Essay I Wrote on Preventing the Next Nuclear Disaster

Nuclear Energy: Devastation or Solution to World Energy Needs?

Introduction:

Imagine a world that is free of fossil fuel use, a world that can sustain itself on the process of fission to create energy.  In this world, climate change would be halted, or at least slowed down drastically.  We would be getting clean energy that could support billions of people worldwide.  But there is always a catch; is it safe?  Since the beginning of nuclear energy, there have been a few situations where it has been proven that it is not safe and with devastating consequences.  Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island and the most recent, Fukushima, nuclear disasters have really dampened the idea of spreading this technology more around the world.  While we may take five steps forward in giving knowledge to people about how great this could be for people, all it takes is one mishap like Fukushima to send it ten steps back.  Today, the IAEA, or International Atomic Energy Agency, is cracking down on nuclear power plants and setting new standards to prevent any more disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl. 

The Issue, Controversy, or New Discovery:

Preventing the next nuclear disaster isn’t only one of the main goals of the IAEA, but as well at the domestic and international community.  After the earthquake and ensuing tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima’s Dai’ichi nuclear power plant was struck by a “one-two punch” effect (Bunn 2011).  The earthquake wasn’t the devastator in this incidence, it was the tsunami that followed after which slammed into the facility with waves as high as 14 meters.  Luckily, reactors 4, 5 and 6 were shut down before the earthquake for maintenance and the rest of the reactors shut down automatically after the earthquake.  But when the tsunami struck, it destroyed the backup generators that were being used to cool down the reactors.  The loss of power lead to the inability to cool the reactors; the consequences were a buildup of gases from the inability to vent.    Over the next month, signs of a meltdown in reactors 1, 2 and 3 were evident along with explosions throughout the structures.  The IAEA rated the events at reactors 1-3 a 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale; a 7 indicated the “major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures” (Mairs 2011).   The reactor 4 event was rated a 3 meaning a serious incident.  Japanese officials were quick to implement an evacuation and disaster zone of 30km around the plant and only people with clearance were allowed to enter the effected area and later decreased the evacuation zone to 20 kilometers.  The months after, even today, the area around the facility is radioactively contaminated.  The affects aren’t just locally, but are spreading globally. 

            The Fukushima nuclear plant is located, literally, on the shores of Japan on the Pacific Ocean.  Radioactive material seeped into the ocean and drifted along the coast and has been swept away to the ocean itself.  Claims came from U.S. scientists that radioactive material is flowing towards U.S. soil in the ocean, as well as through the air.  Japanese scientist and government denied these claims, but studies and “evidence” continuously show that it is true.  Recently, University of Hawaii scientists and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) scientists believe debris that may be carrying radioactive material, from the tsunami that was swept out to sea is headed towards Hawaii and the west coast of the United States (Japan 2011).  Estimates measure that the debris pile is upwards of 2,000 square miles and could hit the Hawaiian shores sometime next year before making its way to the mainland.  It will be interesting to see what happens, if anything, and what the repercussions will be if there is another disaster that has to be dealt with. 

            As mentioned earlier, the IAEA, as well as other nuclear organizations and governments round the world, are setting regulations and standards for current facilities and nuclear facilities that will be constructed in the future.  The IAEA is part of a small group of committees that have different roles dealing with nuclear issues; The Convention on Nuclear Safety, which was created after the Chernobyl incident, and the World Association of Nuclear Operators, or WANO, which “exchanges best practices and carries out peer reviews.” (Bunn 2011).  We, being the international community, do not have an overseeing firm or council to control and set regulations on nuclear issues and safety.  Even with these organizations, ultimately, the power is left with each country to make decisions on their own nuclear programs.  It will be very difficult for countries around the world to generate a universal set of regulations and standard for old, new and future nuclear power plant sites.  There are clear issues that are preventing this to happen, but they are only a few problems on a list that is long. 

The Scientific Concepts Involved and Their Relevance to the Environment

For the next few decades, the majority of the energy we get from nuclear reactors across the world will be from power plants that are all ready built or built with designs that are already in existence.  According to the European Nuclear Society, there are 433 nuclear power plants operating today globally and another 65 that are under construction (Nuclear 2011).  Of the 433 nuclear facilities, almost one-third of them are located in the United States and France, 104 and 58 respectively.  Asia is currently the world leader in current construction of nuclear power plants.  In total, Asian countries are currently building 54 of the 65 sites globally; China and the Soviet Union are heading the construction in Asia.  China is constructing 29 sites, which is almost half of the global number, and the Soviet Union is marked at 11 (Nuclear 2011). 

