even more tension and possibility for a large-scale tsunami. On March 10, 2014, a 6.8 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Northern California, which put a lot of stress on the Mendocino Triple Junction (Davidson). The Mendocino Triple Junction is where three tectonic plates collide, and is very unstable (Davidson). This junction has all this built up pressure and is about ready to explode. Scientists believe that this junction will be the origin of a tear along the 680-mile long Cascadia Subduction Zone. (Davidson). The disaster that follows will be considered the United State’s largest modern-day earthquake.
On March 28, 1979, at 4:00 A.M. Eastern time, the worst accident in commercial nuclear power history happened. It was a nice day in Dauphin county, Pennsylvania, and then it all happened. This accident was rated a 5 on a scale that only goes to 7. The scale is called International Nuclear Event Scale. It all started inside the secondary-system where the pilot-operated relief valve was stuck open releasing large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant. This horrific accident caused many scientists to worry about nuclear energy, as well as concerning scientists that it could be a danger to the world, so this caused many safety concerns among activists and the general public which resulted in in new regulations for the nuclear industry, and has been cited as a contributor to the decline of a new reactor construction program that was already underway in the 1970s. Even though this sounds like it should have caused many people to develop cancerous cells, epidemiological studies analyzing the rate of cancer in and around the area since the accident, determined there was a small statistically non-significant increase in the rate and thus no causal connection linking the accident with these cancers has been substantiated. After
ever made, even to this very day. Part of its success is due to the
Scenario: Sirens blaring in the middle of the night and chaos erupting from every direction. At precisely 1:21 a.m. on April 26th 1986 in Chernobyl, in a city with upwards of fifty thousand people located next to Pripiat River, a reactor exploded and released up to thirty to forty times the radiation of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. But one would never think of that a disaster of this magnitude would ever happen because the plant workers are among some of the most highly trained in the universe. Millions of people had to suffer from the greatest nuclear disaster ever known to mankind.
I. (Gain Attention and Interest): March 11, 2011. 2:45 pm. Operations at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant continued as usual. At 2:46 pm a massive 9.0 earthquake strikes the island of Japan. All nuclear reactors on the island shut down automatically as a response to the earthquake. At Fukushima, emergency procedures are automatically enabled to shut down reactors and cool spent nuclear fuel before it melts-down in a catastrophic explosion. The situation seems under control, emergency diesel generators located in the basement of the plant activate and workers breathe a sigh of relief that the reactors are stabilizing. Then 41 minutes later at 3:27 pm the unthinkable occurs. As workers monitored the situation from within the plant, citizens from the adjacent town ran from the coastline as a 49 foot tsunami approached. The tsunami came swiftly and flooded the coastline situated Fukushima plant. Emergency generators were destroyed and cooling systems failed. Within hours, a chain of events led to an explosion of reactor 1 of the plant. One by one in the subsequent days reactors 2, and 3 suffered similar fates as explosions destroyed containment cases and the structures surrounding the reactors (Fukushima Accident). Intense amount...
Therefore, LEDC's have poor quality building and precaution methods, whereas MEDC's have sophisticated building and prediction and prevention methods. An example of an earthquake in an MEDC is the earthquake that occurred in Kobe, Japan, in January 1995.
Lead to new buildings standards and made buildings stronger with less of chance to be destroyed again
Media coverage of such cases have made the public less comfortable with the idea of moving further towards nuclear power and they only opt for reducing human activities to reduce global warming. It is true that there have been some notable disasters involving nuclear power, but compared to other power systems, nuclear power has an impressive track record. First, it is less harmful and second, it will be able to cater for the growing world population. Nuclear power produces clean energy and it delivers it at a cost that is competitive in the energy market (Patterson). According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are currently 65 such plants in the Unite States (National Research Council). They produce 19 percent of the total US energy generation.
Nuclear power has always been a controversial issue because of its inherent danger and the amount of waste that the plants produce. Once considered a relatively safe form for generating energy, nuclear power has caused more problems than it has solved. While it has reduced the amount of traditional natural resources (fossil fuels), used to generate power like coal, wood, and oil, nuclear generating plants have become anachronisms. Maintaining them and keeping them safe has become a problem of immense proportion. As the plants age and other technology becomes available, what to do with these “eyesores” is a consuming issue for many government agencies and environmental groups. No one knows what to do about the problem and in many areas of the world, another nuclear meltdown is an accident waiting to happen. Despite a vast array of safety measures, a break in reactor pipe or a leak in a containment vessel, could spell another environmental disaster for the world.
