Final Research

Solar Power Vs Nuclear Power

 

Solar power and nuclear power are considered to be two of the main energy sources. The application of solar power to generate energy is available to all countries worldwide while the application of nuclear power to generate energy is limited; except to technologically developed countries and it is not authorized for all countries to produce it due to its potentially detrimental effects on the world peace. Nuclear energy is the energy produced by splitting apart the nuclei of atoms while solar energy is the energy produced from the absorbance of sun rays. Solar energy has a lot of advantages and its application is considered to be ethically preferrable and better than nuclear energy. However, the advantages of nuclear power can’t be ignored. This report will compare and contrast the ethical issues associated with implementing both solar and nuclear energy.  

Solar power is environmentally safer and cleaner than nuclear power because there is no chemical waste produced during the production of solar energy. In contrast, vast amounts of chemical wastes are produced during the production of nuclear energy due to the emitting of radiation and fallout while processing. The waste of nuclear power is very destructive and it can destroy our universe. Additionally, solar energy is environmentally friendly and so there is no negative impact to the surrounding environment; it doesn’t pollute air, land or water. There is no emission from generating solar energy mainly because the plant is based on panel boards that absorb sun rays and then transfer them to energy. On the other hand, nuclear power is considered to be fatal to the surrounding environment if there was a lack of process knowledge associated with improper control procedures. The radiation and wastes emitted have detrimental effects where land, water, ambient air and people are affected by such a radiation. It has the potential to stop human life at a diameter of more than 2000 km from the point of emission and distortion for people's bodies at longer distances; animals may die and plants stop growing when the radiation of the nuclear power spread around the plant of producing nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, nowadays nuclear weapons are used to threaten people and countries where militaries are using nuclear weapons and bombs to threaten the world peace. The best example to express the implementation of nuclear power is when the USA used nuclear power in the Second World War against Japan against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still suffering the bad effects of the nuclear bombs up to this moment. Furthermore, gangs and terrorists threaten to use nuclear weapons for horrifying and murdering people. Nuclear weapons could assist terrorists in carrying out their plans of destroying and killing people. All countries have to pay great attention and due care to the production of nuclear power for the aim of piece.

Although the use of solar energy is shown to be ethically better than nuclear energy, there are some other merits that make the use of nuclear energy better than the use of solar energy.  Nuclear energy has higher efficiency and productivity than solar energy. Nuclear power is reliable and efficient. It can be produced under any conditions and at any time from nuclear power plants unlike the sun energy which requires sun rays to be produced. During the absence of sun rays in the night, the rain, or winter season, it is therefore impossible to generate solar energy; nuclear energy can be produced during day and night times. Additionally, the productivity of nuclear plants is higher than the productivity of solar plants. Nuclear plants produce a big amount of electricity unlike sun energy plants. The nuclear power plant doesn't require such a big space as other energy plants and it has to be built on the coast where only small space is required. It is called green because it doesn’t participate in producing CO2 and other gases which are the main source of global warming and ozone depletion. The nuclear energy is considered to be sustainable because it is planned to be used for long years and the raw materials for the generation of nuclear energy could be easily transported. A small amount of uranium can produce a large amount of energy. The use of uranium to produce energy can make the country fuel independent since there is no need to import energy from other countries. The development in nuclear energy will help us in the field of nuclear science.   

In my point of view, I insist that solar energy is more ethical and reliable than the application of nuclear energy; however, the energy generation of solar power is not adequate and there should be nuclear power generated since massive amounts are possible to be generated with uranium. Nobody could guarantee that oil could be extracted from reservoirs 20 or 30 years from now due to environmental regulations, so the world should be capable of compensating for such a major energy source by depending on other alternatives which is considered to be renewable energy sources. The solar power is guaranteed to be a renewable energy source but considering the nuclear power as a renewable energy source or not is controversial; to clarify this point, if the uranium deposit could be proved to last as long as the relationship between the Earth and Sun is supposed to last (5 billion years) then nuclear energy should be considered as a renewable energy source. No other energy alternative could be produced in adequate amounts to compensate the viability of oil sources; therefore as a future prospect the nuclear power generation is viable and promising and these should be extensive studies performed to elaborate and implement nuclear power plants widely because the actual amount of uranium deposit available is way more than what is considered extractable right now.

