Question

Question 1 You run a company that operates and maintains nuclear power plants for generation of electricity You have realised that the highly risky nature of a nuclear power plant operation makes the industry very competitive and costly to maintain. You knew three of your nuclear power plants required reactor core replacement due to faulty components. You were notified by your technicians that imm replacements are needed to prevent a possible nuclear reactor core melt. res were mostly focused on the acquisition of investment However, your recent capital expenditures were mostly focused on the aca properties geared towards the realisation of higher net profit mare was delayed for additional six months which was convenient for the firm of the nuclear reactor core was delayed for additional six months as the next Inspections for these facilities were due in nine months' time Two of the faulty nuclear reactor cores melted and led to the release of substantive radioactive Isotopes atmosphere before adequate containment procedures could be implemented. While one of the nuclear power plants with faulty nuclear reactor core is located in a less densely populated region, the other is in densely populated region. In the densely populated region, radiation poisoning has been noted with 20 officially reported cases so far. Additional significant environmental damages have not been documented by the Environmental Protection Agency who are yet to finalise its report on the nature and extent of environmental damages caused by the radioactive isotopes. Currently, it is uncertain the legal ramifications the firm is likely to face and the associated compensation which must be paid to injured parties. Given the nature of the damage caused, the firm would have a substantial liability to pay. Given the resulting consequences, do you think reducing nature to a number is beneficial to the environment and accounting? Discuss giving consideration to at least 2 cases and relating them to your business. Your answer needs to be in your own words and correctly referenced to receive full marks (500 words)

Answer 1

Firstly the above scenario is based on a nuclear plant which is the most critical industry of all the rest. True that these kinds of industries provide & generate electricity to the rest of the world, but in that consequence lot of risk factors like, nature, living beings and water bodies needs to be kept in mind. The above scenario is that the power plants needed reactor core replacements to avoid the reactor core melt. Definitely, reducing nature is not beneficial to the environment and other living beings. Reducing nature has its affects which are stated below:

1. Harmful for living beings without enough supply of oxygen.

2. Nature has the capacity to absorb harmful pollution & radiated isotopes. Reducing nature will affect living beings and environment as there would be no way, for reduction in the isotopes released.

Accounting of the industry would be affected if not replaced because penalty would be paid due to losses and also additional replacement costs.

Nature plays the key role in the above scenario. Nature absorbs all the poison emitted. The firm should definitely follow the norms by the Environmental Protection Agency as laid down.

Its is beneficial to both the nature & living beings. Efforts should be made to increase the form of nature, and not vice-versa.

Instead of focusing on acquiring of properties, the firm should have taken necessary precautions to protect the environment and the replacement of the nuclear core reactors. Now, ideally all the profits gained by the extra properties would be poured on penalties and damages caused around.