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

RJA #12a: Annotated Bibliography, Part 3:Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

Beik, Mildred. "MINING INJURIES AND FATALITIES IN BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING COMPANY MINES." The Windber Miners. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 07 Feb 2006. Web. 10 Apr 2010. .


This article explains how mining accidents occurred in mines and what casualties were sustained in the process. This article also gives a great incite into the history of mining accidents and which ones were the worst. In this article Beik argues his point across that mining is extremely unsafe in coal mines and needs massive improvements. This is a great article for my paper since it gives a seldom seen view of the other side of the argument.



"Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States." U.S. Energy Information Administration. Department of Energy, Jul 2000. Web. 15 Mar. 2010. .


This web article gives great incite into the pollutions that are emitted from electrical plants across the U.S. It tells the reader about the amounts of pollutions that are released in weight increments as well as telling the reader what forms of global pollution they create when they are combined. This article also advocates the use of the forms of electricity with the least amount of pollution output. This article will be great for my paper since I am putting nuclear power against the big oil, gas, and coal industries.



Chughtai, Osman, and David Shannon. "Fossil Fuels." University of Michigan. University of Michigan, 09 Apr 1998. Web. 10 Mar 2010. .


This is a great article since it tells the readers how much time is left with fossil fuels. It breaks the data down into years and gives time frames for the oil gas and coal sources. It also helps show how calculations are done when determining the time frame to assign to a fuel source. This article will be helpful in my paper in arguing my point that there is not much time left on switching away from fossil fuels.



Fetter, Steven. "How long will the world's uranium supplies last?." Scientific American Magazine. 26 Jan 2009: n. pag. Web. 14 Apr 2010. .


Fetter in his online article talks about the longevity of the uranium supplies throughout the planet. Fetter goes into how long uranium will last at the current usage and technological capacity we have in place. He also tells how newly discovered means of using uranium will allow for nuclear energy to become a long term power solution for the worlds energy crisis. This article will work good in my paper since I am trying to show what a great option nuclear power is when compared to power sources that are burning through there resources at an accelerated rate.



"Fossil Fuel Crisis Drives Europe To Nuclear, Green Energy." Terra Daily. Agence France-Presse, 08 Jan 2006. Web. 25 Mar 2010. .


This is an amazing article that tells of the current energy crisis that is unfolding over seas. The Terra Daily article describes how energy is can be controlled when not enough resources are available for the people. It also goes into how regulations are lacking in conventional power companies which allows the plants to disrupt power outputs to make a profit. Finally it shows that Europe is beginning to make the transition to nuclear power since it is heavily regulated and becoming saver everyday. This will be a great point in my paper since it shows how nuclear power can be beneficial to a country by using something that is heavily monitored and can produce massive amounts of power.



"Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions." International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA, "n.d.". Web. 8 Apr 2010. .


This is a fascinating article that I found on the IAEA website. The IAEA, which is an organization that monitors nuclear power throughout the world to make sure it is being handled safely and securely. In this article, they explain how the deaths at this plant were a lot lower then typically thought, and how the situation occurred. This article will be great in my paper since this is an agency that advocated the use of nuclear power, but will tell both sides of the story to stay neutral.



“Fission” MSN ENCARTA. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. 2009. Web. 13 March 2010.


This MSN definition gives the reader a better understanding on some of the aspects of nuclear power. This particular article covered the definition of the word Fission. It describes fission as the reaction that allows nuclear power to occur. This is will be an important piece in my paper since the reader will need to understand how this form of energy is produced.



Hudson, Gregory. "The U.S. EPR: A Standardized Nuclear Power Plant." International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants. AREVA NP Inc., 22 Jan 2007. Web. 15 Apr 2010. .

This document by Gregory Hudson goes into detail on how the United States regulates there plants designs. It goes into what safety measures are put in place to ensure safety, and what security measures are used to protect the general population. It also covers what equipment is used to keep the plants operational. This article is important for my paper since it will give the reader a view of just how strict regulations have become to prevent new disasters from occurring.



"Low-level Waste." United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 13 Feb 2007. Web. 12 Apr 2010. .

This is a simple article that is posted on the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions website. This article explains the type of nuclear power plant waste known as low-level waste and what is classified as low-level waste at a plant. It goes into how this waste is handled after it is created and how long it will stay contaminated. This is a great article because one of the standing points against nuclear power is its waste generation.



