termpaper(aeng).docx
DESCRIPTION
bataan powerplantTRANSCRIPT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF COURSE REQUIREMENT
IN ENVIRONMENTALENGINEERING
THE BATAAN NUCLEAR POWERPLANTTopic
Calub, Maria Karla C.BS Architecture
September 2013
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE
The main objective of the paper is to explain how power plant works and to present the
Bataan nuclear power plant and why it ceased operating.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Boron – a non-metallic element occurring naturally only in combination as in borax or boric
acid, and obtained in either an amorphous or acrystalline form when reduced from its
compound.
Department of Energy (DOE) – is the executive department of the Philippine
Governmentresponsible for preparing, integrating, coordinating, supervising and controlling all
plans, programs, projects and activities of the Government relative to energy exploration,
development, utilization, distribution and conservation.
Emission-free – it means the body is free from electromagnetic radiation discharged into the air.
Fuel pellets – Small slugs of frozen deuterium and tritium fuel in the 3-6 mm diameter range
fired frequently (up to 20 pellets per second) into the plasma to maintain sufficient fuel density in
the plasma core. Pellet injection is also efficient in controlling Edge Localized Modes, or ELMs.
Special technology is being developed to allow these pellets to fly along curved trajectories,
thereby attaining specific zones within the plasmas where ELMs are particularly disruptive.
House Bill (HB) 4631 - Substitute Bill to House Bills 1039 & 4631 & House Resolutions 250 &
257. “Mandating the immediate rehabilitation, commissioning and commercial operation of the
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, and appropriating funds therefore”.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – is an international organization that seeks to
promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose,
including nuclear weapons.
Millirem – One thousandth (10-3) of a rem. The rem is defined since 1976 as equal to
0.01 sievert, which is the more commonly used SI unit outside of the United States.
Mothball – it is a term referred to stop or terminate the operation of the power plant.
Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) – the network who opposes the building of Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant
Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI) – is a government body in the Philippines,
charged with overseeing the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Its main facility was a
nuclear research reactor,
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) – it is the former PNRI
Pressurized Water Reactor – a nuclear reactor that uses water as a coolant and moderator; the
steam produced can drive a steam turbine.
Uranium - a white, lustrous, radioactive, metallic element, occurring in pitchblende, and having
compounds that are used in photography and in coloring glass. The 235 isotope is used in atomic
and hydrogen bombs and as a fuel in nuclear reactors.
Westinghouse – it is an international company that specializes in building power plants.
WHAT IS NUCLEAR ENERGY?
Nuclear energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process called fission. At the
power plant, the fission process is used to generate heat for producing steam, which is used by a
turbine to generate electricity. Fission is the splitting of atoms into smaller pieces, caused by
neutrons hitting each other. Smaller pieces strike other atoms, releasing energy. When this
process continues, it is called chain reaction
How Nuclear Power Plant Works
Electricity, which plays such an important role on our lives, is generated in a power plant.
This interaction (refer to figure 1.1) depicts a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) nuclear power
plant. The function of any power plant is to convert some material or source energy into
electricity.
A nuclear power plant uses steam to generate electricity the same as a fossil fuel power
plant. The major difference between a fossil fuel power plant and a nuclear power plant is the
method used to heat the water and produces steam. In a nuclear power plant, uranium takes the
place of coal, oil or gas to be the fuel used to heat water and produce steam.
A nuclear reaction occurs when uranium atoms split into smaller particles in a chain
reaction that produces large amounts of heat. This heat-producing fission process is controlled in
a reactor. The core of the reactor contains the uranium fuel. A (PWR) uses pressurized water to
cool the reactor and transfer heat. The heated water transfers its heat energy to a secondary
system where steam is produced. The most important part of a nuclear power plant is the reactor.
It contains the core, control rods and coolant.
The fission process takes place within the fuel assemblies in the reactor core and is
controlled by the control rods. Control rods, located inside the fuel assembly, are made of a
material which absorbs neutrons. In addition to control rods, operators use boron dissolved in the
coolant to absorb neutrons to control the fission process. The reactor core is inside a steel-lined,
reinforced concrete containment. The walls are several feet thick.
