Pros and Cons of Storing Nuclear Waste Essay Example

Pros and Cons of Storing Nuclear Waste Paper Nuclear Pros and Cons A seemingly ideal action, Yucca Mountain is 100 miles outside of Lass Vegas, with the nearest humans 15 miles away (Hansen, 2001). However, many environmentalists and Nevada residents have grave reservations about putting the permanent storage at Yucca Mountain, citing concerns such as waste transportation dangers, geological instability, and the inability of the site to store all of the United States waste. They feel this is a hasty decision that is political in nature (Hansen, 2001). While the storage of nuclear waste is not an ideal situation, Americas current reliance on nuclear power makes it a necessity. The Yucca Mountain repository is currently the best option for long-term storage because of its relative isolation from human settlements, natural geological features, and its large storage capacity. Since nuclear waste is deadly to humans, the location of a long-term facility is crucial. In the event of a catastrophe, the ability to isolate the area effectively and expose as few people as possible to danger is critical. With the closest humans 15 miles away, Yucca Mountain is an ideal place to build the repository. The location provides the safety necessary for the success of the reject by limiting peoples exposure to radioactivity. We will write a custom essay sample on Pros and Cons of Storing Nuclear Waste specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Pros and Cons of Storing Nuclear Waste specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Pros and Cons of Storing Nuclear Waste specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The desert isolation also provides better security for the site, protecting from an easy assault by terrorists. With no one living near the mountain, several checkpoints can be setup allowing almost impregnable security access. While the isolation of the site is a selling factor, the same seclusion creates one of the biggest dangers associated with this project. That problem is the transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. The majority of states will ship many tons of waste by rail or truck to the repository. Critics feel human error and weather conditions could lead to many accidents, with the possibility of a situation similar to Coherently. They feel that the more waste that is transported, the better chance an accident will occur. The fear is that emergency workers will not be able to handle the type Of problems that could arise. However, tests of the shipping containers and computer modeling have produced little evidence that an accident would cause a wide spread release (Hansen, 2001). As long as trained emergency workers can effectively handle potential dangerous situation, the rewards of the sire far outweigh the risk involved. The Department of Energy plan calls for a site whose natural geological features, when mixed with human barriers, will provide a safe storage facility for the waste. According to a 1 998 study, Yucca Mountain fits this requirement. Summarizing 15 years of site data, the Department of Energy report stated that the arid climate and stable geology would reduce the risk of a leak, with any leakage having to pass through 1 000 feet of rock to reach the water level (as cited in Hansen, 2001). The study concludes that once sealed, there would be little or no increase in radiation exposure for 10,000 years (Hansen, 2001 ). Critics, including Novenas Agency for Nuclear Projects, disagree with the findings of the study however. Citing other geological reports, Novenas Agency for Nuclear Projects claims that Yucca Mountain sits on an active earthquake zone and has received at least 600 examples of seismic activity Of 2. 5 Or higher (as cited in Hansen, 2001 This activity could lead to a rupture in the tanks, which may result in a leak. The Department of Energy is confident that the potential seismic events will not result in container leakage since the design of the containers allows them to stand up to the elements and last 1 0,000 years. Even if the unthinkable occurs, the sites isolation will help keep danger to a minimum. The other major factor making Yucca Mountain an ideal choice is the storage capacity of the site. Estimations state that 84,000 metric tons of waste will require storage by 2035 (Hansen, 2001 Even though Yucca Mountain only holds 70,000 metric tons, the majority of waste will be able to be safely stored. The large facility can double as a testing ground for new technologies, such as transmutation, and allow their incorporation into future storage sites. According to the National Research Council, Transmutation, the process of making nuclear waste less radioactive by extracting plutonium, allows isolation times to decrease significantly (as cited in Hansen, 2001). Since the finished product is safer, it can be securely stored closer to humans. The major drawback is the cost, with estimates saying the process would cost $280 billion according to a 1999 Department of Energy study (as cited in Hansen, 2001). However, the increased energy production created by the process will subsidize the cost. The other problem, according to the same 1999 Department of Energy study, is that the process would take 1 1 7 years to transmute the current American nuclear waste (as cited in Hansen, 2001). Continued research should help to decrease the cost and increase efficiency, allowing for even safer storage in the future. Nuclear energy is an important element of our electrical production. Unfortunately, nuclear waste is a necessary by-product requiring the utmost safety. An isolated location with many natural barriers is necessary for the safe storage of nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain best seems to fit the requirements for a repository. Critics feel that long and frequent transportation runs increase the likely hood of a disastrous leak. The containers used to ship the waste should prevent this from happening. Opponents feel that any leakage could result in danger to inhabitants of the region. However, the closest people to Yucca Mountain are 15 miles away. The deep rock should prevent any radioactivity from affecting the water evils, and the location of the mountain will make protection of the facility from terrorist mush easier.