"The Need for Conservation." Convert Experts. Convert Experts Inc., n.d. Web. 1 Apr 2010. .

This article goes over how the world is in dire need of conserving resources. It tells the reader how much natural resources are being used on a daily bases and that if current rates continue to occur that we will run out of resources in our lifetimes. It breaks these numbers down to the number of barrels used in the United States alone, which a barrel is typically 42 gallons. This is an important article for my paper since it will help show the amount of oil it takes to power a country compared the other power sources.



“Nuclear Power” MSN ENCARTA. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. 2009. Web. 13 March 2010. .

This dictionary entry is another entry that will help explain to my reader what nuclear power is. This entry actually covers the term nuclear power which is defined as power resulted from the creation of fission in a nuclear reactor. It also tells how this power is created by atoms crashing together and exploding. This definition is extremely important in my paper since my paper is based on nuclear power as a better alternative to oil, gas, and coal.



Scaruffi, Piero. "The worst Natural Disasters ever." Political Analysis. Piero Scaruffi, n.d. Web. 10 Apr 2010. .

This website is a site that posts on major natural disasters that have occurred throughout history. What is really great about this site is that it covers disasters ranging from not only natural disasters, but it also covers major disasters caused by humans. This article covers accidents that have occurred in the coal and nuclear power fields. This article is great since it tells the reader that Chernobyl is the only major accident and how coal kills.



Schneider, Conrad. "Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants." Dirty Air, Dirty Power (2004): 1-10. Web. 6 Apr 2010. .

This Publication is great source of information on how toxic pollution is killing. This publication covers the number of deaths that have occurred from pollution, as well as what type of power generating plants are causing it. This publication also covers other illnesses that have been contributed to rising pollution levels. This is a great article because it shows how nuclear power would be beneficial to all these sicking and deadly forms of power in use today.



"Spent Nuclear Fuel Pool." Nuclear Facts. Web. 17 Apr 2010. .

This website is devoted to the education on nuclear waste. It goes into how nuclear waste is managed in nuclear cooling pools which are used to cool waste as it decays. It also goes into how the waste is monitored and stored if it isn't high level waste. This is a great article for my paper since it has great pictures and information on my topic.



"Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel." United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 8 Apr 2010. Web. 12 Apr 2010. .

This website covers the guidelines that covers spent nuclear fuel storage. It covers the type of policies and procedures that are used to allow someone to store waste. It also covers the type of storage methods that are currently being used in the storage of nuclear waste. This is a important article for my paper since it will help contribute more information on how nuclear waste is safely stored and monitored.



Taniguchi, Tomihiro. "IMPROVEMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY AND RADIATION PROTECTION INITIATED BY THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT." International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA, 24 Apr 2006. Web. 8 Apr 2010. .

This document which was produced by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Safety and Security. It covers the topic of Chernobyl which was the most tragic nuclear event in the technologies history. It also goes into how the IAEA and other agencies have made vast improvements to nuclear operating procedures since the accident occurred. This is a great document to use in my paper cause it shows that while there have been accidents, the nuclear field has learned from these mistakes to make sure they never happen again.



"Threats to Oil Transport." Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, 22 Nov 2004. Web. 16 Apr 2010. .

This article tells the reader about the threats to the oil transport business. It covers the topics of terrorist attacks that can occur. It also tells about how the oil industry suffers from the loss of ships and oil from leaking ships and pipelines. It also covers how these accidents have massive environmental effects on the areas of the spills. This article will help me write my paper by showing that nuclear energy is just has safe to transport, if not safer, then oil.


"Transuranic Radioactive Waste." Nevada Department of Energy. Department of Energy, Oct 2007. Web. 8 Mar 2010. .

This article covers the type of waste know as Transuranic. It tells how this waste classification is only used in the United States at present. It also tells what kind of contaminated products one would expect to find in this classification. It finally tells what the half life is on the radiation. This is a great article because most people that know about nuclear waste only know of the high level waste.


"Toxic sludge leaks expose true costs of coal ." Green Peace. GreenPeace, 12 Jan 2009. Web. 11 Apr 2010. .