The nuclear energy released by the fission heats the water or coolant that flows through
and around the fuel assemblies. In a nuclear power plant the coolant prevents the core of the
reactor from becoming too hot and also carries heat away from the reactor to the steam
generator.
In a PWR, the system of piping that contains the coolant is called the primary side. The
separate system of piping where steam is produced to spin the turbine is called the secondary
side. The primary side water and the secondary side water do not mix. Instead, the heat primary
side water flows through the tubes of the steam generator, which are surrounded by the cooler
secondary side water. The steam generator, then, is the link between the primary and the
secondary side.
In a nuclear power plant, a vessel known as a pressurizer keeps the primary side at high
pressure to prevent boiling, yet allowing water temperatures to reach 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
Heat from the primary side water is transferred to the secondary side through the steam
generator. Since the secondary water side water boils and becomes steam, which turns the
turbine. Meanwhile, the water from the primary side of the steam generator returns to the reactor
vessel to continue the cycle. A reactor coolant pump keeps the primary water circulating in the
closed primary side.
Figure 1.1
Because the fission process is radioactive, several barriers are built to protect against the
release of radioactivity(figure 1.2):
o The uranium is formed into ceramic pellets which seals in the radioactive
material.
o The fuel pellets are packed into zirconium rods which act as a barrier against the
release of fission products.
o The core, where the fission process occurs, is located in a shielded, 400-ton steel
reactor vessel approximately eight inches thick.
o The reactor is housed in the containment, which is an airtight building typically
made of steel-reinforced concrete approximately three feet thick.
o The primary side piping and components form a sealed pressure boundary that
prevent the release of radioactive materials.
Figure 1.2
Besides these physical barriers, nuclear plants have a number of independent backup
systems designed to operate in the event is disrupted. In addition, the reactor, all the safety
devices, and the plant itself are constantly monitored and controlled from a control room. Highly
trained technicians, government-licensed operators and nuclear engineers keep watch over
computers, dials gauges and controls at all times.
Our world must have an abundant and available source of electricity we need today and
tomorrow in a safe, environmentally friendly matter.
According to the DOE, nuclear power can contribute to energy security by stably
supplying fuels regardless of the global energy landscape. Uranium has the longest period of
reserve-production ratio which is 230 years and is well-spread around the world unlike oil(40
years), LNG(65 years), and coal(155 years). If there were no nuclear power, the world’s total
CO2 emission would increase by 10%. The high energy density of uranium guarantees a stable
supply of electricity. One load of fuel can generate power for more than 18 months.
Environmental Safety
Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment, especially in relation
to kilowatts produced, because nuclear plants do not emit harmful gases and require a relatively
small area for production. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species
and air resources.
Emissions-Free Energy
Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source because it does not burn anything to
produce electricity. Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulphur
dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere. It also does not produce carbon dioxide or other
greenhouse gases that may cause global warming.
Wildlife Conservation
Nuclear energy promotes wildlife conservation because the areas around nuclear power
plants and their cooling ponds are so clean, they are often developed as wetlands that provide
nesting areas for waterfowl and other birds, new habitats for fish and the preservation of other
wildlife.
Land and Habitat Preservation
Nuclear power plants produce a large amount of electricity in a relatively small space and
they require significantly less land for their sites and operations than other energy sources, such
as wind.
What is Radiation?
Radiation is a natural part of environment in which human kind and other species have
evolved and thrived. In fact, the sun, the earth and all things emit radiation. Radiation comes
from unstable atoms. As these unstable atoms change to become more stable, they give off
radiation in the form of invisible energy waves. There is no difference between natural and man-
made radiation. Radiation from the earth’s crust ranges from 23 millirem o the Colorado plateau.
Radiation inside the body is about 40 millirem from food and water and 200 millirem
from air in the form of radon. Radiation from outer space ranges from 26 millirem at sea level to
53 millirem at 7,000 to 8,000 feet.
About 82% of our total exposure to radiation comes from natural sources: radon gas; the
human body itself, which contains radioactive elements; outer space; and rocks and soil. A
person living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant will receive 0.009 millirem of radiation.
To put this in perspective, you would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years
to get the same amount of radiation exposure you get from a single diagnostic medical x-ray.
BATAAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Bataan nuclear power plant is the only power plant in the Philippines. It is located at
Napot point, a small peninsula in the west coast of Morong, Bataan in Luzon. The site of the
power plant is 356 hectare land and it is about two and a half hour-drive from Manila.
The nuclear program in the Philippines started in 1958 with the creation of the Philippine
Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under Republic Act 2067. In July 1973, under a regime of
martial rule, the Marcos government announced its decision to build a nuclear power plant, to be
constructed by Westinghouse. Westinghouse clinched the contract through Herminio Disini, a
Marcos crony acting as a "special sales representative". Westinghouse bribed Disini and Marcos
with at least US$17 million to secure the contract
The Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) was established in January 1981 in
response to the need for a campaign center for the opposition to the BNPP. It evolved into a
campaign-oriented coalition of national and sectoral organizations nationwide united in the
vision of a nuclear-free Philippines. Its immediate main task was to stop the construction and the
operation of the BNPP.
The NFPC embarked on a nationwide organizing, lobbying, protest actions, and media as
well as international solidarity work to generate international support for the anti-nuclear
campaign. The formation of an energetic province-wide movement- the Nuclear Free Bataan
Movement,was crucial in developing the issue into a national concern. The opposition to the
BNPP became a major national issue against the dictatorial and fascist regime of Marcos.
The Philippine government's decision to "mothball" the BNPP was a victory for the
people of Bataan and for the coalition that paved the way for still another coalition to take on the
struggle for the removal of US military bases in the Philippines. The coalition shifted its
campaign against nuclear weapons, focusing on the US military bases and troops, and nuclear
weapons.
When President Aquino convened the Constitutional Convention, the coalition lobbied
for a freedom-from-nuclear-weapons provision in the new Constitution overwhelmingly ratified
by the Filipino people. One central content of the coalition's work at that time was the
declaration of many provinces, cities, towns and schools as nuclear-free zones. The Philippine
Constitution provided the Philippine Senate with enough legal basis to reject the Republic of
Philippines (RP)-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, paving the way for a Philippines that
was not only nuclear-free but bases-free. In November 1992, the final withdrawal of US troops
and closure of military facilities ended almost a century of US domination and occupation of the
Philippines.
In 1987, former President Corazon Aquino transformed the Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission into the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), through Executive Order
128. It mandated the PNRI to "promote and regulate peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including
its application in power generation, agriculture, medicine, and others".
In 1988, the Philippine government filed two cases against Westinghouse Corporation:
first, a criminal case in the US Federal District Court in Newark, New Jersey, for bribery, and
second, a civil case in the International Chamber of Commerce in Switzerland, to declare the
contract with Westinghouse null and void due to bribery.
On March 5, 1992, the Aquino government agreed to negotiate a US$100 million out-of-
court settlement lopsidedly in favor of Westinghouse. Its terms, among others: Westinghouse to
give the Philippines US$10 million; plus US$75 million credits on upgrade costs; plus US$15
million discounts on non-BNPP sales; RP to borrow US$400 million from Eximbank for
Westinghouse to upgrade the plant; RP to pay Westinghouse US$40 million annually, plus 2.9
cents per KWH, for 30 years; RP responsible for decommissioning, waste disposal, security,
infrastructure, emergencies, power supply outages, permits, licenses, etc.
Among the objectionable features of the settlement was that: The case against
Westinghouse would be dropped; The escalation clauses would negate whatever payments
Westinghouse would make to the Philippines; Westinghouse would not be liable for cost of
decommissioning nuclear waste disposal, etc.; and The estimated earnings for the National
Power Corporation were either false or questionable.
REASONS WHY THE BATAAN NUCLEAR POWERPLANT CLOSED
The BNPP's tainted history is already a hard lesson on how the pursuit of nuclear power
has been a gargantuan and unjust burden on Filipinos. Even now, with moves for its revival
heralding what appears to be an aggressive plan for a national nuclear program, nuclear power
may become the altar upon which this country will bankrupt itself.
The faulty economics of nuclear power
Direct costs concerning nuclear power can be summed up as the following: 1)
construction costs, 2) operations and maintenance costs (including uranium fuel costs), 3) waste
storage costs and 4) decommissioning costs. A detailed examination of these costs reveal that at
all stages of a nuclear power plant's lifetime and beyond (i.e. from its proposal to waste storage),
nuclear power is a losing proposition for the Filipino people.
Historical and more current experiences of countries with existing nuclear programs
show that nuclear power construction have gone consistently over-budget, two to three times
higher than what the nuclear industry estimates. In India, the country with the most recent
experience of nuclear reactor construction, completion costs for the last ten reactors have, on
average, been 300% over budget. An assessment of 75 of the reactors in the United States shows
estimated costs to have been USD45 billion, but actual costs to have reached USD145 billion. In
Finland, the construction of a new reactor is already EUR1.5 billion over budget. HB 4631 pegs
the cost of BNPP's rehabilitation at USD1 billion, already the cost of a new power plant. Given
past experience on nuclear plant overruns and delays, the BNPP's age and documented defects,
this cost, an estimate not actually provided by experts in the first place, may well be exceeded.
Until recently, most nuclear power facilities worldwide depended heavily on state
subsidies and massive loans. The BNPP's commissioning will be no different. Under HB 4631,
the cost of the rehabilitation will come from state budget, with provisions to raise money via
surcharges to consumers, and/or international or domestic loans.
For operational costs, the procurement of uranium fuel is also not cost-effective for
Filipinos. Uranium for the BNPP will have to be imported, increasing the country's dependence
on foreign fuel. Uranium is further subject to large price hikes since the resource is only
available to a few countries. More importantly, while HB 4631 sets the operational life of the
rehabilitated BNPP as 40 years, studies show that under current global nuclear capacity, known
uranium resources will last only 34 years.
Section 10 of HB 4631 outlines the allocations for "disposal" of spent fuel and
decommissioning costs. It mandates a sinking fund USD0.1 to 0.2 (PHP4.6 to 9.3) per kilowatt
hour produced, plus an additional USD0.1 to 0.2 (PHP4.6 to 9.3) per kilowatt hour for costs of
radioactive waste disposal and spent fuel disposal.
No study has yet been made on the estimated decommissioning costs for the BNPP once
it is operational, but a 2004 report by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approximates the
cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors to be about USD300-450 million. The whole process
can take up to several years to decades. The cost is also not incurred until many years after the
plant is shut down, meaning that nuclear plants are not decommissioned until several years after
the plant is closed. And if the plant is required to be shut down prior to the completion of its
estimated life, decommissioning funds are still needed but will not be available, in which case
taxpayers directly shoulder part of the cost.
Any amount the power plant sets aside for waste storage (incorrectly called "disposal" in
the Bill) will not be enough to cover the actual costs. In fact, waste storage expenses are
impossible to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing nuclear waste which remains
radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and will outlive and outlast any facility
constructed. Putting this into perspective, humankind has been on Earth for the last 200,000
years, yet it takes 240,000 years for nuclear waste to be considered safe. This kind of timeframe
defies any sort of economic planning which Section 10 of HB 4631 leaves for Congress or 'an
IAEA organized re-processor' to work out.
An enormous hidden cost
Still, beyond all the costs outlined above, there is a hidden cost not planned for but
which, once necessary, would constitute the biggest expense of all: nuclear accidents. If plants
should malfunction, the costs will reach unimaginable amounts. These are costs for evacuation,
relocation of communities, and health costs, aside from the repair of the plant and the
rehabilitation of surroundings. From previous experience of nuclear disasters, these costs amount
to hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of decades. The total cost of the Chernobyl
accident, for example, is estimated at EUR358 billion or PHP21.6 trillion which is more than 17
times the Philippines' national budget for 2008.
Not only is nuclear power therefore the most dangerous source of electricity, it is by far
the most expensive option for power generation. Pursuing HB 4631 is akin to gambling with our
country's economic future.
Investment Risk
The global nuclear industry promises that the investment cost for new reactors is around
USD2,000 per installed kW. However, credit rating agencies like Moody's puts estimates
between USD5,000 to 6,000/kW as of October 2007. Since then, the price tag has increased to
USD7500/kW. While there are a significant number of nuclear exports, international financial
institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have not funded nuclear
power development to any great extent.
