Prompt: How have attempts to solve Problem X resulted in Problem Y, and what steps should we take to solve Problem Y?
Our society faces many unintended consequences from contemporary scientific and technological solutions regarding a previous societal or economic problem. Often, these unintended consequences from our technologies produce an undesirable outcome that we have not anticipated. This shows that our attempts to solve a problem often lead to an incorrect solution beyond our understanding. An example of an unintended consequence, and currently a serious international crisis, is the development of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants were first developed as a purpose to generate clean energy and free us from dependence on fossil fuels. With our rapidly increasing world population, we needed to find an alternative for our source of energy. The advantage of using nuclear power is that it produces electricity with the maximum efficiency and minimum cost. However, the development of a nuclear power plant near an ocean site has led to many unintended consequences such as heating of the ocean water near the power plant, possibility of a major explosion, exposure to radiation, and others risks that we may not have possibly found out yet. It is clear that the energy we receive from nuclear power plants is essential for our source of energy, but, at the same time, brings deepest fears to our humanity.
Nuclear power plants generate the world's largest source of clean-air, carbon-free electricity. They help us to protect our environment because it does not cause air pollution and protect wildlife. The Nuclear Energy Institute found that electricity generated from nuclear energy allows us to avoid almost 650 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the United States, which is as much carbon dioxide released from the United States' passenger cars. Worldwide, nuclear energy can avoid as much as 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Despite many of these advantages, the unintended results from using nuclear energy seem too devastating for the society to endure in the future.
Take, for instance, the recent case in Japan. On March 11, 2011, Japan was struck by one of the most powerful earthquakes in history with a magnitude of 8.9. A tsunami ensued as a result of the earthquake and Japan suffered a devastating consequence that revealed our overreliance on nuclear energy. The combination of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami caused some parts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant to malfunction and release radioactive materials into many regions, threatening many food industries. It also resulted in many deaths of nuclear power plant workers, a ban on imports, and low ratings of Japanese exports. Radioactive elements leaked into the Pacific Ocean and released into the atmosphere, spreading to nearby regions. After few days, radiation levels were detected up to 250 kilometers away from the Fukushima area. An expert even reported that radiation from Japan could spread across the Pacific and reach parts of the United States because of effects of wind and rain. As a result, scientists predict that Japanese people who may have been exposed to radiation are at a risk of getting numerous types of diseases, mainly cancer. The number of people who will suffer from diseases will increase over the years and the results are likely to ruin the health of hundreds of Japanese citizens. No one would have imagined that nuclear power plants would produce these severe, unintended results.
Japan's nuclear crisis was not the only case of nuclear disaster since its development.
The first nuclear power plant accident occurred on April 26, 1986 in Chernobyl, Ukraine. The large-scale fire and explosion had similarly released large quantities of radioactive materials into the atmosphere as in Japan, spreading into the USSR and Europe, including Germany, Italy, and Greece. Apparently, all radioactive gases in the reactor were released at the time and scientists claimed that exposure to radiation can cause serious medical (leukemia, cancers, thyroid disease) and psychological (depressions, stress disorders, family disorganization) consequences (Ginzberg 32-33). In order to protect their citizens from excessive exposure to radiation, the Soviets evacuated them - 135,000 people living within 30 kilometers from the explosion were evacuated (Ginzberg 34). Nonetheless, by 1991, about 250 deaths related to the Chernobyl radiation exposure were found and effects are still ongoing. Scientists had estimated that "up to 28,000 fatal cancers" will occur as a result of Chernobyl (Ginzberg 35). The aftermath of this incident was also troublesome as numerous samples and tests had to be conducted to water and food products. The 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl led to the spread of more questions about the safety of nuclear power.
Now we have come to a point where we question the necessity of these nuclear power plants. We have certainly failed to anticipate the disastrous effects of nuclear energy. Does our society really need nuclear power in order to produce electricity or can we simply survive without the support of it? The U.S Department of Energy claims that "of the 3.5 billion inhabitants of the globe, 600 million will develop spontaneous fatal cancers, including up to 6 million fatal cancers from background radiation (1.0 percent of all fatal cancers)" (Ginzberg 35). It makes us wonder if we have to take the risk and continue using nuclear power plants. We have lived without it for thousands of years and are totally capable of surviving without it.
However, unconditionally getting rid of the nuclear power plants is not as easy as we want. It is totally necessary to keep these nuclear power plants with our rapidly increasing population at a rate of about 20,000 people per day (Ritch). There are currently 443 operating nuclear power reactors in 47 different countries and by 2009, nuclear energy accounted for 14 percent of world's electricity production (Ritch). In the United States alone, 104 nuclear power plants supply for 20 percent of electricity. More surprising is the fact that France generates about 74 percent of their energy from nuclear power plants. According to the U.S Department of Energy, operating the nuclear power plants costs $59.30 per megawatt hour. It is expensive compared to other means of producing electricity. But it would still take an incredible amount of money and time to get rid of those existing reactors, as much as it is to create one. Our world also seems too heavily reliant on nuclear energy for us to remove them. It has been estimated that the cost to remove these plants is $300 to $500 million. Removing them also creates another problem as hundreds of nuclear power plant operators and holding companies would lose their shirts. This may even severely hit the whole world economically. Simply removing or shutting the nuclear power plants might not be the best idea.
On the brighter side, the World Association of Nuclear Operators claims that the number of U.S nuclear accidents have been gradually decreasing since the creation of nuclear power plants. The rate of nuclear accidents has decreased from 38 percent in 1997 to 9 percent in 2010 and our goal is to continue with this declining rate. Environmentalists have warned about catastrophic climate change and natural disaster such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and hurricanes and the same damage it can bring to our dependence on nuclear power. But realistically, we have to recall that natural disasters or accidents do not happen regularly and these events are fairly uncommon. Transitioning to fossil fuels again to generate electricity will also bring health impacts from the air pollution. We have to accept the fact that there are even greater dangers that are known to us and that we face in this world rather than the consequences from nuclear power and the spread of radiation.
Keeping that in mind, energy from nuclear power can produce a great capacity of clean electricity. Although clean electricity from solar, wind or biomass power can support us right now, the capacity to produce electricity from these sources will eventually be limited in the long run. The International Energy Agency says that all these sources can provide only 6 percent of world electricity by 2030. We cannot meet the needs of energy without the support of nuclear energy, so the best plan for us is to keep these nuclear power plants. It is not surprising that many nations are even looking forward to increase the role of nuclear power in their economies. Further developments of nuclear power plants might not be a bad idea after all in modern society.
Nuclear power plants still stand between the world's greatest hope and fear. We strive to better our world with new ideas, but those new ideas can create new problems. No matter how hard we try, the constant intervention of humans in nature makes change inevitable. Development and use of nuclear energy has a significant impact on human life, but we have not anticipated the serious consequences of this technological development. But our society needs to accept this as an unavoidable consequence of our life cycle. Unintended consequences are neither from our ignorance or uncertainty on a topic. It is simply our obligation to bear with the consequences that inevitably come and go.