This is a great article about how coal is destroying the environment. This article covers how a toxic spill of coal sludge that is slowly contaminating the environment in Tennessee. It tells how the coal plants are not concerned about the fact that this is occurring since it is within regulations, which are being to change. This is a great article since it will help show just how polluting coal is even when it isn't being burned.


Quevenco, Rodolfo. "Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power." International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA, 1997. Web. 14 Apr 2010..

This article covers the effects of radiation on the health of humans. It tells how radiation can effect people, but then it goes into how radiation is used to help people. It also has information on the fact that plants that burn fossil fuels release way more toxic pollutants then nuclear. This article will help show in my paper that while radiation can be dangerous it is beneficial and still safer then other pollutants.



Uhrig, Robert, and Richard Carter. "INSTRUMENTATION, CONTROL, AND SAFETY SYSTEMS OF CANADIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES." World Technology Evaluation Center. World Technology Evaluation Center, Mar 1994. Web. 16 Apr 2010. .

Uhrig and Carter write in this article about how nuclear energy is controlled. They talk about safety systems that prevent the plants from having major accidents. they also tell about the computer systems that are in place to make sure that if the main control systems fail, that the fail safes kick in to prevent melt downs. This article is great because it tells the readers how plants are controlled to prevent human error, and will show that the safety systems that are in effect at plants are way superior then that of other energy sources.

RJA #11: Annotated Bibliography, Part 2: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

Caldicott, Helen. Nuclear Power is not the Answer. New York City, New York: The New Press, 2007. 19-87. Print.

Helen Caldicott wrote this book to express her opposing views on nuclear power. She argues that nuclear power costs up to 3 times more then other forms of energy is you include the mining and security costs. She also states that radiation is dangerous no matter if it comes from getting a CAT scan to the radiation from a reactor. Finally she alleges that nuclear power is not emissions free since it takes vehicles that emit greenhouse gases to move the minerals and mine them. Her book is a great source since it takes into account variables that are often over looked on the topic and for the fact she includes several sources on the topic.

Daley, Michael. Nuclear power. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Lerner Publications, 1997. 45-85. Print.

In Michael Daley’s book on nuclear power, he focuses on both sides of the issue on using nuclear power. In the first part of the book, he tells about how nuclear power can be dangerous to people because of the toxic radiation. As the book goes on he states that nuclear power plants expose people to less radiation then an X-ray would during a doctor’s visit. He also goes into how nuclear power is regulated to make sure that nuclear power plants remain safe and that if they fall below acceptable levels they are to be decommissioned to prevent accidents from ever occurring. This is a great book since it gives you both sides of the argument and the author does his best to stay neutral on the topic.

Bodansky, David. Nuclear energy. Woodbury, New York: AIP Press, 1996. 185-211. Print.

In this book, David Bodansky covers how nuclear power plants are kept safe. He begin by covering how regulation are put in place to make sure nuclear reactors are operated in limits that are set by the nuclear regulatory commission. Then he goes into all the passive and active safety systems that are put into place to make sure that if an accident does begin to occur, that the reactors are shut down to prevent the accident from occurring any further. Finally he covers how accidents have decreased over the years do to the new safety regulations and judgments that have been implemented over the past few decades. This is a great book since it covers the safety measures that are in place to protect the plants from major accidents.

Pligt, Joop. Nuclear energy and the public. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub, 1992. 112-150. Print.

This book goes deep into the accidents that occurred at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The book starts out by explaining how the nuclear accidents occurred at both plants and why they weren’t prevented. It then goes into how nuclear accidents are communicated to the public so that they public can react in a way that helps keep them safe and allow crews to focus on containing the accident before it becomes critical. This book is a great source since it covers the major accidents, and then goes into what we do in the modern era to make sure that if one does occur again, that they people know how to react so that they remain safe.

Rossenfeld, Carrie. "Atomic Archive." Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents. N.p., 30 09 1999. Web. 11 Apr 2010. .

Carrie Rossenfeld developed this webpage to give her readers incite into nuclear accidents that have occurred and how bad they were when they occurred. Carrie covers the two major accidents, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as many of the unknown ones that have occurred on land and sea. She goes into casualty reports on each accident, if there were casualties, and then covers what kind of fallout has occurred at the sites. She also covers what happened before the accident that ended up leading to the actual accident in the end. This is a great site because the only two accidents that people truly know about are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

RJA #10c: Ideas for the Application Project: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

Personal letter to a friend of family member explaining to them why Nuclear Power should be used as a replacement to other forms of energy. I would use this letter to get them to change there negative opinion about nuclear power since it has the potential to save them money, help the environment, and last for hundreds of years. I will explain these reasons with evidence and actual events that have occurred.

