The European nuclear industry, which - through its 812 billion kWh
| I |
of output - accounted for 36% of the Continent's energy supply in 1997, still expresses confidence that the anti-nuclear tide will subside.' Nuclear industry representatives claim that Europe needs "clean" nuclear power to meet E. U. greenhouse gas reduction targets, and that the economic costs of reactor closures are likely to sour2 public opinion on nuclear phase out plans. The French nuclear industry also has high hopes for the new standardized European pressurized-water reactor or EPR-design. The French hope that the new EPR may help nuclear power compete economically with new gas- and coal-fired plants and lead to a revival of nuclear plant development.
But the industry also faces major problems beyond the relative cost of nuclear power, including a string of public relations gaffes3 and an aging managerial class that has depended too much on cozy relation-
Section I. Power Engineering
Unit 10. Nuclear Power
ships with governments and regulators..For example, in May 1998, just as the German election season was heating up, newspapers were running stories about higher than normal levels of radiation on trains used to move nuclear waste around Europe. The ensuing4public outcry forced several governments to stop shipments5 of waste to France for reprocessing. In the end, it turned out the European nuclear industry had been routinely ignoring strict standards on train radiation levels for years because — claim industry representatives — they pose no real health danger, and following the rules to the letter is virtually impossible. But the stories gave the industry a black eye and Germany's anti-nuclear movement a campaign issue.
Looming above the usual fights over German nuclear safety and environmental issues, however, is the feeling that all European electricity sectors will be put through major changes by E. U.-mandated market liberalization that was scheduled to begin in February. A report by Chicago-based Andersen Consulting issued in November predicts that over the next two decades, the European market will come to favour gas-fired local generation over large, remote base-load plants - nuclear or otherwise.fAs a result, the report says, the market will come to be dominated by new trading and financial groups with links to the gas industry, while traditional utilities - the core supporters of nuclear power - will take a back seat.
1 - утихать; 2 - испортить; 3 — ошибка; 4 — последующий; 5 — транспортировка
• Answer the following questions.
a) What do nuclear industry representatives claim?
b) What hopes has the French nuclear industry?
c) Why had the European nuclear industry been routinely ignoring strict standards on train radiation levels for years?
d) What does a report by Chicago-based Andersen Consulting issued in November predict?
• Read the following opinions of different people pro and against nuclear power plants.
Find out the reasons of their opinions and fill in the table.
Pro and Against
Female Nerd
Nuclear power is a very clean source of energy and none of our other energy sources are at present time as clean and efficient. Environmentalists cry out, "Nuclear power plants are a hazard to our environment!" I cannot deny that this is true and this is the reason why I am partly against nuclear power. There is always the risk of leaks, explosions and so forth but I think the risk is small enough for us to consider taking it.
It seems that the horror story of Chernobyl still haunts our minds whenever this topic is brought up. And it was a terribly tragic accident that destroyed the life of not only the people near it but the lives of the whole world's population generations ahead. This must not happen again. But if we take precautions, build the power plants in a place without risk of earthquakes and most importantly make sure it is properly funded we can narrow the risk down to almost nothing.
Almost is the magic word in this case. There is no way we can be absolutely sure nothing is going to happen. All we can do is decide if we want to risk. I strongly believe that poor countries like in the Eastern Europe should close down their nuclear power plants if they do not have the money to provide the necessary security. But I do not see a reason (not enough, anyway) why rich countries in the western world shouldn't engage in this industry. For the sake of the environment.
Danny Kirkeby
I agree with you totally. It is the only viable source of energy that is available to mankind now. Everybody is talking about wind mills etc. but a wind mill will have to be in use for years and years just to recover the amount of energy put into producing it!!! (There are statistics on this, but I don't have the exact figures.) And yes! Lets support the eastern European countries in order to enable them to upgrade the safety on their nuclear plants. It's in our own interest.
Stephen English
I'm a 22-year-old editor at an environmental newspaper in Fort Worth, Texas, USA. In your essay on nuclear power you leave out
80 Section I. Power Engineering
Unit 10. Nuclear Power
the important issue of nuclear waste. We still don't know how to properly dispose of it, and it remains dangerous for thousands of years. Until we solve the disposal problem, nuclear energy should not become a widespread power source.
Christian Plesner
As far as I know, we're about 30 years away from being able to travel freely from here to the moon. If we really become dependent upon nuclear power, we're only that far away from having solved the problem... (And I'm not joking — I mean this!)
No source of energy is without problems (not even fusion-power), and we have to ask ourselves — do we want to choose nuclear power with a problem that can be solved within 30 years, or do we want oil and coal, that isn't instantly as harmful as nuclear power, but which can't be solved at all.
