SECTION I

What has future in store for us Unit 1. Energy Crisis Key Vocabulary List

atom, atomic

power, a power station

to harness the power of the atom

to be powered, to be powered by batteries

nuclear power, nuclear accident, nuclear waste(s)

fuel, fossil fuels

to fuel a power station, to fuel a lorry, to be fueled with

a filling station/ a gas station

natural resources/reserves

to deplete natural resources

to run out of natural resources; to dwindle, dwindling natural resources

energy resources, alternative sources of energy, to develop alternative sources of energy

solar power, wind power, wave power, tidal power, hydroelectric power

to do research on solar power

renewable/inexhaustible sources of energy, non-renewable sources of energy

global warming, to prevent global warming

deforestation

to contaminate, contamination, to contaminate smth with radioactivity

to release/emit gases, emission

to store, storage

to dump, dumping site

to dispose of smth, disposal site, disposable (syringes)

coal-mine, coal piles, oil-rig

side effects, environmental side effects

to spill oil, radiation; to spill radiation into the atmosphere

to pose a threat

to confront smth, to be confronted with

to have an effect/impact on smth

to take effect

to affect smth; to be exposed to smth; to be subject to (control)

effective, efficient; defective, deficient

misuse, disuse

non-flammable, inflammable

interested, disinterested

exhausting, exhaustive

topical/ actual/ urgent; unfounded

to sustain, sustainable, sustainable development

car pooling, car sharing

to develop smth, to invest in research

to estimate, estimation, estimates of smth

short-term, long-term, long-term disposal sites; in the short/ long term

to address/ solve problems, to deal with problems

to look to the future; to turn back on smth

to insulate, insulation, insulated (buildings)

to be manned by smb

to take precaution, safety regulations

to foresee smth, to foresee every eventuality

to become uncontrollable

to render the region uninhabitable

to hold smb to ransom

to get smth in compensation, to cover risks

to prove abortive

to put high taxes on gasoline/petrol; to charge more for gasoline/petrol

to rise at a rate of 2% per year

to be prone to

Text A

Ever since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki governments have been at pains to stress that the atom has a peaceful as well as a warlike side. In early propaganda films to win the populace round to the idea of a nuclear research programme, we were shown pictures of a high speed train travelling around the world, powered, so the commentator said, by the equivalent of the energy contained in a glass of water. Energy won by “harnessing the power of the atom”, it was claimed, would be cheap, efficient, clean, and above all safe. No longer, it was said, would men have to labour beneath the ground in dirty and dangerous conditions to win the coal which would fuel our industry. The nuclear power stations of the future, we were told, since they do not depend on burning fossil fuels like coal or oil would not deplete the world’s natural resources and hence were a good thing.

It all took a lot longer to happen than predicted. The first disappointment, of course, was that they could not actually fuel a power station with a glass of water. Early experiments suggesting that this would be possible proved abortive. No, the power stations still had to be fuelled with radioactive and potentially dangerous substances won, like coal, from the ground by accident-prone miners. These substances had to be transported to the power stations by train in special containers. Many of the early objections and protest campaigns came from the inhabitants of villages through which such trains passed, who feared that in the event of a collision the containers of radioactive substances would break and spill radiation on to surrounding houses and countryside.

Concern was almost never directed at the power stations themselves which, we were assured, were manned by scientists in white coats who had taken every precaution and foreseen every eventuality. What the nuclear power stations designers and engineers had not taken into account, however, was Murphy’s Law which states that if a thing can possibly go wrong, sooner or later it will. And so it proved at Three Mile Island in the USA, and Windscale in the UK. Accidents were happening despite all precautions, radiation was spilling into the atmosphere and we heard for the first time of the China Syndrome – the dreadful possibility of a nuclear accident burning through the earth all the way to China. This was dismissed as a fanciful concept until Chernobyl, the world’s worst nuclear accident so far. We saw pictures of a “melt-down”, where the entire core of the reactor becomes molten and uncontrollable, but also heard for the first time of a “melt through”, where the radioactive mass melts through the earth’s crust and at the very least contaminates the ground water of an entire river basin system, rendering thousands of square miles uninhabitable for decades and totally destroying the agriculture of an entire region.