These statistics show that countries all over the world are very dependant on this technology.  Not many countries fully understand the ideas that are presented to them regarding nuclear safety.  This has become especially confusing to leaders, and people alike, with proposals coming from many different countries with a wide range of views and opinions about nuclear energy.  There are countries who are “Pro-Nuclear” and countries who are “Anti-Nuclear”.  Nations such as the United States, France and China are the leaders of the nuclear energy world, they are for nuclear expansion and see it as a form of energy that is not only green, but also extremely efficient and can power many areas of their countries.  On the contrary, there are not only the leaders of countries that are very much against nuclear energy expansion, but more so, many people around the world also are against this technology.  After seeing the consequences of a disaster and the prolonged effects from human mutations all the way to environmental destruction, many people fear that this could happen again.  Aside from the “is it good or bad” idea, countries may also have different goals than other countries with their nuclear programs.  Energy is the clear goal for many with nuclear technology, but the international community fears that there are countries like Iran who may have other plans with nuclear technology, such as nuclear weapons.  After numerous international meetings and conferences with the United Nations and IAEA, there is still little consensus about what to do and how to come to an international agreement. 

Since the majority of the nuclear power plants we have now will be operating for the foreseeable future, the short run than, should be more about how to make these facilities better and safer until we can improve our technology and designs.  Hopefully, long term plans by the IAEA and leading nuclear countries will be to design new reactors that don’t need to rely on active pumps and valves to be considered safe while operating.  In the Science Magazine article, “Preventing the Next Fukushima”, authors Matthew Bunn and Olli Heinonen have come up with six areas that they think nuclear countries should focus on when it comes to nuclear energy safety.  They believe that higher safety standard, higher security standards, stronger emergency responses, legally binding requirements, expanded international cooperation and a safer and more secure nuclear future are the areas that need to be the main focuses when it comes to the future of nuclear safety (Bunn 2011). 

Possible Future Directions:

It is obvious that the cause for the Fukushima disaster was the earthquake and tsunami; when it comes to safety standards, these nuclear sites need to be prepared for any reason that could cause a loss of power for a long period of time.  There needs to be safe systems that could outlast any natural or human event – these systems will be able to keep the spent fuel rods cool and vent built up gases.  The Union for Concerned Scientists goes along with this idea in saying that nuclear safety is one of the top areas of concern for the future of nuclear energy; they advise that plants “require reactor owners to develop and test emergency procedures for situations when no AC or DC power is available for an extended period.” (UCS 2011). 

Security is the second area of focus that Bunn and Heinonen recommend.  In a world with high terroristic activity, dictators, conspiracy and international instability, nuclear nations must make new regulations to make nuclear facilities as well as nuclear technology as safe as possible.  Organizations such as al Qaeda are constantly looking to get a hold of nuclear technology or worse, a nuclear weapon.  They have tried to sabotage nuclear facilities all over the world but, luckily, have yet to acquire nuclear technology.  Although security and safety are virtually the same, when it comes to nuclear facilities, Bunn says, “a nuclear facility cannot be considered safe, in the sense of posing little risk to humans and the environment, unless it is also secure.” (Bunn 2011). 

With what the Japanese emergency teams had available to them, they were able to implement evacuation policies and response plans.  In other nuclear emergencies, some countries were able to respond quickly, like Japan, and others were either slow to respond or not able to respond quickly enough, which lead to preventable consequences.  I believe that any country with nuclear capabilities needs to be able to prepare any sort of law enforcement, state or national institution and prepare the citizens around the facilities incase of a disaster.  This will have to be put into effect in the event that the “official” (meaning national or international organizations) nuclear response team cannot reach the effected area in time and the institutions closest will be able to respond with the necessary equipment and resources. 

WANO and the IAEA are two of the organizations that provide safety reviews of nuclear sites internationally.  While most of us have heard of the IAEA through the news, WANO tends to be more under the radar.  Even though WANO reviews facilities, these reviews are kept confidential making it hard for the international community to know the state and safety of another countries nuclear facilities.  The IAEA, on the other had, releases their reviews.  Unfortunately, they only review a few facilities per year.  There is a clear problem with the nuclear facility reviewing system.  I believe that there needs to be one organization that checks every site each year to make sure that it is safe and up to current standards.  With as many nuclear sites as there are, it would take decades for the IAEA to inspect every one, which cannot be allowed. 

