RJA #15: Reflection: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

Throughout this semester I have learned several things from this class that I can and will use in the future. The first thing I learned was how to conduct research in such a way that it generates results that I am looking for without a ton of extra nonsense. Then I learned how to structure research in a way that allows me to easily organize me thoughts and then place them into a paper. Finally I learned how to write a great paper that takes information from several different sources and allow one to read it and actually come away with some new knowledge. These are the things I have learned in this class this semester.

This semesters class as also taught me a lot about nuclear power and how it is actually safe to use. It has shown me that while most people hold a negative view on some topics, before that person forms this opinion they need to look in depth on a topic before making this conclusion. If this isn't done then they are just following a generalization on a given topic. Nuclear Power has also taught me that the planet and its people have a solution to solve the ever so close energy and pollution problem. This topic has taught me that I must make informed decisions by doing research and investigating things in detail before making an informed decision. I have also decided after researching this topic that I will no longer follow the opinions of others without checking there sources and information in depth since it typically manipulated to suit their needs. This is what I have learned from Nuclear Power and the principles it helped me learn about how the world works.

RJA #14b: Application Project References: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

Daley, M. (1997). Nuclear power. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lerner Publications.

Fetter, S. (2009, January 26). How Long will the world's uranium supplies last?. Scientific American Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

Chughtai, O, & Shannon, D. (1998, April 09). Fossil fuels. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm

Mihalovits, B. (2010, April 15). Nuclear power costs and safety [Online Forum Comment]. Retrieved from http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuclear-Power-2462/2010/4/Nuclear-Power-Costs-safety.htm

Bodansky, D. (1996). Nuclear energy. New York City, New York: AIP Press.

RJA #14a: Application Project Progress Report: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

I have decided that I am going to write personal letters to my family on why nuclear power should be used as the primary source of power generation in the world. I will tell them the benefits for the environment as well as the great safety record that nuclear power has. I will also tell them how other forms of energy are bad compared to nuclear energy since they are polluting and not safe for human health. Finally I will tell them how much money everyone would safe in the long run if this switch was made. This is what I plan to do for my application project.

My current accomplishments on my application process is off to a great start. I have finished collecting all my information I will use to start writing my letters. I have also begun to write my letters and fill in the needed information to make for a great letter which will convince my family that this switch is needed today. I have also begun to work on a solid summary for each letter which will help sum up my thoughts that I used in the letters and refresh them on my stance. This is what I have completed thus far.

For my application project I still have a few things I need to complete. I have not begun to work on my essay which I am planning to start tomorrow after work. I am also needing to complete my APA citations which I will do right after this post. The final thing I am needing to complete is the actual letters them selfs and the proof reading after I finish typing them. I do have my work cut out for me this next week but all and all my application is off to a great start.

RJA #13c: Application Project Example: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

This is the letter that was written to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama by James and Anniek Hansen.

This letter is found at:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/hansens_make_a_personal_appeal/

"29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on ‘goals’ for emission reduction and ‘cap and trade’, have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth” was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request [ i ]. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2.

This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits.

Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

As an example of coal’s impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.

A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.

A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

“Cap and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a “smart grid” deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: “it cannot be ready before 2030.” However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.

In our opinion, 4th GNP [ ii ] deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material [iii] . Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can “burn” that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case. Because of this, a portion of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors.

The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe nuclear reactor.

Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest South Korea has expressed in General Electric’s design for a small scale 4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP (see enclosure). I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential directive for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to give priority to the review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be constructed rapidly in the United States.

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

Summary

An urgent [ iv ] geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed. Of course it is unfair that everyone is looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, and the ability to explain the need for it to the public.

Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be done [ v ]. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax. Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the ‘greenest’ countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

(1) Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.

(2) Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.

(3) Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, ‘goals’ and ‘caps’ on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources. [ vi ] In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global. [ vii ]

A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.

The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. Barack’s leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen
Pennsylvania
United States of America"

After reading this letter I learned several things. The first thing I learned is that when witting a letter to someone that is trying to convince them to see your point of view, you must use accurate and up to date information to achieve your goal. Then I learned that you must write the letter using words that show the seriousness of the case in question so that they will agree with you. I also found that the length of the letter is extremely important. When I was looking for letters I skipped over letters that appeared to short in length since I knew they could contain enough information to make me agree with what the writer was talking about.