 

 

 

References

• Advantages Of Solar Energy, (n.d), Accessed May 22, 2014 from: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Advantages_SolarEnergy.php

• David, (n.d), Solar Power-Advantages and Disadvantages, Accessed May 24, 2014 from:  http://www.alternate-power.org/solar-power-advantages-and-disadvantages/
• Pandit, M. (June 18, 2013), Advantages and disadvantages of Nuclear Energy, Accessed May 21, 2014 from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-nuclear-energy.html
• Nuclear Power: Advantages and Disadvantages, (n.d), Accessed May 20, 2014 from: http://www.cyberphysics.co.uk/topics/nuclear/advantages_disadvantages_nuclear_power.htm
• Nuclear energy, (n.d), Accessed May 19, 2014 from: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Disadvantages_NuclearEnergy.php
• Saleh, F. (December 16, 2013), Nuclear energy, Accessed May 22, 2014 from: http://prezi.com/hwpupp46vqsr/copy-of-nuclear-energy/
   

 

Research

Sheikh Zayed Bridge project delays

 

 

Sheikh Zayed Bridge reflects a new strategic dimension which aims to keep pace with the comprehensive development plan taking place in Abu Dhabi to move forward progress of construction and development and promotion of infrastructure projects, according to giant global best practices. This comes within the framework of the municipal plan emanating from the Strategic Plan of Abu Dhabi 2030, which includes a comprehensive urban plan for the development of Abu Dhabi to make it in the top tier among modern cities in the world.

 

Sheikh Zayed Bridge (upload.wikimedia.org)

 

 

Project Delay:

The construction sequence changed multiple times due to constructability issues and delays in the delivery of fabricated steelwork; in addition the initial contractors Buckland & Taylor and Archirodon Construction unfortunately apologized for completing the project due to the difficulties they both faced in the below mentioned project stages:

1)     Construction: where the most reliable, proper and high quality materials are selected for the bridge construction by Buckland & Taylor Ltd. Company initially.

2)     Design time: where the most modern designs associated with the optimum engineering aspects are correlated by Archirodon Construction Company initially.

3)     Budget: the initial budget for the bridge construction was initially around 700 million DHS at year 2003.

 

Six Construct replaced the Greek company Archirodon Construction on the project and forecasts that it would be open for traffic by autumn and finished by July 2011. And as Six Construct said: "We are taking it over as the general contractor for that project." Bart Wuyts, the communications manager for Six Construct in Brussels, confirmed, "The bridge was already under construction for five or six years, and I think there were some difficulties with the previous contractor, so the client decided to have Six Co finish it."

Ethical Issues involved:

Erection of the Sheikh Zayed Bridge has been difficult because it requires perfect engineering skills and precise measurements for every cross-sectional area in order to create an elegant and iconic bridge for the capital that would be instantly recognizable widely. Every construction company has the ambition to have their title on a well-designed framework where eventually they will gain positive reputation widely and so they will be promoted to perform giant projects such as the Sheikh Zayed Bridge project. However, such projects are not easily managed because they require difficult constraints of quality, cost and time.

 The first companies Buckland & Taylor and Archirodon Construction recalculated their task and concluded that there would be significant losses if they maintained their performance and due to the complicated job, the performance rate is subjected to decrease and so it will cause slower operation and finally lead to undesired losses. At that time, there was a sudden increase in the construction materials cost widely which negatively affected the sources of both Construction Companies.  Unfortunately, Buckland & Taylor and Archirodon Construction companies are not the only companies who have ended the contract.

 

Opinion:

In my point of view, I could say ethically that Buckland & Taylor Ltd. and Archirodon Construction companies fault was when they suddenly ended the contract without informing that they were facing difficulties from the beginning; they were greedy to earn a good reputation at the expense of the project’s performance. They could have stated in the contract that the budget is subjected to increase due to the increase in material cost and to have overcome this issue eventually from the beginning rather than applying the job and ending up finishing only 20% of the project requirements. It is legal for any company to end the contract at any time but there will be charges for such a decision as mentioned in the contract. It is unethical in this case because the construction base was not fully built and suddenly stopped; this will affect the material’s efficiency with time leading to a decrease in the life span of the bridge. In addition if Abu Dhabi’s municipality had been informed before the companies ended the contract, they would begin to arrange tenders to be assigned for the job regardless of the budget increase associated with the aim of saving the construction base efficiency of the bridge.