As countries differ on topics such as the economy or war, nuclear energy is no different.  While the likelihood of the nuclear countries coming together to create treaties and legally binding requirements on nuclear safety is almost impossible right now, it is something that needs to be done within the next five to ten years.  The international community can’t stay on the track it is currently on with no nuclear safety requirements that apply to every nuclear capable country.  James Ellis, the President and CEO of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, suggested that states need to locate “the sweet spot between national sovereignty and international accountability”.  With more countries wanting to have nuclear energy and capabilities, international regulations are becoming more mandatory and need to be made sooner rather than later.  To go along with international mandates, the leaders in the nuclear world need to assist countries who have just became nuclear capable and ones that plan to in the future. 

Conclusion:

            Finally, we cannot be so naïve as to think that this is an “it will not happen to us” scenario.  Just because some areas are more earthquake prone or flood prone doesn’t mean other places around the world are at risk for a freak incident that could create a nuclear disaster.  Everyone is at risk now that we are in a world where countries have nuclear capabilities whether or not they are used for energy. 

The six areas of focus that Bunn suggested are easy and straightforward.  But it is easier said than done.  So many more things need to be accomplished in the international community before universal cooperation on nuclear standards is reached.   When we are able to get to this point, though, the world will see that nuclear energy is what this world needs and that it is not bad.  With cooperation, unity and a goal to be reached, the world can come together and prevent the next Fukushima. 

 Works Cited

Bunn, Matthew, and Olli Heinonen. "Preventing the Next Fukushima." Science 16 Sept.    2011: 1580-581. Web.

"Japan Tsunami Debris Floating toward Hawaii." USA Today. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/story/2011-10-25/japan-tsunami-debris-hawaii-usa/50914576/1>.

Mairs, J. IAEA - The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. 31 Oct. 2011. Raw data. Genkai Nuclear Power Plant, Genkai, Japan.

"Nuclear Power Plants, World-wide." European Nuclear Society. 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm>.

"UCS Nuclear Power Safety & Security Recommendations." Union of Concerned Scientists. 14 July 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/ucs-nuclear-safety-recommendations.html>.

 ALL WORK BELONGS TO VC - DO NOT TAKE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Essay I Wrote on Nuclear Energy Policy

Keeping the World Clean and Green

Within the past two hundred years, humans have been able to change the Earth in such a way that it took natural processes hundreds of thousands of years to do.  With climate change becoming more prevalent in talks among citizens, domestically and between countries, views on how to deal with these changes vary from state to state.  Where one country might feel it is necessary for a global reduction in coal use, another may think the idea is ludicrous.  It is an ongoing “battle” for stability and universal agreement on how to make the world better and how to slow down climate change and solve other environmental issues.  I believe that countries need to make climate change and environmental policy a major priority among their goals as states. 

As an Environmental Science and Policy major, climate change and other environmental issues are a focus of mine.  Issues such as global warming, oil spills, natural disasters, etc, are always in headlines of the news.  Besides disasters, both human-made and natural, many other issues are creating dilemmas and tension worldwide; water use and water availability, emission regulation, energy use and energy problems, and food and land use are all major environmental problems that people and governments are trying to solve.  Unfortunately, not everyone agrees and the attempts to make rules and solve these problems keep dragging on as they have for years. 

            Climate change, and the factors that contribute to it, are probably the biggest environmental issues countries face today.  This issue is a natural process that takes place on earth cyclically over thousands of years.  Carbon-dioxide levels, temperature levels and sea levels are all related and usually rise and fall together.  Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuel use by human beings has acted as a mechanism to accelerate the process of climate change exponentially.  After our last major ice age (not to be confused with the mini-ice age that occurred in the middle ages), which occurred about 25,000 years ago, CO₂ levels, sea level and temperature have all gone up dramatically and are setting records as some of the highest in recorded history.  Scientists are able to determine this from ice cores and other sources and see that over the past 600-700 thousand years, levels haven’t been nearly as high as today.  Global average temperatures have risen about 1°C over the past few decades, an unprecedented rise.  Along with this, sea level is currently rising about 3mm per year and CO₂ levels are at an all time high (at least in recordable time) of 390ppm. 

            With the scientific data of climate change available to every nation, some have developed their own policies on how they would like to address the same.  Some non-developed countries around the world are not as concerned about environmental policy as developed nations for many reasons; monetary and cultural reasons seem to be two major factors for their views towards this issue.  On the contrary, most developed nations (U.S., France, Japan, etc) are constantly generating new regulations and standards for greenhouse gas emissions such as CO₂, Methane (CH₄), Hydrocarbons (CFC’s), Ozone (O₃), and Nitrous Oxide (N₂O).  All but CFC’s or Chlorofluorocarbons are bi-products of the burning of fossil fuels like oil and coal.  Over time, each of these compounds has had an impact on global warming and climate change. 