Not an answer to climate change or energy security
HB 4631 puts forth nuclear power as a "proactive" solution to climate change and energy
security. But clearly, its economic disadvantages heavily outweigh whatever perceived benefits it
can offer. Greenpeace further contends that the said benefits of nuclear power are misleading.
Studies show that entire nuclear power plant life cycle contributes significantly to climate
change. Nuclear power will also not reduce our dependence on foreign fuel: 58% of global
uranium supplies come from only three countries, can only be processed and enriched by six
countries, and is currently only reprocessed in one country.
PROS AND CONS OF A NUCLEAR POWERPLANT
The idea of an atom began with the Greek philosopher Democritus, who proclaimed all
matter consisted of tiny particles. He called them ''atomos,'' the Greek word for ''indivisible.'' He
couldn't prove they existed but centuries later other scientists did. That discovery heralded the
nuclear power movement, which has been sparking controversy and debate ever since.
Proponents maintain that nuclear power is an economical, safe and clean form of energy.
Critics cite industry disasters, problems of nuclear waste and links to chronic and sometimes
fatal diseases. Massive anti-nuclear protests occurred throughout the '70s and '80s and have
continued on a smaller scale into the 21st century. It is impossible for an issue of this magnitude
to be cut and dried. Persuasive arguments can be made in favor of or against nuclear power.
Here's s a list of pros and cons that might help you navigate the debate.
Environmental Impact
There is no energy source that is 100 percent clean, but let's examine what nuclear power
has going for it. Unlike fossil fuel plants, which spew tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
each year, nuclear power plants don't produce smoke. Electricity is created by splitting atoms in
a series of nuclear reactions, otherwise known as nuclear fission. The iconic images of white
plumes rising from cooling towers show nothing more than steam. Nuclear power is considered
carbon-free and produces more electricity than other renewables like solar and wind.
Nuclear power is less clean before and after generating electricity. Nuclear power
requires uranium, which must be mined and transported to power plants. The vast majority of the
uranium used in the United States is imported. Then there is the significant issue of radioactive
waste, which isn't biodegradable and is extremely dangerous. Most plants store nuclear waste in
steel-lined concrete basins filled with water, where it remains radioactive for thousands of years.
Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been proposed as a disposal site for 77,000 tons (70,000 metric
tons) of nuclear waste. It's estimated that the waste will remain radioactive 10,000 years.
Support
The support for nuclear power ebbs and flows. There are 438 nuclear power plants
operating in 2010. Another 61 plants are under construction. Many governments, including
France and the United States, have embraced it, investing billions of dollars in the industry. In
2010 the U.S. Approved $55 billion in taxpayer-backed loans. While its use as a clean energy
source is on the rise, the reality is that actual growth has been somewhat sluggish. In the United
States, the last order for a new plant was placed in the 1970's. This is attributed to public
concerns over health, environmental worries and fears about the security of nuclear facilities.
The world's first nuclear power plant, Russia's Obninsk AP-1, came on line in 1954.
Cost-effectiveness
The pro and con arguments over the cost and the economics of nuclear power are difficult
to untangle. Ask 20 different experts and you will get 20 different answers.
Proponents of nuclear power often measure its economic prowess in kilowatts. Nuclear
power plants produce more kilowatts than coal, wind or solar for fewer cents. As more plants are
built, it's expected that construction costs will come down, making the price of nuclear-generated
electricity that much more attractive. With construction comes jobs, something few could make a
case against in the current economic climate.
Critics argue that the cost benefits aren't so clear-cut. While the electricity seems cheaper
up front, the exorbitant costs of building and maintaining plants must be added into the equation:
something industry experts rarely do. Long-term storage of nuclear waste is expensive and
dangerous. Next, add the expense of finding and retaining skilled labor. When it's all said and
done, the claim that nuclear power is more cost effective than alternatives like wind, solar or
even coal becomes a little more cloudy. In 2009 China became the dominant player in the clean
energy movement. With a focus on wind farms, the country is currently the world's largest
market for clean energy projects.