News Article telling just how beneficial it is to switch over to Nuclear Power. I would tell the people that nuclear power is safe and environmentally friendly compared to other types of energy. I will then run over projected costs of using this form of energy and how it could save them in there wallets later. Finally I would inform them of the safety procedures that are taken to make sure the pollutions it does create will never come in contact with humans at any point in their life time.

Editorial expressing my point of view on nuclear power as a safe alternative to energy forms that use fossil fuels as a fuel source. My editorial would also include cost related aspects on the use of nuclear power and that if all countries in the world would switch to this power form it would allow money that would be spent on mining, cleanups, and labor to re allocated elsewhere. My editorial would also inform people that nuclear power is a long term alternative to other forms of power since it can last the human race thousands of years while other forms of energy are using resources at such a pace that they will be depleted in a hundred years or so.

Scene from a play with the pollution creating coal plant arguing with the green driven nuclear power plant. The coal plant would argue that they are already built so they have no building costs while the nuclear power plant will argue that while there is building costs, the costs of labor and mineral extraction is half the cost of coal power. Then the nuclear power will make the argument that they don't contribute to green house gases that lead to global warming and the coal plant will be at a loss of words. I would also cover the other aspects of nuclear energy over coal power to give the audience a general consensus that coal power is not only bad for them but bad for earth.

RJA #10b: Progress Report for Argumentative Paper: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

What I have accomplished: As of today I have gathered enough sources to begin writing my paper but I am still doing research to make sure I have all my bases covered. I formal outline is completed and should give me a good template to get my complete outline setup by the end of the day. I have organized my ideas into categories so that when I begin writing it be easier to write. I formed the categories into groups that resembles the headings of my outline. I have also completed a rough draft of my thesis that I have begun to revise This is what i have completed at this time.

What I still need to do: I still need to write my rough draft. I have gathered the information do begin writing the paper it is just getting the time to begin the process. I still need to get my Delicious Account still needs updating with all my websites but that will be a simple task. I plan on starting my paper today and having it completely typed by the 18th so that I can proof read it and make any refinements that I feel are needed before the 19th. I also need to get the extra credit completed but that should also be a simple task. I have my work cut out for me but as along as I get a start on this today I will be fine.

RJA #10a: Annotated Bibliography, Part 1: "Is Nuclear Power Safe?": ENG 1020

Webb, Richard. The accident hazards of nuclear power plants. Amherst, MA: Univ of Massachusetts Pr, 1976. 80-98. Print.

The Rasmussen Report was a report that was conducted to show the flaws that nuclear power plants could face. The report covers the possibly of nuclear power plant melt downs. The report also covers how over heating of the reactor do to a coolant failure or improper heat exchange between the reactors and cooling units can result in a core breach. What turns out to happen in this report is that the data was mismanaged so that it made nuclear energy appear dangerous which is discussed in the end of this chapter. They also refer to the mismanagement of this report in the beginning sections of this book.

Strupczewski, A. "Accident Risks in Nuclear-Power Plants." Applied Energy. ScienceDirect, 03 04 2003. Web. 5 Apr 2010. .

This periodical explains the risks assessments of nuclear power plant accidents. This report includes references to accidents that have occurred in the past and then explains what caused them and what has been done to prevent this from happening in the future. In this report it also states that do to the relatively young age of this technology that the track record is extremely good do to the very few major accidents that have happened. This report concludes that after extensive research that it finds the risks to be extremely minimal. This report doesn't included information on the safety equipment that is used to make this technology safe but it does include what procedures have been put in place.

Annas, George. "Nuclear Power: Safety and Economics." American Journal of Public Health 73.9 (1983): 1099-1100. Web. 21 Feb 2010. .

This Journal describes how nuclear power is regulated so that it is kept safe. This entry tells the reader about how the government regulates the storage of waste and overall safety measures that are occurring in plants. This article also tells how the government regulates nuclear power for health and safety reasons such has radiation poisoning and exposure. The final thing that this article talks about is the nuclear power act of 1954 which gives the government full control over nuclear energy so that it can be regulated safely.