Friday, March 2, 2012

To Be Nuclear, or Not to Be.

 Symbol of Nuclear Energy
    As our world grows ever more advanced and dependent on technology, the need to properly power said technology arises. There are many sources of energy, both renewable and non-renewable--fossil fuels, natural gases, solar energy, and wind energy, to name a few. But what is easily the most controversial form of energy is none other than nuclear energy. The topic of whether nuclear energy is sound our unsound is an oft-debated one, and we hope that you'll have decided on your side by the end of this entry.

    Nuclear energy originates from the sustained fission, or splitting apart, of uranium atoms. The fission process is used to generate heat for producing steam, which in turn is used by a turbine to produce electricity. And now that we've given you a quick summary of what nuclear energy is, let's move on to the pros and cons.

    Starting with the pros, nuclear power plants are generally very safe. "Huh?" you might be asking. "What about Chernobyl?". Well, that's easily forgiven--the Chernobyl disaster is so infamous that for most people it's the first thing that comes to their minds when hearing the word "nuclear". So infamous is it, that it distracts people from the fact that the disaster is one of its kind. Safety measures can and have been implemented to prevent meltdowns such as that, and there are over 440 operational nuclear power plants at this very moment, some of which have been working for decades.

Coal-fired Power Plants
    Second, nuclear power plants generate massive amounts of energy. One ton of natural uranium can produce more than 40 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, which is equivalent to burning 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil. On top of that, Uranium is very abundant and well-spread over the earth.

    Third, less pollution. Nuclear power plants emit far less pollution than coal plants. Burning coal releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air that deplete the ozone layer, and this is exacerbated by the fact that most coal plants use a more polluting, sulfurous coal since the world's fossil fuel supply is rapidly depleting.

    And finally, it's reliability. Nuclear power plants require only a little amount of fuel, so they are less likely to be affected by shortages due to strikes or natural disasters. Also, because of the previously mentioned fact that Uranium is well-deposited around the earth, international relations will have hardly any effect on the supply of fuel for the plants.

Uranium Ore
    And now for the cons. Firstly, and perhaps foremost, the risk. As we said, nuclear power plants are generally very safe. However, that does not include the possibility of disaster due to external factors, such as natural disasters. For a recent example, the Fukushima plant in Japan was ravaged by a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, causing three fuel reactors to meltdown, leaking massive amounts of radiation into the surroundings. Nuclear radiation can do terrible things to human beings--it kills the cells, resulting in cancer and possibly causing defects in the genes of irradiated people, resulting in subsequent generations to be born with deformities. You can imagine how much trouble this would cause families (assuming they aren't killed off by cancer before they can bear children).

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
    And secondly, waste management. Spent nuclear fuel is initially very highly radioactive and so must be handled with great care and forethought. After being used in the reactors there is no foolproof way of disposing nuclear waste fuel.The area around nuclear waste sites can be dangerous to humans for hundreds of years as complex nuclear elements have very lengthy half-lives. As an example, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.

    And now that we've gone through the pros and cons, you might be wondering what our own personal stance is. We support nuclear power, although not without a bit of dubiousness. Should one happen a meltdown would be utterly catastrophic, leaking radiation all around the surrounding environment. And meltdown or not, once you give a nuclear power plant the go it leaves its mark for hundreds of year to come due to the nuclear fuel waste. Yet, should nuclear power plants be placed in safe areas far from the sea or any huge earthquake fault, the benefits would be spectacular; an extremely powerful and long-term source to keep our nation alight in this age so dependent on technology.

We hope you, our dear reader, now have your own stance on the subject. And now, allow us to describe the second part of our field trip-- the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

    We were very excited to learn about what the employees at the BNPP had to say about the topic of whether or not we should go nuclear. We knew that they were obviously going to support it, but we were interested in how they'd defend and back-up their stance. Also, as citizens of this country it's our duty to be able to determine whether nuclear energy would benefit or hinder us, so we were looking forward to seeing if they could convince us. 
  
Control Room of BNPP
    We learned about the history of the BNPP from the lady in the BNPP who also toured us during the trip, whose construction began in 1962 but went to a subsequent halt upon the Aquino administration coming to power. We also learned a myriad of information related to the plant's safety measures, structure and method of producing power. Interestingly, the lecturer noted that the Fukushima plant was only 10 meters above sea level while the BNPP is 18 meters above sea leavel, as to avoid tsunamis. 


    Our favorite part of the plant was the reactor room, which we regretfully have no pictures of. It's a massive, wide open room whose walls are dotted with walkways and stairs, up to the domed roof. It was almost terrifying to witness with its sheer size, but insanely cool at the same time. That level of awe was something each of us hadn't felt in a long time, and it reminded us of just how amazing the wonders of Science can be. And on that note, we close this entry. 


Cheers to Science and the Lord's creation!

4 comments:

  1. Interesting entry! One thought I have that you didn't raise in your blog is the question of whether it is safe to allow countries to develop nuclear technology. What if the country has different politics than your own? What if the country,for example lets say North Korea, or Pakistan, has leadership or political entities who cannot be trusted and who may use the energy as weapons? If everyone is allowed to harness nuclear power, how would you make sure that it was really being used for the positive reasons you outlined above? Food for thought...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed, it is also a danger that governments could use a nuclear power program as a false pretense for building nuclear weapons. One possible solution would be to have the UN send an emissary of sorts to check on nations annually to see if their nuclear resources are being utilized in the right way.

      Delete
  2. Hello Curiosity Kids! The iBloggers are here to evaluate you're recent post.

    Content - 10/10
    Coherence - 5/5
    Creativity - 5/5
    Voice - 5/5
    Mechanics - 5/5
    Text Layout - 5/5
    Graphics & Multimedia - 5/5
    Intellectual Honesty - 3/5

    Total: 43/45

    The grammar is great and the text was so well- phrased. But, I don't think you got all the information from yourselves, right? We hope that next time, you will cite your references and give credit where credit is due. Other than that, the post is perfect. We're glad that you improved the formatting and text layout. Until next time!

    ~iBloggers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction, BNPP's construction began in 1976.

      Here are your scores:

      Content - 10/10
      Coherence - 5/5
      Creativity - 5/5
      Voice - 5/5
      Mechanics - 5/5
      Text Layout - 5/5
      Graphics & Multimedia - 5/5
      Intellectual Honesty - 3/5
      Comments - 8/10
      Peer - 43/45
      Deductions - 2 points (for late peer evaluation)

      TOTAL: 92/100

      But then again, you missed on the references of your post. It was ALMOST a perfect entry, I would say.

      Delete