Atomic Bomb1 essays

Atomic Bomb1 essays The use of the atomic bombs on Japan was necessary for the revenge of the Americans. These bombs took years to make due to a problematic equation. The impact of the bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people and the radiation is still killing people today. People today still wonder why the bombs were dropped. If these bombs werent dropped on the Japanese the history of the world would have been changed forever. The Atomic bomb took 6 years to develop (1939-1945) for scientists to work on a equation to make the U-235 into a bomb. The most complicated process in this was trying to produce enough uranium to sustain a chain reaction. The bombs used on the cities cost about $2 billion to develop, this also making the U.S. wanting to use them against Japan. Hiroshima was a major military target and we have spent 2 billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history- and won. (3) The bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighted 4.5 tons and the bomb used on Nagasaki weighted 10 kilotons. On July 16, 1945, the first ever atomic bomb was tested in the Jamez Mountains in Northern New Mexico, code named Gadget. The single weapon ultimately dropped on Hiroshima, nicknamed Little Boy, produced the amount of approximately twenty- thousand tons of TNT, which is roughly seven times greater than all of the bombs dropped by all the allies on all of Germany in 1942. The first Japanese City bomb was Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. An American B-29 bomber, named Enola Gay, flown by the pilot Paul W. Tibbets, dropped the Little Boy uranium atomic bomb. Three days later a second bomb named Fat Boy, made of plutonium was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. After being released, it took approximately one minute for Little Boy to reach the point of explosion, which was about 2,000 feet. ...

Fictitious company, Mullin plc., is examining their dividend policy Essay

Fictitious company, Mullin plc., is examining their dividend policy. For the past five years (2008-2012) it has paid no dividend - Essay Example Dividend policy mainly concerns itself with the payment of cash dividends, at the present time, or in a near future (Barnett, 2012). It is important to denote that there are other types of dividends, such as stock dividends, and stock repurchases dividends. Stock dividends involves issuing out dividends in the form of the company’s stock, while stock repurchases dividend involves the buying of the company’s shares from willing investors by the company. This paper mainly concerns itself with cash dividend. The cash dividend policy refers to the actual amount of money that a company pays to investors. According to this policy, a company is supposed to state how much money it pays as dividends to investors, and the frequency of paying this amount of money (Garcia and Moore, 2012). The decision to pay a certain amount of dividends, and the frequency in which to pay this amount of dividends is based on the profitability of the company, and the excess cash it accumulates at t he end of each trading period. When there is a surplus in cash, the company can either decide to pay dividends, or it can decide to expand its operations. Developing a dividend policy is a very challenging initiative for the directors of a company. This is because investors of the company have differing views on the current cash dividends, and also on the future expectations of the capital gain (Ross and Westerfield, 2013). Another confusion that emerges in developing a dividend policy is the effect of the policy on the share prices of the company. It is important to denote that a favorable dividend policy will always lead to an increase in the share prices of a company. On the other hand, a dividend policy that is not favorable will on most occasion lead to the reduction of the share prices of the business entity. This is an aspect that managers of a business organization will always thrive to avoid. This paper identifies, and analyzes the various dividend policies that Mullin plc has, and their advantages or disadvantages. It examines if the policy under consideration will be beneficial to the company. This paper identifies four different types of dividend policies, namely (Shukla, 2012); i. Stable dividend policy ii. Irregular dividend policy iii. No immediate policy on dividend. iv. Regular dividend policy This paper has a conclusion, which provides a clear recommendation on the appropriate policy that the company should enact, and the justifications on why that policy is the best. Regular Dividend Policy: Regular dividend policy involves a situation where investors of a company are able to receive dividends at their usual rates, and on a constant period of time. The main investors in a company that provides such kind of a dividend are usually retired individuals, or weaker members of the society. This includes people with low wages or no income sources at all. The company can maintain this type of a dividend policy only if its revenue from its business op eration is stable and regular. This type of dividend policy manages to create a sense of confidence amongst the shareholders of a company (Stout, 2012). This is because they are guaranteed of a certain percentage of dividends at the end of the business financial years. It is also a sign that the operations of the business organization are stable and thus the company is making profits. This policy also