Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Addressing Global Change

/
0 Comments
The United States is at a critical stage of whether or not they should continue to incorporate Nuclear Energy as a possible alternative since concern on global climate change is changing the views of Americans on Environmental issues. Significant events has shed new light on a possible change in environmental policy such as President Bush State of the Union in January 2006, in which, President Bush announced a National Energy Policy (NEP) in which he signed into a law called the “Energy Policy Act of 2006”. The purpose of the NEP is to “reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy – including on the natural gas that is a source of electricity for many American homes and the crude oil that supplies gasoline for our cars. To achieve this objective, we will take advantage of technology.”[1]

The second event that has shed light is the interests of developing nations to create nuclear energy within their own state/nation. India, China, and most controversial, Iran, has made repeated statements of its intention to develop nuclear energy.[2] The main concern for the United States is whether or not these nations are going to use nuclear energy and transform it into nuclear power for military uses only. I intend to argue that Nuclear Energy in the US, albeit the world, has been in a dormant period ever since Three Mile Island incident, however, with the exception of France (France is the world’s only expert on Nuclear Energy), there will be a revival of Nuclear Energy within the next few years because of global change concerns.

The revival of Nuclear Energy within the next few years can be determined by understanding the political, technical, and social events that has occurred over the last ten years within the United States as well as events that has occurred outside of the United States. The constructions of nuclear power plants in the United States were motivated as a politically-endorsed competition to spur US prominence as the world only superpower in a technological exciting field of nuclear energy. Yet, as we learned, adapted from The Hare and the Tortoise, the United States made a mistake by being “Boastful and careless, the Hare had lost the race. Now he would never again be able to count on his speed. The Moral of the Story: Perseverance wins the race”.[3] Politically, the United States failed to: develop a sense of glasnost, create a governmental department that would closely watch the development of nuclear power plants (in term of building, engineering, and implementing), and involving decision makers outside of the government. Technically, the United States failed to: prevent two kinds of technical inertia: time lag and scale; and, since they could not understand technical inertia, they failed to understand that “technical inertia gradually created intellectual inertia”. Socially, the United States failed to: inform the public of nuclear power, create effective participation of NGOs and independent parties, and to quell fear of nuclear power plants.

In order to give you a clearer understanding of why, politically, the United States failed, we must compare and contrast between the United States and France. As of today, France is the leading manufacture of nuclear power plants because it has been able to learn from other countries mistakes as well as its ability to standardize everything. To this date, France has not had a nuclear accident. Within the United States, all of the nuclear plants were built individually through independent contracting companies. With France, they implemented centralized control, in which, standardization had a fundamental purpose. With standardization, the French ensured that all construction of the nuclear power plants were identical to the power plants that might be in South of France.

After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover, management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in America.[4]

Not only did standardization enforce that each plant were identical, but it also saved the French government money, improvement could not only be improved in one plant but in all of the plants in France, and it had control of the expectation of the level of education and expertise. The United States, recently, is trying to become a main exporter to India, in which, if the deal goes through, the United States will offer India access to civilian nuclear technology. It is certainly understandable if India needs the technology to ensure their national security interests, however, the question remain: can a developing country prevent another Three Mile Island from occurring?

The United States, when developing nuclear power plants, had been directed and over sighted by some of the most brilliant minds of the field, yet, even the most brilliant minds could not prevent or even see an event such as Three Mile Island from happening. As I mentioned earlier in the paper, the United States failed to: prevent two kinds of technical inertia: time lag and scale; and, since they could not understand technical inertia, they failed to understand that “technical inertia gradually created intellectual inertia”. Perhaps, it could be said that the first could have been preventable, if the United States had slowed down and setup some kind of trial and error program that would have helped nuclear engineers grasp a clearer understanding of what to do in specific situations. Patrick W. Hamlett book called Understanding: Technological Politics: A Decision-Making Approach, presents three distinctive way of how we could have prevented technical inertia: Technological Forecasting, Make Corrigible Decisions and Trial and Error.

In Hamlett research, he came across three well-known policy analysts, Edward Woodhouse, David Collingridge, and Joseph Morone, in which they suggested these alternatives. Their thesis is based on the hypothesis that if they cannot predict the future, then the best approach to these problems [from the other end] is to find ways to make technological decision that remain “correctable after they have been implemented”. In doing this, they hope to amend certain decisions that turn out to be “mistaken” or have “unexpected negative consequences”.[5]  This is an excellent example of how the French were able to prevent any nuclear accident from occurring. They took their time in developing and in their decision making process, kept the overall unit size and standardized it, and finally, minimized the cost of building and operating their nuclear plants.

After the completion of the majority of nuclear power plants within the United States, it seems like the entire population had little to dispute. Thus, it is not surprising to discover that within the technical realm that lacked technical inertia, it was found that within the public they discovered intellectual inertia. A famously renowned book called The Demise of Nuclear Energy? : Lessons for Democratic Control of Technology written by Joseph G. Morone and Edward J. Woodhouse motioned that intellectual inertia came about from technical inertia. This is the concept that when an “expanding organizational complex is devoted to commercializing” such as nuclear power, it has the ability to bring with it “trade associations, professional societies, and universities”. Morone and Woodhouse are simply implying that the new social and intellectual community were inept to independent thought or otherwise, conformed to three options within society arena: the concept of groupthink, take it or leave it, and “we’re the expert, and you’re not”.

