As the aftermath of the largest earthquake in Japan's history and the subsequent tsunami continue to unfold, an area of great concern is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown at some of the nuclear power plants across Japan. A state of emergency has been declared for 6 reactors; 3 at the Dai ichi, 3 at the nearby Fukushima Daini plant, and 3 more at the Onagawa plant. Of greatest concern is that they will completely lose the ability to cool the reactors because the cooling systems and the backup generators were knocked out following the earthquake and tsunami. The Dai ichi reactors have been in the news quite a bit over the last few days as the operators have used sea water to try and cool the reactors and there have been hydrogen explosions.
While experts claim that it is impossible that there could be a complete meltdown similar to what happened in Chernobyl, it still remains to be seen how the Japanese government responds to the nuclear crisis. Officials have already begun to scan people in the affected areas and are encouraging people to stay indoors.
These developments made me think about the safety issues with nuclear power and if there are viable alternatives to nuclear power that are safer for the environment and for people. Nuclear power is very clean compared to coal power plants however once the fuel rods are spent, the safe storage of the fuel rods can be difficult. My little brother sent me some information about Russian disposal methods for nuclear waste (including spent fuel rods), and it was somewhat terrifying. If you Google Murmansk you will find that it has been a popular dumping ground of decommissioned Soviet-era military equipment and nuclear submarines. One picture showed a storage facility where radioactive waste was sitting there exposed to the air. How safe for the environment is that? While this is slightly off-topic, it begs the question of if we have the technology and knowledge to safely store radioactive waste essentially indefinitely. And for that matter, how dangerous is radioactive waste?
I recognize that relying on hydro, solar, and wind power is likely not going to be able to meet our energy needs, especially when you factor in how hard people fight to prevent wind farms from being built in Canada. We know that solar power is extremely expensive and far from efficient in most cases. Hydroelectric power is great because it is renewable however the construction of dams and generation stations can drastically alter the natural landscape (and for that matter, dams are far from problem-free). So we are left with nuclear power as being an alternative to dirty energy like coal. Hopefully as a result of the current issues with nuclear power in Japan, they will develop methods to reduce the potential for problems in the future as a result of a natural disaster.
The question remains if governments should invest more money and resources in nuclear energy or should they continue to explore other energy alternatives?
Well written Lisa! You cover all the bases quite thoroughly. I also know that there is some substantial radioactive pollutants within the Canadian arctic ecosystems. One of the major problems is that they dump in an unpopulated area, but over time lifeforms, from birds to fish to the plankton in the sea, are exposed and through the foodchain the waste reaches human populations.
ReplyDeleteI think that nuclear is a viable option, and a good one, if they spend a bit more money on containment. Maybe they should launch it into the sun :P
I think while continuing to search for more viable sources of energy is benificial, Nuclear will continue to be a strong contributer, the recent events in Japan are likely to raise awareness of nuclear energy (hopefully about the situation in Chernobyl). The greatest problem with this source of energy is that the general public have very little knowledge of the inner workings of a nuclear power plant. Containment, the actual environmental impact and risks, the safeguards and regulations in place... the list goes on and on.
ReplyDeleteThe sad truth is that the nuclear industry is kept mainly a secret, officials claim it is due to the nature of nuclear fuel, as refined nuclear fuel, as most of us know, can be used in nuclear weapons, and even the non or low refined fuels such as the BWR, PWR, RBMK and certainly CANDU fuel can be used in "dirty bombs" designed to realease the maximum amount of nuclear contamination as oppesed to the destructive power of a conventional warhead.
While this makes a good point, power companies should be more upfront to what is going on in such plants. Infact, the power plant of CANDU design in Pickering (close to Whitby) has already dumped over 2,000 litres of heavy water containing Tritium into lake Ontario. Tritium although only emiting beta radiation, does pose heath risks if injested. On March 14th a seal in the coolant pump failed, and 73,000 litres of demineralized water was leaked into lake Ontario. This poses virtually no health risks, but it serves to proove the point that the majority of these "mishaps" are kept a secret. In every large scale nuclear disaster misinformation fed to the general public, coupled with lack of knowledge and they hype from the media exaggerate and distort the image of nuclear power. It is a fact that the whole nuclear energy process (ressource gathering, construction, operation, maintenance) has contributed to a lower loss of life per watt of power generated than any other form of power generation (not sure on solar though).
Yeah that seems to be the problem. Murmansk is a perfect example of this, when they leave the nuclear submarines and ice breakers to rot in the water, the contaminants get into the water and can travel almost anywhere, especially in the Arctic seeing as they are above the Arctic Circle. It's pretty interesting, the link I provided has tons of images - it's kind of spooky seeing all that abandoned military equipment.
ReplyDeleteIs that true that that stuff is happening in Pickering? I also think you made a good point that I overlooked about how much of what happens in nuclear power is never actually made public... that is for sure an area that needs improvement. I think it is just an excuse that people won't be able to understand. The public should be educated and being educated about these sorts of things forces companies to be held accountable for their actions.
ReplyDelete