Chernobyl Nuclear Accident (1986)
The New York Times, March 24, 2011
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/chernobyl_nuclear_accident_1986/index.html
Picture
Picture Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_2011.jpg
Summary
On April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am, reactor
No. 4 of the Chernobyl power plant exploded. The explosion was
caused by workers who shut off equipment necessary to keeping the
reactor stable during some tests. These workers also ignored warnings
that the reactor was out of control. There is now a “forbidden
zone” that is 36 miles in diameter around where the reactor used to
be. Only those who work at the other reactors are allowed inside this
territory. After the explosion, the workers at the Chernobyl plant
needed a way to prevent the uranium from the plant from getting into
the earth. Miners dug under the remnants of the plant and improvised
a core-catcher by building a platform of steel and concrete with a
water pipe under it as a cooling unit. However, the molten uranium,
after having melted through several floors, was unable to melt
through the foundation, and is so core catcher was unnecessary. The
radioactivity at this site is unapproachable. Nuclear power plants
are taking extra precautions to ensure the stability of the plants.
Reflection
While
nuclear power plants provide great amounts of energy, the Chernobyl
indecent goes to show the great dangers of nuclear power plants. It
is unbelievable to think that what remains of the plant cannot even
be approached due to its radioactivity. Imagine the effect of a
nuclear power plant meltdown on the environment. According to the
article, any fruit that had grown within the previously mentioned
“forbidden zone” is off limits. Who knows what would happen if
one were to eat this fruit.
Questions
1) Do
we really need to resort to nuclear power plant for energy? Do we
really consume that much that the forms of energy production we
already have are not enough?
2)
Considering the great risks, should we continue the production of
energy through nuclear power plants? Defend your position.
3)
Are there any alternative forms of energy production that could be
equal to the production of energy using nuclear power plants? Take
into consideration power produced, land space required, the cost to
build and maintain, and the risk if an error were to occur.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/04/pictures/110426-chernobyl-25th-anniversary-wildlife/#/chernobyl-wildlife-chickens-cat_34167_600x450.jpg
ReplyDeleteThis is a link to an article dealing with wildlife, and their return to the the area around Chernobyl. It talks about various animals that inhabit the land, and the effects that the radiation have on them. As it turns out, mice seem to be immune to the radiation, showing no signs of any abnormality. Horses and other grazing animals seem to show higher than average levels or radiation, and some genetic differences. Other animals, like fish, actually benefited from the radiation.
1.) Do we really need to resort to nuclear power plant for energy? Do we really consume that much that the forms of energy production we already have are not enough?
ReplyDeleteI don' particularly know a ton about anything having to do with nuclear power plants, so I did a little research online and found out what they are. What I found is that nuclear power plants turn nuclear energy into steam which then is used to create energy. So, knowing this, I would have to say yes, we do need nuclear power plants to have energy. I can't imagine any other way, despite water energy, to create electricity. I would imagine there is some major fault with water to create energy if we haven't started using that yet. Also, I think there should be some sort of cap on how much energy each household can use. Is it really right that we're using so much energy in just one country? Think of a television: When it's off, there is a red light glowing to indicate it is, in fact, off. When the TV is on, there is a green light. Yes, I know, this seems like the least of our worries. But think about this little light in big picture terms. Why does every American need to have a light indicating when their TV is on or off? Are we so tech-dependent that we can't just look up and see that it's on or off? This little light on 24/7, when applied to every television in America, uses so much unnecessary electricity. So yes, all in all, I do think that we as Americans use so much energy that we do not have enough. But I also think that we're lying to ourselves if we think we're past change.
2) Considering the great risks, should we continue the production of energy through nuclear power plants? Defend your position.
I also had to do some research for this question and found out that nuclear energy is so powerful that when humans come into contact with it, it can enter their body and create cancer cells. Though I don't know much, I'm assuming that this fact alone puts most people who work at these plants in harm's way. On the other hand, as explained in the above question, right now it seems that nuclear energy is our only opportunity for electricity. If hydroelectricity or something else safe could come into play, I would definitely say to drop nuclear power plants and move on. But at the same time, if there are no alternatives, perhaps America should consider dialing back our dependence on tiny red and green lights.
3) Are there any alternative forms of energy production that could be equal to the production of energy using nuclear power plants? Take into consideration power produced, land space required, the cost to build and maintain, and the risk if an error were to occur.
I mentioned it twice above, but I'll say it again: in my perspective, hydroelectricity seems like our best chance at the moment. It'd be safer, but there would be downfalls. First of all, could it create as much electricity? Before debating this, it'd be wise for a scientist to run an experiment and create an educated guess. Also, could we possible have enough water (and water falling at a high speed) to even try to convert it into major energy? Until there is more research, no one will really know.
The professional I invited to come and comment on our blog was Dr. Alexander Sich. I chose him because he is the Associate Professor of Physics at Franciscan University of Steubenville. I also thought he would be a good choice because of the fact that he is the Project Manager for Operations Support and Safety in the Project Management Unit for the Chernobyl Shelter Implementation Plan. I also thought he would be a great choice to comment on the blog because he has is Ph. D in nuclear engineering.
ReplyDeleteHere is a copy of the email i sent to him:
Hello, my name is Ian O'Shea and I am in a student blog group called the "Grass Heads". Me and my classmates are in an environmental science class and our blog is about things that pertain to our class subject. An article was recently posted on our blog that explains what happened in the accident in Chernobyl and how it has affected the environment. We would be honored if you would join our blog and comment on the article because of your thorough research on the subject. We would like to learn more information on the topic from a professional. The link is here: http://grass-heads.blogspot.com
Sincerely,
The Grass Heads Student Blog Group
To learn more about him go to: http://www.franciscan.edu/faculty/SichA/
I think that although nuclear power does produce great amounts of energy while contributing less to greenhouse gas emissions, the dangers and drawbacks of using it as an energy source are too many to make long term use viable. Mining, refining, and transporting uranium contribute to emissions. Large amounts of water are needed to create the steam that powers the turbines. This water is sometimes taken from lakes and rivers, which has a detrimental effect on the organisms living in, near, or using the water. In addition, pollutants build up in the water, and this also has a negative effect on the environment when it is discharged, and also impacts the water we use every day. This article shows that it is important for safety measures to be taken, and that human error can cause catastrophes when dealing with potentially dangerous equipment.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
1. What other measures could be taken to make nuclear energy safer and/or more efficient?
2. If nuclear fusion became a plausible way to produce energy, would it be a good idea? Why or why not?
3. What are other ways nuclear power plants can fail and cause harm to people and other organisms?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete