Since the first commercial plant in the 1950s, the nuclear energy sector has increased steadily. From generating 684 billion kilowatt hours worldwide in 1980, nuclear power accounted for 2,345 billion KWh in 2012 (World Bank, n.d.). While the Chernobyl accident in 1986 did not trigger any decline in the global nuclear-generated power in the following years, the Fukushima accident in 2011 did. A drop of almost 200 billion KWh from 2011 to 2012 put a hold on the previously roughly constant numbers. This decline is already visible in the 2011 data, as Japan immediately ordered a shut-down of all their 50 reactors, the last one in 2012 (Hong, Bradshaw, & Brook, May 2013). Today 31 countries operate 438 commercial nuclear power plants (IAEA - PRIS, 2015a). The following table shows the operating and under construction reactors in the world, including their current percent share in their total electricity generation.
Country Operational Reactors Reactors under construction Nuclear electricity generated in 2014 (in % of total) No. of units Net capacity (MW) No. of units Net capacity (MW)
Argentina 3 1627 1 25 4.1
Armenia 1 375 30.7
Belgium 7 5927 47.5
Brazil 2 1884 1 1245 2.9
Bulgaria 2 1926 31.8
Canada 19 13500 16.8
China 23 19007 26 25756 2.4
Czech Republic 6 3904 35.8
Finland 4 2752 1 1600 34.7
France 58 63130 1 1630 76.9
Germany 9 12074 15.8
Hungary 4 1889 53.6
India 21 5308 6 3907 3.5
Iran 1 915 1.5
Japan 48 42388 2 2650 0.0
Korea, Republic of 23 20717 5 6370 30.4
This quote, which I obtained from the newspaper The Guardian’s website, is from Sasha Yuvchenko, a former employee at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. What he didn’t know at the time of the event he was describing was that he had just experienced the worst nuclear explosion in history.
Arjun Makhijani, a prominent researcher for The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, claims that today’s emission rate of carbon dioxide is about nine gigatons annually and that the Earth only has the capability to absorb 3 gigatons annually—thus a problem arises. Furthermore, Makhijani states that about 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. With those shocking statistics in mind, fossil fuel’s emission of carbon dioxide is thought to be the leading cause of climate change—which is responsible for irreversible and catastrophic changes to the Earth. Yet, scientist had tremendous difficulty finding a safe, effective, and efficient form of energy supply that will met the great consumption rate. Many prominent scientist suggest that nuclear power is the most plausible explanation and solution to the fuel crisis. However, despite nuclear power having a exponentially lower emission rate, it presents its own hazards and threats—such as the Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incidents. These accidents have many activists and politicians cautious about the prospect of using nuclear power as a complete alternative to fossil fuels—regardless nuclear plants are responsible for 11% of the energy supplied to the world annually (World Nuclear Association.) What many of the activist and politicians seem to overlook is that fossil fuels are an indefinite energy supply and will quite possible run out within
The reading for this week was written by a Nobel Prize winner, Svetlana Alexievich. The author has compiled a variety of experiences into a paper bound book of “story-telling” literature. “Voices of Chernobyl” is a work of non-fictional literature that tells the devastating tales of a nuclear disaster. Within the pages of 67-104 their are words spoken by victims of the nuclear disaster. First off their is the story of a woman, a farmer, whose struggle is never-ending. She speaks of her farm and how the goods she once survived on had been rendered useless from the radiation. For example she mentions her cows slowly diving and their milk turning into nothing more then a white powder. The female farmer compares her experience with Chernobyl to
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) was one of the biggest NPP that was supposed to move Ukraine, the former USSR to advanced stages of development by providing energy. The headquarters was located in Moscow regulated by the USSR Ministry of Energy, or Minenergo. In April 1970, the main stakeholder and director/leader of the Chernobyl NPP was Viktor Bryukhanov, who came from Tashkent the capital of Uzbekistan. He was dismissed from his position after the Chernobyl tragedy and sentenced to ten years in prison. (Zhukova, 2016). There is s lot of confusion with many stakeholders and conflicting interests. The extraordinary nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl happened simultaneously with a genuine debate regarding the information policy that was
Early in the morning of April 27, 1986, the world experienced its largest nuclear disaster ever (Gould 40). While violating safety protocol during a test, Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl power plant was placed in a severely unstable state, and in a matter of seconds the reactor output shot up to 120 times the rated output (Flavin 8). The resulting steam explosion tossed aside the reactor’s 1,000 ton concrete covering and released radioactive particles up to one and a half miles into the sky (Gould 38). The explosion and resulting fires caused 31 immediate deaths and over a thousand injuries, including radiation poisoning (Flavin 5). After the
Chernobyl Question 3 Response I think if people wish to stay within the highly radioactive exclusion zone near the accident site then they should be allowed too. I think that how you live your life should be up to you as long as you are not harming anything as you are living, and that the owners should get to decide what they do with their property. Many of the elderly who wished to stay in their homes knew how dangerous radiation was, but as in my excerpt from Voices from Chernobyl, these elderly were the same people who faced the danger of war and were certainly not afraid of any risk.
On May 30, 2011, Germany, the 9th largest producer of nuclear energy declared that by 2022 it plans to disband all of its 17 reactors. Following the Fukushima incident of 2011, Japan, the world’s 3rd largest producer of nuclear energy, even surpassing the world power of Russia and the United Kingdom, decided to deactivate all 55 of its nuclear reactors. If I have not made myself clear with my quotes, today I am here to talk about the pseudo nuclear power disbarment, and why the world must collectively cool down before it overheats, and resume using nuclear power as a viable power source.
When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]
The day after the accident, the residents of Pripyat were told to evacuate to nearby cities. To avoid mass panic, they were not told about the severity of the explosion, and were promised that they would be back in their homes safe in a couple of days. They were told to bring nothing but necessities, as heavy luggage would hinder the attempt to evacuate. These people were also stopped from taking their pets and cattle along as their fur may have radioactive properties. The cattle may also be ineligible to be used for meat in eating, as it may have eaten radioactive food, and itself become unhealthy to eat. However,
Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.
Nuclear power provided 11 percent of the world 's electricity production in 2014. In 2016, 13 countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity.
In the modern society, energy is considered one of our most valuable resources. Humanity has managed to tap several sources of energy and utilize it for their daily activities. Almost everything in the society is dependent on energy; otherwise, humanity would cease to exist. The sources of energy vary from firewood, solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The sources vary depending on the amount of energy that can be harnessed. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject when it comes to energy matters. Theorists argue that the world’s sources of energy are being depleted at such high rates, that the future will not favor humanity. Richard Watson establishes this ethical argument in his work known as Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics: he argues that any ethics should be based on the survival of humanity (Watson 245). Therefore, an inquiry that should be made in line with energy and ethics should consider the question; is modernization worth killing humanity? Nuclear power sources provide such high energy that can power industries and sustain industrial processes for longer times. The problem with the nuclear power energy is the danger it poses to the society and humanity as a whole (Ingram 37). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia is a good example relative to the effects of nuclear power and the environment. This essay seeks to analyze and evaluate the ethical issues raised by the Chernobyl nuclear plant as source of energy
As a result, numerous countries are creating more nuclear power plants. From the 1990s, the rate of nuclear power plants constructed increased because of technological and managerial, deregulation, and safety improvements.
In 2014, it was reported that nuclear reactors “provided 2411 billion kWh, over 11% of the world 's electricity”(Plans for Reactors). During that year, the International Energy Agency held special attention toward hazardous scenarios. Minus the conspiracy, “World Energy Outlook 2014 had a special focus on nuclear power, and extends the scope of scenarios to 2040” (Plans for Reactors). In 2030, it is noted that there will be sixty percent capacity growth among nuclear reactors. Countries with existing nuclear power plant count will increasingly expand their nuclear stations. China will have an increase of 46%, while Korea, Russia and India will have 30% all together, whereas the US will have a 16% expansion of nuclear capacity. The plan in motion for 2030 is to have nuclear power plants to have low carbon pollution. “It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days”(The Nuclear Renaissance) today, there are more than 400 nuclear power plants already made and used, now in the process of expanding their count. In the 1980s, the US had 47 reactors in their base, 18 in Japan and 42 in France. Now, the generating capacity increased in various countries such as USA, Belgium, Germany and Sweden. Many countries have power plants which increase in capacity each year, “...in Switzerland, the capacity of its five reactors has been increased by 13.4%” (Plans for Reactors), a few in US increased to 20%, nine reactors in Spain have an
India, as on December 31, 2015 has total 284303 MW installed capacity of electricity. In which thermal, hydro, nuclear and renewable energy sources constitute of 69.8, 15.0, 2.0, 13.2 percentage respectively [1]. This as per World Bank estimate is accessible to 78.7% of population [2]. All the energy production technologies are associated with some advantages as well as disadvantages, which could be in terms of environment, cost, safety, efficiency. Nuclear power thus comes with its own set of positives and negatives. The accident of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant in Japan March 2011 was an alarming event in the world, which led to question of safety on every nuclear reactor in the world, and was an added factor for opposition to construct the nuclear reactor [3]. Apart from the safety issues, nuclear energy is a very clean source of energy as it has very few Green House Gases (GHG) emissions, and in this changing