 

Bibliography:

1)      Sheikh Zayed Bridge. (n.d.). ARUP. Retrieved , from http://www.arup.com/projects/sheikh_zayed_bridge.aspx

 

2)      Sheikh Zayed Bridge officially opened. (n.d.). Archirodon. Retrieved , from http://www.archirodon.net/content/news/news_details.php?mainkat=Sheikh%20Zayed%20Bridge%20officially%20opened

 

3)      Constructing an Icon: the Sheikh Zayed Bridge. (n.d.). Roads and Bridges. Retrieved , from http://www.roadsbridges.com/constructing-icon-sheikh-zayed-bridge

 

4)      Sheikh Zayed Bridge. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved , from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Zayed_Bridge

Who owns your knowledge

Who owns your knowledge?

Ken is a process engineer for Stardust Chemical Corp., and he has signed a secrecy agreement with the firm that prohibits his divulging information that the company considers proprietary.

Stardust has developed an adaptation of a standard piece of equipment that makes it highly efficient for cooling a viscous plastics slurry. (Stardust decides not to patent the idea but to keep it as a trade secret.)

Eventually, Ken leaves Stardust and goes to work for a candy-processing company that is not in any way in competition. He soon realises that a modification similar to Stardust's trade secret could be applied to a different machine used for cooling fudge and, at once, has the change made.

Has Ken acted unethically?


In my point of view, I would rather say that if Ken had a company and noticed that one of his
employees applied his company's super ideas to another competing or not competing company,
he will definitely not accept it. To consider this case in an ethical aspect, Ken is gaining
credentials at the expense of another's performance and that is unethical and any infringement
of copyright is punishable by law.

In another point of view, if Ken was the developer of that adaptation of a standard piece of equipment for Stardust, his case would be brought to a grey area where there is room for argument. Some could simply say that he has invented this development technique and he's got the right for his invention to use it anywhere if he is not under the restriction of a company; others may say that the conscience of a mature person will preclude him from sharing a secret idea that has been already implemented for developing the company and moving towards success regardless of whether he has invented this idea or not; the development was initially implemented in this company and a secrecy agreement was signed by all the employees including Ken, so he has accepted to transfer his credentials of this development to the company.

From a general point of view, Ken has moved to a new company and his loyality should be for the new company. He left Stardust legally, so there is no argument about his right to share an efficient development strategy for the sake of improving the new company's situation.

Case Study 1

 

The Tay Bridge Disaster

 

 

Description:

On the 28^th of December 1879, a single track railroad connection between Edinburgh and Dundee, Scotland, collapsed during a violent storm resulting in the death of 75 people who were passing over the bridge by a train. The bridge collapsed on the night of a rigorous winter storm associated with a severe wind where the shortage of engineering principles showed up at that moment. The Tay Bridge was designed by structural engineer Sir Thomas Bouch, but his design contained many structural deficiencies which led to the collapse. The bridge was two miles in length and the title “Sir” was granted to the bridge builder Thomas Bouch by Queen Victoria at that period of time due to the success of Sir Thomas Bouch in accomplishing many of the railways and bridges. Although a century has passed following the occurrence of this disaster, it is still a mystery to this day.

                                                   

Causes and individual responsibilities:

Although several engineering committees tried to interpret the engineering fact behind the unexpected collapse of the Tay bridge, they all failed due to their delay collecting sufficient information and evidence right after the collapse. The following information describes the causes:

1)     The maintenance of the bridge has been badly maintained especially for the two crossbars in the middle, which were established in a high manner to allow ships passing under.

2)     Thomas Bouch did absolutely nothing with regard to the topographic surveys that should be done in the bottom of the river before the construction of the bridge

3)     Thomas relied on cast iron rather than steel for the bridge structure so the joints holding the bridge together were defective; in addition the span formation between piers was increased because the bedrock lay too deep in certain sections.

Sir Thomas Bouch was held chiefly to blame for the collapse in not making adequate allowance for wind loading.