I'd rather hand my grandchildren a clean world with a few nuclear deposits they can remove when they know how (to the moon, I say!), instead of polluted world.
Adam Zolciak
I've just read your essay on nuclear power. I work for the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) here in Ohio, USA. I agree that nuclear power is very clean compared to many sources of energy (much cleaner and safer than coal!). Supposedly, here in Toledo a company is working on a new type of solar panel. This new panel is supposed to be more cost-effective. Using their new panels they are claiming to be able to produce a Megawatt of power. Time will tell, but if this is true, solar power may be a viable alternative.
| The names of the people | Pro | Against | Reason |
| Female Nerd | |||
| Danny Kirkeby | |||
| Stephen English | |||
| Christian Plesner | |||
| Adam Zolciak |
• Discuss the future of nuclear power plants in our society. Use the following phrases and word combinations:
in my opinion the thing is
to my mind I agree that...
the fact is I don't agree that...
to start with I don't think...
I think... I don't suppose...
as far as I know... I'm sure (certain) that...
I believe... I totally disagree...
IT IS INTERESTING TO KNOW • Read and retell the following text.
France
Since the early 1980s one of the most significant changes in energy supply has been the greatly increased role of nuclear power. Fuel oil and coal are used to an ever-decreasing extent to produce electricity, and even the production of hydroelectric power has stabilized as most suitable sites have already been exploited, particularly those of the Rhine and Rhone valleys, the Massif Central, and the Alps. In contrast, nuclear production has expanded' enormously following the French government's decision in the early 1970s to undertake a major investment program. Since then 20 sites have been developed at a variety of coastal and inland locations, notably the Rhone and Loire valleys, reflecting the need for large quantities of cooling water. By 1990 nearly 75 percent of electricity in France was produced in nuclear plants, the highest proportion in the world. But, following a major period of construction in the 1980s, development has slowed substantially. France's nuclear industry also includes a large uranium-enrichment2 factory at Pier-relatte in the lower Rhone valley and a waste-reprocessing plant at La Hague, near Cherbourg.
1 — расширилось; 2 — обогащение
6-4661
Section I. Power Engineering
JUST FOR FUN • Read the following jokes and smile.
SCIENTISTS SMILE
You Might Be A Nuclear Engineer If:
If you are convinced you can build a phaser' out of your garage door opener and your camera's flash attachment.
If you have modified your can-opener2 to be microprocessor driven.
If you are currently gathering the components to build your own nuclear reactor.
If you truly believe aliens3are living among us.
If you have a functioning home copier machine, but every toaster you own turns bread into charcoal4.
If you have a habit of destroying things in order to see how they work.
If your I. Q.5number is bigger than your weight.
If you have memorized the program schedule for the Discovery channel, and have seen most of the shows already.
If you have more friends on the Internet than in real life.
If the only jokes you receive are through e-mail.
1 - акустический лазер; 2 - консервный нож; 3 - инопланетяне; 4 - древесный уголь; 5 - коэффициент умственного развития (от intelligence quotient)
•
^Ш Unit 11 ^^ SOLAR POWER
PARTI
• Read the text. Say whether it is about conventional or renewable energy.
Had it not been for deliberate, powerful obstruction, the solar sources of energy could have been shown long ago to be the best, immediately profitable energy option for most of the U. S., for most people on earth, by functioning installations.
The sun is our most important source of energy, by far. It warms the earth's atmosphere, vaporizes water from the oceans, drives the resulting clouds by means of winds to the continents, where they cause rains and rivers. These drench the thirst of people, animals and of plants, which draw their energy directly from the sun and pass it on to us when we eat them. That has been going on since prehistoric times. Now it can do a little more. It could provide all the energy needed by a modern industrial society worldwide for the indefinite future; which no "conventional" energy source could do. It could do it easily, without the pollution and hazards associated with those exhaustible sources. Most people still would like that, especially if they knew that it can be done profitably.
They are not supposed to be aware of that, and a major effort is expended to make them believe that it would require economic sacrifices rather than benefits.
In the 1970s, there was widespread enthusiasm, and a genuine grassroots movement emerged in the U. S, in anticipation of an imminent transition to an economy based on the solar sources of energy that came in the wake of the first "oil shock" and boycott (-1973). There are some, who fear a transition to solar power, and they are very powerful and determined.
Instead of being confined to a few small "niche markets", new solar technologies could easily have supplied a double-digit percentage of energy used by now. All that we maintained at the time was that it could 6»