Morone and Woodhouse clarify:
Most society prefers to leave it, to build no more nuclear power plants unless forced to do so by a cutoff of oil, the greenhouse effect, or the like. Thus even though nuclear power was not the unstoppable and autonomous force depicted by some critics of technology, it did prove to be an unshapable force. [6]

It is without a doubt that the French demonstrated otherwise. Some experts argue if the United States had been cutoff from oil or the tide of opinion within the United States had changed and the floor was open to debate, it could be foreseeable that the United States could of possibility averted the Three Mile Island disaster.  Evidence shows that the French not only carefully planned well [in the construction, political, and economical aspect of development] they also demonstrated the ability to look at alternatives of how to depose of highly contaminated material that nuclear power plants generate. If the United States were to revive nuclear power plants in the future because of interests in addressing global change, it certainly would be more helpful to the United States to study and develop [standardization] nuclear plants the way the French government did.

Developing countries such as India, China, and Iran believe that Nuclear Energy will revive their economy as well as give their countries more reliable energy. With the interest of developing countries into Nuclear Energy, the United States has the opportunity to give Nuclear Energy another chance within the United States because recent interests in addressing global change has presented itself as an option. Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, said at biotechnology industry gathering on January 13, 2006:
“[Moore] Contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. [And] that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy”.[7]

The United States has learned from the French that Nuclear Energy is an excellent source of energy if it is developed and managed properly with a sense of “openness” that also endorsed the highest safety standards. Nuclear Energy in the US, albeit the world, has been in a dormant period ever since Three Mile Island incident, however, with the exception of France (France is the world’s only expert on Nuclear Energy), there will be a revival of Nuclear Energy within the next few years and the United States will have the chance to be, once again, the world leader of Nuclear Energy.
Works Cited
Aesop. “Tortoise and the Hare.” Children Stories. Winter 2006.  24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.childrenstory.com/‌tales/‌indexhare.html>.
Bush, George W. “Advanced Energy Initiative.” The White House. 20 Feb. 2006. The White House. 26 Feb. 2006 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/‌stateoftheunion/‌2006/‌energy/‌index.html>.
- - -. “STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT.” State of the Union 2006. United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. 31 Jan. 2006. The White House. 28 Feb. 2006 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/‌stateoftheunion/‌2006/‌index.html>.
Hamlett, Patrick W. Understanding Technological Politics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1992.
Hao, Sean. “Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming.” The Honolulu Advertiser 13 Jan. 2006. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/‌apps/‌pbcs.dll/‌article?AID=/‌20060113/‌BUSINESS11/‌601130327/‌1071>.
Morone, Joseph G, and Edward J Woodhouse. The Demise of Nuclear Energy? . New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989.
Mustafa, Seema. “Seeing Stars and Stripes.” The Asian Age Feb. 2006. 24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.iht.com/‌getina/‌files/‌312537.html>.
“Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” Frontline. Public Broadcasting Station. PBS, Rochester. Winter 2006. Transcript. Frontline. 25 Feb. 2006 <http://www.pbs.org/‌wgbh/‌pages/‌frontline/‌shows/‌reaction/‌readings/‌french.html>.

                            0
[1] Bush, George W. “Advanced Energy Initiative.” The White House. 20 Feb. 2006. The White House. 26 Feb. 2006 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/‌stateoftheunion/‌2006/‌energy/‌index.html>.
[2] Mustafa, Seema. “Seeing Stars and Stripes.” The Asian Age Feb. 2006. 24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.iht.com/‌getina/‌files/‌312537.html>.

[3] Aesop. “Tortoise and the Hare.” Children Stories. Winter 2006.  24 Feb. 2006 <http://www.childrenstory.com/‌tales/‌indexhare.html>.
[4] “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” Frontline. Public Broadcasting Station. PBS, Rochester. Winter 2006. Transcript. Frontline. 25 Feb. 2006 <http://www.pbs.org/‌wgbh/‌pages/‌frontline/‌shows/‌reaction/‌readings/‌french.html>.

[5] Hamlett, Patrick W. Understanding Technological Politics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1992. Pg 216
[6] Morone, Joseph G, and Edward J Woodhouse. The Demise of Nuclear Energy? . New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989.pg 128
[7] Hao, Sean. “Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming.” The Honolulu Advertiser 13 Jan. 2006. 23 Feb. 2006 <http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/‌apps/‌pbcs.dll/‌article?AID=/‌20060113/‌BUSINESS11/‌601130327/‌1071>.



About Thomsen Young

Professional. Educator. Loves waterpolo. Cribbage. West Wing. Love. Laugh. Live.

You may also like

No comments:

If you want to include any links in the comments section, you must put it in HTML format. If you don't know how to do that, please refer to this site. HTML Links

I do not pre-moderate any comments and welcome all kinds of thoughts- supportive, dissenting, critical or otherwise.

I will not delete or censor comments unless they have content that:

is abusive
is off-topic
contains ad-hominem attacks
promotes hate of any kind
uses excessively foul language
is blatantly spam

All comments are filtered through spam filtering technology; the spam-filtering technology isn’t perfect and from time to time it flags legitimate emails (false positives).

If you find that your comment isn’t immediately showing up, it may have been erroneously flagged as spam. Please email me at youngthomsen(@)gmail(dot)com to follow up on the status of your comment if it hasn’t shown up after 24 hours and I will do my best to sort it out.

About.

About.
Hi. I'm Thomsen.

Top Ad

Popular Posts

Hot Month

All Time

Instagram

Facebook