            It wasn’t until recently that the first critical act of environmental policy was implemented globally.  Until 50 years ago, there was no regulation or standard that was enacted between countries; however in 1987, an agreement titled the Montreal Protocol would set the stone for environmental policy.  The idea behind this was to limit the use of chlorofluorocarbons worldwide.  In the years leading up to this, CFC’s were widely used in almost everything from hairspray to refrigerators as an aerosol.  Over time, CFC broke down ozone in the atmosphere that lead to the discovery of a massive hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica.  Since ozone’s function is to block harmful ultraviolet radiation from penetrating the atmosphere, the global decrease in ozone levels resulted in increasing cancer rates, as well as rising global temperature. 

            After the discovery, developed countries were quick to react to the data collected.  The Montreal Protocol went into force in 1989 as 40 countries ratified it immediately (lecture, November 2) and did so with the support of over 140 countries.  Oddly enough, the United States wasn’t in favor of this regulation at first.  It was thought that this would negatively impact major companies in the U.S. that produced CFC’s.  Rumor has it that it was Nancy Reagan who convinced the U.S. to go along and ratify the Montreal Protocol.  President Reagan was being treated for skin cancer at the time of this agreement and when scientists figured out that CFC’s destroyed ozone, which lead to skin cancer, Mrs. Reagan influenced the U.S. to join the other countries.  In the years following the original ratification, subsequent amendments were implemented globally in 1990 and 1992, which aimed to reduce production by 50% by 2000 and complete the ban of CFC’s by 2010 (James ENSP lecture).  Years after, DuPont Chemical Company was able to create an alternative to CFC’s that has the same function but does no damage to the environment.  By now, most countries around the world have ratified the Montreal Protocol, which shows that the ability to come together for a global issue, such as this is, possible. 

            Environmental policy isn’t always this easy and is rarely ever accepted as unanimously as the Montreal Protocol was.  In 1997, countries met in Japan to discuss the next topic of interest that was quickly affecting the earth – global warming and climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.  The Kyoto Protocol was formed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Developed countries worldwide agreed to reduce their greenhouse output levels by 5-10 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2012 (lecture, November 2).  Developing countries were considered “voluntary targets” considering they are the ones who have the largest amounts of output from industry, transportation and citizen use.  To this day, 191 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol; countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, South and North America as well as Australia, have all ratified the Protocol and are trying to meet their commitment of reduction.  The only country to sign the Kyoto Protocol and NOT ratify it was the United States.  President Clinton was in office at the time and signed it, but did not receive the support he thought he would from Congress.  Consequently, the United States remains the world’s leader in greenhouse gas emissions.  Even though the U.S. has not ratified this regulation, the Obama Administration has put into effect its own regulations on Carbon emissions as well as other greenhouse gas emissions. 

            To me, the world will never agree on a topic or standard on greenhouse gas emissions and ways to solve climate change.  Some countries will never have the money to support new technology and resources and there will always be countries that simply won’t want to comply with a standard such as carbon emission regulation.  I will use China and the United States as examples; China and the U.S. are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, China is second behind the United States.  While the U.S. is a contributor through the burning of oil, China contributes through coal.  Both are terrible for the environment, but neither country will completely stray away from their current method of energy.  By now or within a few years, the world is on track for reaching “peak oil” or the maximum amount of oil extracted from the earth.  Within the next few decades, we will have exhausted all of the known oil deposits and will soon deplete up all other fossil fuel deposits.  The world will be in a fossil fuel burning frenzy and I, as well as scientists, expect greenhouse gas emission levels to soar in the last decades of fossil fuel use. 

            Even though energy companies and countries are trying to find other sources of energy, it will only be the strong, wealthy countries that will be able to survive in a “true green” world.  Even at that point, war seems inevitable for remaining resources such as stored oil reserves, water reserves and gas reserves.  I wouldn’t be surprised if “allies” turned on each other.  So even if countries are trying to work with each other to lower emissions and set regulations, they should also make it a priority to work together to find new sources of energy that will sustain everyone.    If this does not happen, worldwide war will commence and the world we know today will be in shambles.  

ALL WORK BELONGS TO VC-DO NOT TAKE WITHOUT PERMISSION