While the early warning saved thousands of people, the Japan’s Meteorological Agency underestimated this earthquake as the subduction zone of Japan should not produce the magnitude 9.0 quake (Oskin, 2013a). The Tohoku Earthquake and its tsunami approximately killed 16 thousand people, injured 6 thousand people and around 3 thousand people were missing. Most people died from drowning. Around 300 thousand buildings, 4000 roads, 78 bridges, and many more were affected by the earthquake, tsunami, and fires from leaking oils and gas. Electricity, telecommunication, and railways were severely damaged. The debris of 25 million tons was generated and carried out to the sea by water (BBC News, 2012). The country’s authorities estimated more than 309 billion US dollars of damages. Landslides occurred in Miyagi and liquefaction in Chiba, Tokyo, Odaiba, and Urayasu (USGS, 2013). Furthermore, the tsunami destroyed protective tsunami seawalls. Approximately 217 square miles of Japan covered in water (Oskin,
The use of nuclear power in the mid-1980s was not a popular idea on account of all the fears that it had presented. The public seemed to have rejected it because of the fear of radiation. The Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union in April of 1986 reinforced the fears, and gave them an international dimension (Cohen 1). Nevertheless, the public has to come to terms that one of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Fear of radiation may push nuclear power under the carpet but another fear of the unknown is how costly is this going to be? If we as the public have to overcome the fear of radiation and costly project, we first have to understand the details of nuclear energy. The known is a lot less scary then the unknown. If we could put away all the presumptions we have about this new energy source, then maybe we can understand that this would be a good decision for use in the near future.
The energy industry is beginning to change. In today’s modern world, governments across the globe are shifting their focuses from traditional sources of power, like the burning coal and oil, to the more complex and scientific nuclear power supply. This relatively new system uses powerful fuel sources and produces little to no emissions while outputting enough energy to fulfill the world’s power needs (Community Science, n.d.). But while nuclear power seems to be a perfect energy source, no power production system is without faults, and nuclear reactors are no exception, with their flaws manifesting in the form of safety. Nuclear reactors employ complex systems involving pressure and heat. If any of these systems dysfunctions, the reactor can leak or even explode releasing tons of highly radioactive elements into the environment. Anyone who works at or near a nuclear reactor is constantly in danger of being exposed to a nuclear incident similar to the ones that occurred at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi plants. These major accidents along with the unresolved problems with the design and function of nuclear reactors, as well as the economic and health issues that nuclear reactors present serve to show that nuclear energy sources are not worth the service that they provide and are too dangerous to routinely use.
There was a multitude of causes of the disaster in Japan. The first cause was a 9.0 magnitude earthquake that occurred off the coast of Japan. Japan is located in “The Ring of Fire,” an area in the Pacific Ocean that has multiple faults and earthquakes (Pedersen 13). Tectonic plates shifted off the North Pacific coast of Japan and created a massive earthquake. The next cause was a thirty-three foot wall of water that swept over cities and farmland in Japan (Branigan 2). Martin Fackler, a journalist, stated, “The quake churned up a devastating tsunami” (Fackler 3). The tsunami reached speeds of 497 miles per hour while approaching Japan (Fackler 3). The third and final reason of the disaster was that the cooling systems at multiple nuclear power plants failed. At Fukushima, a nuclear power plant in Sendai, Japan, the radioactive rods began to overheat due to the absence of water, which cools it. Explosions occurred at three of the reactors, which spewed radiation into the air (“Comparing nuclear power plant crises”). In conclusion, the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant issues were the causes of the disaster in Japan, but they also had a myriad of effects.
With the depletion of fossil fuel resources comes speculations and debates about alternative energy sources. The world, including the Philippines, is practically dependent on a dwindling non-renewable source of energy. Today, experts are debating about and considering three options: Nuclear, Solar, or Wind Energy. Everyone has been accustomed to the bad image of nuclear energy as a result of the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents above all others. The popular belief is that radiation from a nuclear meltdown is very harmful to humans and other living things—which is true—and that nuclear power plants are very dangerous and not ideal—which is not. According to Smith, et. al (n.d), all the nuclear disasters that ever occurred were caused by human error and natural disasters like tsunamis, not one because of system failure. Putting the false beliefs aside, with proper engineering and adequate maintenance by experts, a nuclear power plant is a very ideal and viable source of energy for the following reasons: