Development Of Nuclear Energy For Commercial Use

Name: Institution: Course: Instructor: Date: Development of Nuclear Energy for Commercial Use In the recent past, some prominent environmental advocates have become advocates for nuclear power. People and organizations who once opposed nuclear power initiatives seem to have gradually changed their minds over time. Similar observations can be witnessed with the increasing number of countries that have implemented or are in the process of initiating nuclear power programs in the past few years. Most of the significant parties in nuclear energy have softened their attitudes and are now debating on whether nuclear energy should be developed for commercial purposes. But this comes alongside a tension in the environmental movement on whether nuclear energy could offer long-term solutions for climate change as a low-carbon energy source. A section of the debate focuses on the economic aspects of nuclear power with concerns about whether it will be brought into use at the expense of other sources of energy in the energy sector. The debate also questions whether energy infrastructure should be subsidized at all and whether construction of new nuclear plants is worth the effort. Historically, nuclear power has been a suspicious issue with allegation of high risks of health hazards and other life-threatening issues. Therefore, there are those who support the development of nuclear energy for commercial use today and those who feel that it is not a good time to develop nuclear energy for commercial use. The nuclear energy industry and governments have come out clear and open about nuclear installation policies. For example, Parsons (85) presents a case about the history of developing the United States nuclear energy policy and how the policy facilitated the development of nuclear energy in the U.S. and in other nations across the globe. According to the case history, countries use such industrial policies to protect and support their important industries as a way of enhancing their international competitiveness. In the United States, the use of nuclear power for commercial purposes began as early as in the 1950s after the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) through the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Among the six experimental reactors sponsored by the AEC is the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR) which generated its first electrical power on December 20, 1951(Parsons 86). At the same time, the AEC announced its aspiration on constructing its first large-scale reactor for electricity generating purpose, a move that revolutionized the industry. As a result, several other developed countries including USSR and Great Britain began their first attempts at developing nuclear energy. The achievements of AEC in nuclear power helped the U.S. in the aspects of national security and foreign policy in the development of nuclear energy programs in other countries and helped the electric utility industry meet an increasing electrical demand in the country. However, the nuclear energy policy led to the growth of a national environmental movement that reversed the achievement of the policy(Parsons 88). Such environmental movements raised various concerns about the negative consequences of commercializing nuclear power and resulted in the imposition of stricter policies and regulation, but public support for commercial nuclear power plants continued to decline. The U.S. nuclear power policy proves that the development of nuclear energy for commercial purposes needs the support of industrial policies and technological development. Besides that, a survey carried out by Xiao, Huijun, and Marcus (14) show that trust has a positive impact on the public's perception of the value of nuclear technology and nuclear energy construction. In spite of that relationship, public awareness and trust in nuclear energy are shallow. Economic factors are the key driving forces behind the push for commercialization of nuclear energy. Its conceptualization and implementation require a lot of capital, and thus investors consider public's distrust and questioning of nuclear energy. This explains the slow development of nuclear energy for commercial use as witnessed in the past. Therefore, the absence of appropriate industrial policies, universal technological developments, and public trust are key indicators that it is not a good time to develop nuclear energy for commercial use now. The gap between environmental and economic benefits of nuclear energy for commercial purposes is still wide. Several studies indicate that current economic, environmental, and sociocultural factors are not favorable for the effective development of nuclear energy for commercial purposes. According to Diesendorf (9), nuclear energy does not offer a precise and long-term solution to global warming. Instead, commercialization of nuclear energy will increase carbon dioxide emission from the mining and processing of uranium. Eventually, several decades of using nuclear energy will produce carbon dioxide almost equivalent to that of carbon-based energy sources. Thus, Diesendorf suggests that current nuclear energy technologies cannot offer lasting solutions to the issue of global warming because they are still associated with the emission of greenhouse gases (Diesendorf 10). A similar issue is addressed by Cameron, who asserts that it would be a challenge for the industry to facilitate a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle in the long term (Cameron 37). Other than its sustainability, other challenges that might arise in the nuclear sector, including implementation of permanent solutions for disposal and management of radioactive waste as well as regulation of non-peaceful nuclear technologies and materials. Existing nuclear reactor generations are not effective enough for improved sustainability and cannot fully guarantee safety and reliability as sources of nuclear energy. Their physical protection and proliferation resistance is relatively low, thus questioning their ability to offer a long-term commercial supply of nuclear power (Cameron 38). Sustainable nuclear energy production should both ensure economic benefit and environmental protection. Currently, there exists no perfect nuclear energy technology. Any attempt at making economic contributions through nuclear energy will involve sacrificing the environment in various ways. With current commercialized technologies, nuclear energy production solely depends on the mining of uranium ore. The mining and processing of uranium leave substantial damage to the nearby ecosystems and waterways (Cameron 37). Due to the exothermic nature of nuclear reactions, nuclear power plants are located near mass water bodies including lakes, rivers, and oceans for easier cooling of the equipment and absorption of excess heat waste. The warm water may have adverse effects on the aquatic life once released back into the local system. Regardless of their small probability, safety concerns in nuclear energy production remain as potential sources of danger. Previous accidents in nuclear power plants of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island are examples of how disastrous nuclear power production can be without appropriate safety measures (Kuo 35). These disasters left a public fear that must be overcome to facilitate social sustainability and local public support of the commercialization of nuclear energy. The potential risks associated with nuclear energy present high-risk related costs for both current and future generations. Despite the infrastructural and technical measures devised to prevent or minimize the risks associated with nuclear energy, large-scale risk incidences, especially those associated with natural disasters as was with the case of earthquakes and tsunamis in the Fukushima power plant meltdown, cannot be eliminated. Nuclear disasters may result from accidents, negligence, poor design, natural disasters, terrorism, and the threat multiplication possible with nuclear energy in operation during international wartime and domestic conflicts. The presence of nuclear power acts as an infrastructure where nuclear materials and expertise in nuclear weapon fabrication may proliferate. Therefore, development of nuclear energy for commercial purposes presents serious proliferation risks that can be used in terrorist attacks and other forms of civil unrests in various parts of the world. The push for developing nuclear energy for commercial uses requires developing countries also to put up mechanisms and infrastructure to facilitate nuclear energy production. Although different countries have different demand for nuclear energy, it makes no sense for a typical developing country with a dispersed population and small-scale local power needs to struggle in developing nuclear power plants. With an economic perspective, nuclear energy is an expensive exploration of its research and development initiatives, acquisition and erection of nuclear infrastructure, and even its operation and maintenance in the long-term. Developing countries, who do not even need nuclear energy, will be expected to spend a lot of taxpayers’ money while trying to copy industrialized nations in implementing nuclear...