Nuclear Power Plants

The moribund nuclear industry

Analytical results depicting the economic status of the Soviet Union reveal that critical industrial development occurred during 1986. Despite having massive fuel resources, the region also experienced increased utilization of nuclear power (Nuttall, 2017). The availability of cheap nuclear transportation and cheap production of atomic energy contributed to the rise in power plants. Furthermore, nuclear power production poses less damage to the environment. Nuclear power production in 1982 totaled 86 billion kWh of electricity. This production constituted 6.5% of national electricity production. In 1985, nuclear power production increased to 220 billion kWh, contributing to 14% of the total output (Nuttall, 2017). Finally, the increase in power plants and moribund industry increased in 1986 to ensure that targeted nuclear power of 1500 billion kWh becomes a reality.

The increase in the number of power plants built in 1986 followed the realization that nuclear power plants are more competitive. Analytical reports show that atomic plants cost twice more than fuel plants (Krauskopf, 2018). However, long-term implication reveals that nuclear plants are less costly to maintain and manage. The nuclear plant also has minimal detrimental impacts on the environment. Therefore, increased production of nuclear power results in a safe environment and cheap power costs.

The statement depicting the moribund nuclear industry's status calls for an increase in the number of nuclear plants. A higher number of these industries reflects an increase in clean power production. The statement also calls for a reduction in the number of accidents. Indeed, nuclear power plants have a higher rate of accidents. Therefore, the report calls for the establishment of strict controls to avert deaths and life-threatening injuries. While comparing the costs of different power plants, the nuclear power plant is cheaper than conventional electricity (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Therefore, the increase in nuclear power plants represented economies of scale. However, the costs of accidents and injuries threatened to paralyze the industry. Reduction in injures and death provides the best evidence for the stakeholders to understand that nuclear power is undeniably cheap.

Future projection of energy production

The development experienced in the global market calls for an increase in energy consumption. The onsets of increasing global warming also necessitate the need to have clean energy. Indeed, the future calls for an increased energy supply. The need for clean energy generation is on the rise. Currently, the nuclear power supply’s 10% of current global electricity while it accounts for 18% of the OECD countries' power (Krauskopf, 2018). Critical reports project an increase in the role of nuclear power. Additionally, the future projection needs clean energy for environmental sanity. Nuclear power can generate clean energy on a large scale basis.

The global population continues to grow, and the economies continue to widen, coupled with urbanization. The reports by United Nations estimates that worldwide people will be 9.7 billion in the year 2050. Urbanization also adds a significant population to the global cities, thereby enhancing further energy demand (Nuttall, 2017). Indeed, more than two-thirds of the global population lives in urban centers. Energy supply to these urban centers is bound to rise with the rising population. The challenge of producing clean energy to cater to the increasing power need continues to threaten the energy production sector. The increase in the quantity of greenhouse gasses emissions is one vital environmental risk. Analytical reports identify contaminated air as the cause of seven million deaths annually. Energy production plants constitute the leading sources of environmental pollution (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). However, proponents of clean energy advocate for the utilization of nuclear energy because of its safety measures. Despite its low electricity production capacity, nuclear sources emit clean energy. 

Apart from hydropower production, nuclear energy production comes in second place. Therefore, the need to expand nuclear energy production to meet future energy demand is imminent. Nuclear power plants produce clean power while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Atomic power creates clean and low-cost energy that is sustainable in the long run. Finally, the international energy agency (OECD) calls for advanced economies to invest in nuclear power. The increase in such investments facilitates the transition to clean energy systems (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Clean energy provided under the nuclear power system reduces the cost of change to a clean energy source.

Reports from the Energy Technology Perspective (ETP) indicate the need to ascertain technological transformation regarding power generation. It also facilitates the market to decarbonize by adopting measures of reducing carbon concentration in the atmosphere (Krauskopf, 2018). Therefore, the increase in energy check-offs contributes towards the enactment of directives for ensuring clean energy production. Indeed, a 50% rise in global energy needs facilitates the adoption of nuclear energy and other renewable energy sources (Fyfe, 2020Such initiatives will contribute to the environment's cleanliness because of a few quantities of carbon particle emissions.

Why is it has been so challenging to solve the nuclear waste disposal problem in the United States?

The generation of commercial energy in the United States results in the production of nuclear wastes. There are ninety-nine commercial reactors scattered in the United States (Fyfe, 2020). Currently, each commercial reactor stores its nuclear wastes above the ground within its vicinity. Alternatively, some nuclear waste materials remain in pools for more extended periods to necessitate their cooling.

Nuclear scientists attest to the safety of atomic energy. However, nuclear power production requires the use of radioactive substances that remain active for more extended periods. Disposal of these radioactive nuclear substances continues to pose a challenge to policymakers and atomic scientists. These dangerous substances remain active for thousands of years after their removal from the commercial reactor.

The United States continue to experience the challenge of disposing of spent fuels in nuclear power plants. The pools intended for cooling spent energies before their transfer to permanent storages have become overcrowded. Overcrowding of the nuclear collections results from the absence of permanent storage facilities (Krauskopf, 2018). These permanent storage facilities comprise significant dry casks. They enhance safety measures.

The policymakers in the United States instituted the nuclear waste policy acts in the year 1982. This act commissioned the federal government to identify a permanent geological repository site (Krauskopf, 2018). The repository site would provide long term permanent storage for nuclear fuel. However, the federal government failed in identifying the repository site, thereby leading to the persistence of the nuclear waste disposal problem. Some experts cited reprocessing as the solution to the problem (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2019). Reprocessing entails separating the atomic waste into separate segments. The segments are then subjected to consumption by different chambers of the reactor. However, reprocessing further complicates nuclear disposal because it increases proliferation and other vices like terrorism. Nuclear waste disposal is a problem in the United States because the federal government failed to secure a repository site. Seemingly, other governments across the globe have also failed in providing permanent solutions for nuclear waste disposal.

References

K. B. Krauskopf, (2018) "Geology of High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal," Annu. Rev. Earth Planet.

Nuclear Energy Institute (2019). Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants. 

W. J. Nuttall (2017). Nuclear Renaissance: technologies and policies for the future of nuclear power. Institute of Physics, Bristol.

W. S. Fyfe (2020) "Nuclear Waste Isolation: An Urgent International Responsibility," Eng. Geol United States