 

Ethical Issues involved:

From the ethical aspect if someone gained a good reputation for his outstanding record, he should keep that reputation viable in its position by maintaining his continuous effort. Due to the continuous success, over confidence and the routine work procedures, the person might do some shortcuts in accomplishing his objectives with less appreciation with regard to the main important points. Likewise Mr. Bouch had received advice from several engineers in relation to wind loading of the bridge that a wind load of 10 pounds per square foot is reasonable for the bridge structure while in reality a wind load of 20 pounds per square foot was the reasonable allowance. Due to this error, the piers on the bridge structure became narrower and weaker which eventually collapsed and formed detrimental effects. In addition, an inspector in 1878 found after a long inspection that some of the bridge joints were defective and he didn’t inform Mr. Bouch about it; therefore he tried to fix that issue by himself. From an ethical point of view, I could say that this inspector wanted to gain the credibility of fixing what the famous designer Mr. Bouch designed but unfortunately he addressed the problem incorrectly and the result was the death of 75 people a year after.

Conclusion:

To consider the Tay bridge disaster in an ethical aspect, Mr. Bouch tried to save time and money at the expense of safety for people and the environment. I believe that people should think of safety issues then agree on using certain equipment even if the equipment costs them a high amount of money. Being ethical in a society does not necessarily mean that we are required to do whatever the society accepts. Usually, most members in a society accept ethical standards but the standard of behavior in a society can deviate from these ethical standards and the entire society can become ethically corrupt.

 

Bibliography:

1)     "Tay Bridge Disaster." Tay Bridge Disaster. McGonagall, 2001. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcgonagall-online.org.uk%2Fgems%2Fthe.

2)     "Wikia." Tay Bridge. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. http://ethics.wikia.com/wiki/Tay_Bridge_Disaster.

3)     "Tom Martin's Tay Bridge Disaster Web Pages." The Tay Bridge Disaster. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. http://taybridgedisaster.co.uk/.

4)     The Tay Disaster. Leisure and Culture Dundee, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leisureandculturedundee.com%2Flibrary%2Ftaybridge.

 

Human rights

The American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration was largely the work of Thomas Jefferson, who later became the 3rd President of the United States. It is really the basis of what we call rights ethics.
This basically rests on the view that all human beings have human rights. Human rights are not legal rights. They are universal and so democratic. They fit in with what Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address (November 1864) described as 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.
Human rights rely on the belief that other people have a duty to respect our rights.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" That was the first sentence of Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

This was the concept of ‘the noble savage’.

Thomas Hobbes:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Design, Production & Ethical issues

Aluminium cans

 

Approximately 1 billion are produced in the USA each year. The first can was designed in 1958 by Kaiser Aluminium. This metal proved ideal as it was a lightweight, flexible material that allowed manufacturing of the bottom & sides of the can from a single sheet, leaving the top to be added after the can was filled.

The first cans were opened with a separate opener but this was inconvenient so Ermal Fraze designed a small lever attached to the can which was removed as the can was opened.

The design was workable but after a while it created an ethical dilemma:

The ethical dilemma created was a health hazard for people because the discarded aluminium tabs on the top of the can could lead to a sharp bleeding if it contact a human body, in addition it was an environmental hazard due to the wasted tabs on the floors, streets and even in the sea.

So in 1976 Daniel F. Cudzik invented a simple, stay-attached opener of the sort familiar today.

As improvements were made in the design & production of aluminium cans, various ethical problems arose concerning:

a. Human safety: The top section of the aluminium tab will be exposed to the ambience so any dust or polluted particles will transfer to the liquid within the can when the tab will be internally opened.

b. Environmental pollution: Although an aluminium can is recyclable unfortunately there are millions of aluminium cans waiting for recycling processes and so they are landfilled and pollution is created along with landfilling.

c. Convenience: The aluminium cans production and recycling factories requires hydropower dams linked to them in order to achieve the smelting process and for such application, large land space area is needed which will displace thousands of people.

d. Money:  Firstly, aluminium is produced using bauxite which is a finite resource found in Australia. Secondly, the costs depend on the recycling quantity; if there are sufficient amounts of wasted aluminium cans, the production cost of one aluminium can will decrease as the amount of recyclable cans is increasing because aluminium could be recycled again and again.

Ethical issues

Ethics exist in every single area of human life; what is totally right and what is totally wrong could be defined by minors but if the case is neither right nor wrong, it is called the grey area where it lies between both right and wrong areas.

Such cases require a room for arguments where the room members are mature people and so every member could propose a decision and justify reasons for selecting such decision.

I totally disagree with the person who faces an ethical grey area and he has a single response which is ignoring it. The human being has a brain endowed by God and he should always bear in mind that he won't always exist in ethical areas where every circumstance is clear and simple for selecting the optimum decision.