I also found that while reading this letter that the writer first took the time to appeal to the reader as a human being that must read and listen to this letter or it will be a dreadful mistake. In this paper they highlight there key arguments on why the president needs to stop the use of fossil fuels before its to late. Then at the end of the letter they summarize there points and once again reiterate the importance of the letter and consequences that will occur if it is ignored. They also point out some of the negatives of doing what the letter says, but they also point out the positives of doing what the letter says will out way the negatives.

RJA #13b: Application Project Plan: Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

For my application project I am planning on writing a letter to a family member or friend explaining why nuclear power should be used compared to other forms of energy. In this letter I will tell them how nuclear power is not contributing to global warming while the gas, oil, and coal industries are. Then I will tell them how nuclear power is extremely safe compared to the other forms since there hasn't been a major accident in decades. Finally I will tell them how nuclear power is going to put more money in there pocket in the long run while if they continue to use the other forms of energy they will be spending more. This is what I plan to write to my friends or family member in my application project.

RJA #13a: Word Cloud: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/1949078/Nuclear_Power

RJA #12b: Field Research Report: Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

I interviewed Bill Mihalovits, an expert when it comes to the operations, construction, safety procedures and several other aspects of nuclear technology. I choose Mihalovits because he has been working in this field for the past thirty-three years so I know he has seen the best and worst of the nuclear age. I used the site AllExperts to ask my questions on this topic and found that there are several qualified and excellent interviewees I could choose from. These are the questions that I asked Mihalovits and the answers he provided in return.

Questions


1. Is nuclear power cost effective when compared to coal, gas, oil, and wind energy in the short term and long term? If so why?

2. Are accidents with nuclear energy lower then other types of power, or is the number of accidents higher then that of other forms of energy.

3. Are the regulations that are in place at nuclear facilities comparable to those that are in effect at oil, gas, and coal plants, or do they even have such strict regulations.

4. How much uranium is used per year compared to coal or oil?

I hope you can help me with these questions so that I can write an excellent paper and show my class that nuclear power isn't completely negative as they have thought throughout their lives.


Answers

Is nuclear power cost effective? Yes. The cost for nuclear fuel is relatively stable and runs around $2 for every kilowatt of power produced. Coal, at it's cheapest, is about the same but typically runs about $5/kw. With more and more states banning or strictly controlling coal mining, that cost will probably go up. The recent mining accident will probably drive the cost of coal up. Natural gas and oil have typically been $4 to $6 per kw, but a recent discovery of gas deposits in the Midwest has driven gas prices down. Unfortunately, this still fluctuates greatly as OPEC restricts their sale of natural gas and oil to artificially maintain prices high.

Accident: The rate of accidents at nuclear plants is much lower than the other industries. The federal regulations to which nuclear plants must adhere means that the plants are more closely monitored and better maintained.

Regulations: I can't speak with certainty about the regulations other energy producers are subject to, but while all of us are regulated by OSHA, the EPA, and state/local authorities, the nuclear industry is subject to unique regulations by both the federal government (NRC) and state governments. The state regulations vary considerably from state to state. In addition to these governmental regulations, the nuclear industry has a watchdog agency called INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) which provides even stricter regulations and close, frequent scrutiny.

Uranium usage: This is from the Nuclear Tourist website - Uranium-235 is the isotope of uranium that is used in nuclear reactors. Uranium-235 can produce 3.7 million times as much energy as the same amount of coal. As an example, 7 trucks, each carrying 6 cases of 2-12 foot high fuel assemblies, can fuel a 1000 Megawatt-electrical (MWe) reactor for 1.5 years. During this period, ~ 2 metric tons of Uranium-235 (of the 100 metric tons of fuel - uranium dioxide) would be consumed. To operate a coal plant of the same output would require 1 train of 89-100 ton coal cars each EVERY day. Over 350,000 tons of ash would be produced AND over 4 million tons of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides would be released to the environment."

I hope that I have answered your questions. If you need anything else, leave your question at this website.

Good luck,
Bill

While these questions may seem short and not to complex, I found that these were the hardest questions to answer when doing my research on this topic.

This interview can be found at the website:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuclear-Power-2462/2010/4/Nuclear-Power-Costs-safety.htm