The fact that it was not as catastrophic as this is due to the incredible and heroic self-sacrifice of Soviet fire-fighters who tunnelled beneath the molten mass, entering the radioactive zone, to build a shield of concrete beneath the power station and wall it off for ever.

Europe and the world were faced with an ecological disaster as great as any posed by an accidental firing of a military weapon, and suddenly without a shot being fired in anger, the “peaceful uses of atomic energy” did not seem so peaceful any more.

Text B

There are two principal places fossil fuels are used: the burning of oil in cars and trucks, and the burning of gas and coal in the generation of electricity. In both instances, if the green movement wants to solve the problem of global warming, it is going to have to embrace new technologies rather than reject them.

Solving the problems by changing behaviour simply isn’t an option. Americans are not going to go without electricity, and they aren’t going to quit driving. American politicians are not going to force Americans to drive smaller cars by putting higher taxes on gasoline, or to use less electricity by charging more for it.

In the case of electricity, we already have a technical solution at hand. It is called nuclear power – a clean way to generate electricity that does not cause global warming. Yet there is nothing the green movement likes less than nuclear power. In Europe, closing nuclear power plants is at the centre of Green Party political platforms.

This ugly choice is going to confront the green movement with a moment of truth. What does it like less: global warming or nuclear power?

There isn’t any third way. Solar power simply cannot do what is necessary. There isn’t enough sunshine available to provide the electricity needed during the night, during the winter and during cloudy weather. Solar power also takes enormous amounts of space devoted to ugly collectors.

Nuclear power is one of the few examples in which human sociology has completely dominated hard science. Serious studies consistently show that, to generate the same amount of electricity, more people will die if coal is used than if nuclear power is the energy source.

Remember a year ago when two workers died in a nuclear power plant in Japan? Their deaths were in the headlines of every newspaper in the world. How many people do you think die every day in the coal mining industries of the world?

In America, we kill about 36 per year. In China, they reportedly kill 10,000 per “normal” year. Together, China (the world’s biggest producer of coal) and America (the world’s second-biggest producer) mine half of the world’s coal. We don’t know the exact death rates elsewhere, but we do know how many millions of tons of coal are produced in different countries. If we assume that the developed world has a death rate per million tons mined equal to that of the United States and that the Third World (India is the world’s third-largest producer of coal) has a death rate per million tons mined equal to that of China, 55 people per day die in the world’s coal mining industries. Few of those deaths make headlines.

The problem with nuclear power is not that it kills people; it kills very few. Its problem is that humans have a fear of something they cannot see, hear, feel and smell. Humans are used to the idea that a rock can fall on your head and kill you. They have not been able to get used to the idea that an invisible particle they cannot sense can kill them. Nuclear radiation is the ultimate ghost.

But there is another, perhaps more important, dirty little reality about nuclear power that the green movement would rather not talk about. Most of us know with certainty that we will not be the ones killed in a coal mining accident. We don’t work in the world’s coal mines. Someone else does. They are the ones risking their lives to give us electricity. We don’t want to risk our own lives with nuclear power to give ourselves electricity – no matter how small the probabilities may be.

The fatality equation is clear. Nuclear power is much safer than coal. It is also safer than natural gas; the number of American deaths in oil and gas exploration is more than twice that in coal mining.

The environmental side effects are equally clear. Coal piles are slightly radioactive. Millions of tons of fly ash have to be dumped somewhere. Burning coal causes global warming. Nuclear power is cleaner.

This leaves members of the environmental movement between a rock and a hard place. They don’t like global warming, and they don’t like nuclear power. But if they want to prevent global warming, they are going to have to embrace nuclear power.

Text C