Economics in Developing Nations
Millions of people in poorer countries have limited access to reliable sources of
electricity. Up steps nuclear power to center stage. For starters, developing countries with
nuclear power plants wouldn't have to rely on expensive fossil fuels that emit large volumes of
carbon dioxide. Second, global interest in investing in nuclear power is high, providing the
potential to pump money into emerging economies and create jobs. Proponents also maintain that
many safety issues are solved using newer reactor technologies, reducing the likelihood of
accidents.
The economics arguments only go so far with critics. Many believe the push for nuclear
power in developing nations has to do with money, not altruistic intentions. Blanket assumptions
that expanding programs would boost economies and solve energy poverty doesn't account for
each country's specific needs; issues like power grids, skilled labor and strong government
policies differ among governments. Exorbitant construction costs may exceed a country's credit
limit, pushing it deeper into debt. Developing nations will have to enforce strict safety standards
and grapple with waste management. Concerns that radical governments might develop nuclear
weapons runs deep. India hopes to produce 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear power by
2050.
Proliferation
The idea that a weapon could be made from stolen nuclear materials is ingrained into
public consciousness. In theory, plants that enrich uranium for power could also be used to
enrich it for bombs. Those that reprocess spent fuel (separating plutonium from uranium) could
make stealing plutonium easier.
The hiccup in this theory is feasibility. A ''dirty bomb'' can be built with a relatively small
amount of radioactive material but it would be incredibly difficult to obtain it from a nuclear
power plant. A tremendous amount of money would be needed for training, bribes at borders and
transportation. Detection is another issue. Lead shielding in a truck is required for uranium to
slip through security detectors. Plutonium is much easier to detect even with a leaded lining. In
addition, heightened security awareness has tightened access to power plants.
The feasibility argument doesn't sway everyone. The expansion of nuclear power means
that more plants would be reprocessing. This would increase the amount of available plutonium.
Commercial plants have large stores of radioactive waste and keeping track of it is difficult. This
contributes to the threat of theft or sabotage. Critics point to inadequate security regulations
against terrorist attacks by aircraft, boats or truck. The 1978 Nuclear Non-proliferation Act was
written to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons development.
Reprocessing
Some scientists and industry experts look towards Integral Fast Reactors (IFR) as the
solution to the problem of nuclear waste. In these plants, uranium and plutonium are separated or
reprocessed, and the spent fuel is then used to power the reactor. Reprocessing doesn't eliminate
nuclear waste but it does reduce both its volume and toxicity. In theory the waste has a much
shorter half-life -- hundreds rather than thousands of years. Safety measures include a ''passive
system'' that doesn't require a human operator to shut down operations in the case of malfunction
Skeptics of reprocessing maintain that IFRs and similar technologies are ''old nuclear
wine in a new bottle.'' The time spent and extraordinary cost of building these types of plants will
negate the benefits of any energy production, and nuclear waste is still nuclear waste, no matter
how you slice it. The fact is plants are running out of storage room. The federal government is
required by law to accept used reactor fuel, and the 2,000 tons of spent fuel produced each year
put enormous stains on storage capabilities. In 2009 the Kewaunee nuclear power plant resorted
to storing waste on its grounds close to Lake Michigan.
Safety
Consumer confidence is key when marketing nuclear power as safe. The 1979 partial
meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 gave critics
explicit examples of the instability of nuclear power plants.
Proponents of nuclear power are steadfast in the belief that modern nuclear power plants
pose no safety risk and are in fact safer than coal-burning plants. In the U.S. nuclear reactors are
contained in concrete structures with walls four feet thick. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
(which did not have concrete containment structures) were the only major accidents in ''14,000
cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries''. However, this doesn't mean
that accidents don't happen. Instances of radioactive water leeching into the ground have
occurred. In one case, several million gallons of contaminated water reached drinking wells.
"The China Syndrome" depicts the meltdown of the fictional Ventana nuclear power
plant. It was released 12 days before the accident at Three Mile Island.
