Unit One Project

Johnny Bennett

February 25, 2013

English 105. 951

The Threats to Innovation

The ground shook beneath their feet as the foundation dangerously swayed. Within less than an hour waves reaching heights of ten story buildings rushed the Japanese shore. March 2011 marked a month of disastrous magnitude nine earthquakes and fifteen meter tsunamis, only aftermathing in three core reactor power plants in Fukushima, Japan melting. This event marked the first triple nuclear meltdown to occur, affecting citizens and the environment alike (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html).

Despite the threats nuclear power plants have imposed on our society, development in this field has not ceased. In the last year there has been discussion of using new uranium enrichment technology to produce nuclear energy. This innovative technology is meant to produce cheaper and cleaner energy, but comes with the threat of another nuclear disaster and increased threat of more powerful nuclear arms. Further development in the nuclear field poses a significant threat on non-proliferation efforts. International treaties, such as the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology along with the objective of future nuclear disarmament, have little teeth when it comes to prohibiting countries from using nuclear technology for weapons (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/). The new laser technology requires less electricity and physical space to operate than traditional nuclear methods. Thus for nuclear countries using the uranium enrichment techniques, they have little chance of being detected. Although nuclear technological innovations might be viewed as progress, alleviating our society’s dependence on gasoline, the drawbacks, which include nuclear proliferation, potential accidents, depletion of resources and nuclear waste, should be considered severe enough to cease all further nuclear development (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06c64f99-8f01-43ec-90ed-bcd7daf26f6b%40sessionmgr114&vid=4&hid=101).

If the new technology is approved, non-nuclear countries are preparing to outsource the development of uranium enrichment to current nuclear states. For example, the United Arab Emirates, a small Arab country on the Persian Gulf, plans to outsource the construction of eight new nuclear power plants to nuclear countries. The spread of innovative technologies will advance the world in some areas, but will create a problem when countries use the idea and resources to create weapons. The same resources are used to create nuclear weapons as in nuclear electricity. Nuclear activity is currently detected using satellites. Satellites are easily able to do this because of the mass amount of space and electricity required to operate the equipment. The advanced technology produces fuel with notably less room and power, thus nuclear activity of all types will prove significantly more difficult to uncover and whether the energy is going towards homes for electricity or weapons of mass destructions could remain a mystery (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=121019e9-80dd-4439-af37-5bbb6d46f038%40sessionmgr110&vid=4&hid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=44713926). There are over fifteen thousand nuclear reactors in the world, making it impossible to keep record of all their activities. The fact that all nuclear products can be easily turned into bombs, new nuclear technology imposes a major threat to the non-proliferation effort (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06c64f99-8f01-43ec-90ed-bcd7daf26f6b%40sessionmgr114&vid=4&hid=101).

Cheaper energy has been stated as one of the benefits to the uranium laser technology. There has been speculation if the technology were used on a global scale, it would save the average American household a significant amount of money in electricity payments. However, two independent studies conducted discovered this accusation is false. Both found an average American household would save less than ten dollars a month. Furthermore, if the technology began to be operational in other countries, it would reduce the already slim savings due to the diminishing supply of uranium http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06c64f99-8f01-43ec-90ed-bcd7daf26f6b%40sessionmgr114&vid=8&hid=101). Further investigation into this issue has uncovered uranium resources have been overestimated in the past. In the future miners will have to resort to uranium ores with lower concentrations, which demands more energy and higher costs (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=06c64f99-8f01-43ec-90ed-bcd7daf26f6b%40sessionmgr114&vid=13&hid=101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=45725956). As the world’s supply of uranium decreases, the prices producers and consumers with have to pay will increase, thus eliminating the benefit of the new technology. If the uranium enrichment technology starts to become operational, we will be going down the same path as we are with oil currently. People originally turned towards nuclear energy because of rising fuel prices and its dwindling supplies, hence is it worth continuing the movement towards nuclear power with current concerns of uranium reserves and threats of increased prices?