Impact on Wildlife
All forms of energy production impact the environment on some level. What are nuclear
power's stats? Let's start by looking at an example of land usage. To generate the equivalent of a
1,000-megawatt plant, a single wind farm would require approximately 150,000 to 180,000 acres
(61,000 to 73,000 hectares) of land; a solar photovoltaic park would use 54,000 acres (22,000
hectares). By comparison, a typical nuclear power plant uses 200-400 acres (81-162 hectares).
However, the issue of waste might negate the land argument. Toxic by-products may make it
impossible to reuse surrounding land when a plant is decommissioned.
Nuclear power plants also use large volumes of water for heating and cooling. One
square mile (2.6 square kilometers) of water 14 feet (4.2 meters) deep goes through a typical
two-unit reactor every day [source: Energy Justice Network]. Nuclear plants use preventative
measures like stationary screens to prevent adult fish from being sucked into cooling water
systems. But these don't help microscopic plankton, and larger animals like sea turtles and seals
can become trapped against filters and drown [source: Energy Justice Network]. After-bays or
cooling canals are used to minimize thermal pollution (heated water) from being discharged into
surrounding bodies of water, but these systems don't filter heavy metals and salts.
The Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) is a non-profit, non-lobbying environmental group
helping nuclear facilities create and maintain clean habitats for animals and plants
Health
The link between nuclear power and disease is complex. Hundreds of studies have been
conducted. Their conflicting results make it difficult to separate fact from fiction, agendas from
politics.
There's no debate that exposure to radiation can kill. But the connection between cancer
and those living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants is arguable. Based on their studies, the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found no significant increase in cancer rates among adults
and children residing in the 107 counties near nuclear facilities. In 1990, the National Cancer
Institute also reported a lack of data correlation between cancer and proximity to nuclear power
plants. Critics of these studies maintain there have been documented clusters of breast cancer and
childhood leukemia near nuclear facilities. According to the Energy Justice Network, 268
counties within 50 miles of nuclear reactors had breast cancer death rates 10 times the national
average.
The Fight against Global warming
As heat waves, raging forest fires and devastating hurricanes become the norm, it's
crystal clear that a solution to global warming must be found, and found fast. Is nuclear power
the shining star? It all depends on whom you ask. One of the main arguments against nuclear
energy is time. Plants take upwards of ten years to build but global warming is happening now. It
won't wait around for new nuclear power plants to appear on the scene (Hertsgarrd). Proponents
argue that the amount of energy a nuclear power plant generates far outweighs the timeline issue.
Megawatt for megawatt, it produces more clean energy than wind or solar once it's up and
running.
The argument that nuclear power plants are more reliable is often cited. They aren't
dependent on wind or sun to produce electricity. What isn't mentioned is their dependence upon
is uranium. There is not an infinite supply of it and once it's gone, it's gone for good.
According to the International Energy Agency, the world demand for energy will grow
65 percent by 2020.
SUMMARY
Nuclear power plant is one type power plant which we harbour electricity from. The main
process is to convert the heat into electricity. Fission is the splitting of atoms into smaller pieces,
caused by neutrons hitting each other. Smaller pieces strike other atoms, releasing energy. When
this process continues, it is called a chain reaction.
Nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the Environment (in terms of continuous
operation and has no damage on the power plant). It is also emission-free and does not produce
harmful gases. Nuclear power plants larger amount of energy but only requires smaller land area
compared to the other power plants.
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is the only power plant that was built on our
country. It is located in Morong, Bataan, in the northern part of Luzon. During Marcos regime,
the power plant was constructed under contract with Westinghouse. BNPP was completed and
already operating when Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) was established to oppose
against its operation. The opposition was successful and the power plant ceased its progression.
During the Aquino administration, the power plant was completely closed and sold the uranium
fuel.
The government decided to close the power plant for some reasons:
The government sees that the project was over-budget, twice or thrice larger than the
nuclear energy estimates.
There were enormous hidden costs that the government has not planned yet for
example, nuclear accidents.
It is not an answer to climate change or energy security. Studies show that entire
nuclear power plant life cycle contributes significantly to climate change.
REFERENCES
“What is Nuclear Energy?”. http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ (August 2013)
“The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant”. http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index. (august 2013)
Mauro l. marcelo, jr..“Nuclear energy for power generation”. (2008)
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-pros-cons-nuclear-power.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com