For a little over sixty years, nuclear power plants have been operational, but over time period a proper method for disposing the radioactive waste has yet to be agreed upon. Though nuclear reactors produce minimal greenhouse gases, their environmental impact comes from their radioactive nuclear waste. The Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of 1978 requires government committees to clean up uranium’s waste byproducts but this has proven to be a difficult task given the lack of proper disposal technologies. Approximately 85 percent of radioactivity in the uranium is carried over to the waste which has been linked to causing various types of cancer. Currently, there are two disposal methods, which are both costly and not equipped to handle large amount of waste accumulating. Since disposal methods are still under scrutiny and over 25 million tons of uranium waste still sit in inactive uranium power plants, it would be unwise to proceed with the implementation of new technology and vast new power plants until a proper solution is created (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=98a32a6c-bfb4-4391-82c4-5af10e0dc06a%40sessionmgr113&vid=5&hid=101).

As shown in Japan two years ago, the risk of accidents associated with power plants is ever present and unpreventable. Although safety features and backup systems have improved, large events such as earthquakes can hinder those elements of the power plants from working effectively (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&sid=98a32a6c-bfb4-4391-82c4-5af10e0dc06a%40sessionmgr113&hid=101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=82103446). When the earthquake in Japan occurred it shut off the plant’s electric power which immediately stopped the cooling of the reactors. The high temperatures caused the reactors to melt, giving off fatal levels of radiation (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/39541).  With large numbers of reactors in operation, the probability of human error increases which further puts employees and surrounding residents in harms way (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=98a32a6c-bfb4-4391-82c4-5af10e0dc06a%40sessionmgr113&vid=10&hid=101). The severity of the Fukushima meltdown is also attributed to human error. The regulators of the plant were accused of poor regulation over the equipment and failing to take proper safety measures prior to and following the earthquake. Specifically, the employees “failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements, such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in case of a serious radiation release” (f. reactors meltdown). It is estimated that one thousand people will die due to the radiation produced from this disaster. As stated under the Price-Anderson Act, nuclear power plants are not held accountable for any accidents or deaths they cause, so those one thousand individuals are being held responsible (http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/kennette-benedict/the-banality-of-death-nuclear-power).

All of these concerns limit the potential for nuclear energy to replace oil and coal as our primary sources for electricity. After the Fukushima accident, China, Belgium and Germany initiated a plan for the phase out of their nuclear power plants (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&sid=98a32a6c-bfb4-4391-82c4-5af10e0dc06a%40sessionmgr113&hid=101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=82103448). The rest of the world should follow suit. Although the benefit of low levels of greenhouse gases produced is significant, it does not outweigh threats we face from the spread of proliferation, diminishing our resource supplies, polluting our ground and endangering residents in the area.  

Flickr Photo By: S@ilor

A Blast of the Past-Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima

Work Cited: 

Abbott, Derek. "Limits to Growth: Can Nuclear Power Supply the World’s Needs?"Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. N.p., Sept. 2012. Web. 1 Mar. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06c64f99-8f01-43ec-90ed-bcd7daf26f6b%40sessionmgr114&vid=4&hid=101>.

Bast, Andrew. "The U.A.E. Pulls the Fuel out of the Fire." The Daily Beast. N.p., 22 Oct. 2009. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/wealth-of-nations/2009/10/22/pulls-the-fuel-out-of-the-fire.html>.

"Fukushima Accident 2011." World Nuclear Association. N.p., Feb. 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html>.

McNeill, David, and Jake Adelstein. "Meltdown: What Really Happened at Fukushima?"The Atlantic Wire. N.p., 02 July 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. <http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/39541/>.

"Stop Laser Uranium Enrichment." Nature. N.p., Mar. 2010. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=06c64f99-8f01-43ec-90ed-bcd7daf26f6b%40sessionmgr114&vid=8&hid=101>.

Sweet, William. "Unresolved: The Front End of Nuclear Waste Disposal." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=98a32a6c-bfb4-4391-82c4-5af10e0dc06a%40sessionmgr113&vid=5&hid=101>.

"Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT]." The Nuclear Information Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. <http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/>.