Debate Paper: Is it Time to Revive Nuclear Power?:
By: Tim Faulkner
The use of nuclear energy in the United States has always been a controversial issue,
debated across all levels of society. Nuclear power began as a side-venture of the Manhattan
Project, as the energies produced by atomic weaponry sparked curiosity as to the potential for
nuclear electricity production. The first commercial nuclear power plant was located in Obninsk,
Russia (Soviet Union at the time)i. The production of electricity through nuclear power grew
over the years, marked by well-known accidents such as “Three Mile Island”, “Chernobyl”, and
the “Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Accident”. Currently, 12.3% of the world’s electricity is
provided through nuclear power, with 435 operating reactors over the world. There are 30
countries worldwide which produce nuclear energy, and 66 new reactors being built in 14
countriesii. The major stakeholders in the revival of nuclear power are citizens of the United
States, the Government, investors, and environmentalistsiii. Within the debate, the primary subissues are safety, weapons proliferation, global climate change, cost, and energy production.iv
The “yes” article Nuclear Power? Yes Please, by Iain Murray, covers the majority of the
areas that need to be discussed regarding the nuclear debate. In terms of safety, the author
attributes the decline of nuclear power in the 1980’s to a “global zeitgeist” where nuclear power
was seen as evil. The author states that this fear is false, and that the claims that “nuclear plants
are dangerous because they can blow up or melt down, that nuclear waste is extremely and
persistently dangerous, and that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intrinsically linked” are
all false. The author counters each of these statements with various facts. First, the author
refutes the standard method of determining what dosage of radiation is considered harmful for a
person. The Linear Non-Threshold Theory (LNT Theory) uses linear data found at very high
radiation levels to determine radiation effects at lower levels of radiation. Under this theory,
there are supposedly no safe levels of radiation. The author states, however, that people can be
exposed to those levels of radiation and live normal lives, and that the LNT Theory is false.
Also, the issue of storing nuclear waste was refuted, as the author stated that reprocessing spent
nuclear materials does recover some fissionable material, and leaves the remaining nuclear waste
far less radioactive, reducing the danger significantly. The issue of weapons proliferation is also
addressed, as the article stated that the nuclear waste produced does not contain the composition
necessary to convert the waste into nuclear weapons material. The additional threat of a terrorist
attack on a nuclear reactor was also addressed, as the Department of Energy performed a study
on the effects of a plane crashing at full-speed with a nuclear reactor to mimic the evens on 9/11.
The containment shell of the reactor was not breached in any of the simulations. The author also
reminds the reader that, while Three Mile Island was a disaster, there were no casualties. On the
economic side, the reason why nuclear energy is seen as so expensive is due to the initial
construction costs. However, the author attributes these initial costs to delays in construction
caused by politics, as well as issues with construction errors. However, if the delays and errors
were eliminated, the expensive costs of initial construction would be offset by the low operating
cost of nuclear power. The author also states that nuclear power would be a cheaper alternative
if the price of fossil fuels was raised, which is fair since the government subsidizes oil companies
in order to keep the price of fossil fuels low. Finally, the author states that we are not running
out of nuclear fuel, nuclear power is expensive but pays for itself, and that the time taken to build
a reactor has been cut down, as a Canadian company has developed a method for constructing
reactors so that they are online and providing power within four years of the start of
construction.v
There were some key problems with several of the statements made within the “yes”
article. While the author used a number of facts, there were some statements which were not
backed up by solid information, and other statements which were vague and unclear, or directly
in contrast with a statement made by the opposing side. The first issue with the article is that the
first six paragraphs appear to be a complete waste. The author is essentially saying that nuclear
power has a bad reputation because of environmentalists, but as things are, the environmentalists
will probably have to be nuclear power’s biggest supporters, so the first 6 paragraphs seem
unnecessary. Those paragraphs would have been better spent arguing for new safety features
and how the problems with nuclear power are not as severe as they seem. Also, the author
makes several nonchalant claims that rely on the reader previously agreeing with the author’s
statement, such as “But such “cancer clusters” appear all over the place, and are just as likely to
appear next to an organic farm”vi. There was no scientific evidence mentioned that supports
such a statement, and is similar to when natural gas companies say that the gas leaking into the
aquifer could have come from anywhere.vii Essentially, the previously mentioned statement uses
the old claim of “it could have been anybody” when it was most likely the previously mentioned
source. Finally, there are three separate statements that the author makes, none of which have
any scientific proof supporting them: “uranium is running out (not true even in the medium
term); that decommissioning is expensive and/or will be a burden on the taxpayer (it is
expensive, but the cost could be met by requiring the operator to pay into a fund during the
reactor’s life); or that building reactors takes too long (true, but most of that is the fault of red
tape)”. The only statement that is supported is the last one, where the author adds that a
Canadian company has managed to reduce the time it takes to have a new nuclear reactor up and
running to four yearsviii. The previous two statements have no scientific evidence to support
them, and are therefore useless and detrimental to the affirmative argument. Finally, the author
states that nuclear power is necessary if we are to overcome our “addiction to oil”. However,
another article states that nuclear power cannot function as a viable alternative to fossil fuels in
the fight against climate change, as building nuclear reactors and mining resources releases
emissions, and the amount of money that would be required to build those reactors, and the time
necessary, would make it economically impossible.ix
In the opposing article, Five Myths About Nuclear Energy, by Kristin Shrader-Frechette,
the author has chosen five general “myths” about nuclear energy to address. The author opens
up by immediately stating that nuclear energy is dangerous, and states the possible effects of a
nuclear reactor meltdown. The author mentions wind and solar energy as alternatives, but
focuses mainly on refuting the claims made about nuclear power and its benefits. Firstly, the
author states that nuclear power is not clean. While emissions are not released during the
reaction process, the process of constructing the reactors and mining materials does cause
emissions. The author then proposes that energy efficiency programs could serve as an
alternative to nuclear energy, stating that current energy consumption could be cut by 20-45%
using previously-known strategies, like “time-of-use” electricity pricing. Second, the author
refutes the claim that nuclear power is inexpensive. According to the article, nuclear power
companies have received about $165 billion in subsidies, whereas wind and solar have received
about $5 billion altogether. The author also points out that no new nuclear reactors have been
ordered since 1974. Third, nuclear power cannot address climate change effectively. The
emissions released by the processes involved in constructing and operating a nuclear power plant
would equal that of the natural gas industry. Also, since the U.S. gets its uranium from foreign
countries, the pattern of “foreign fuel” is continued. Fourth, the author states that nuclear energy
will increase weapons proliferation by using the logic that an increase in nuclear power would
result in an increase in nuclear materials, which automatically means an increase in the risk of
nuclear weapons proliferation. Finally, the author claims that nuclear reactors are not safe.
Tripling the current number of reactors would produce four core meltdowns, according to a study
performed by MIT in 2003, and that a nuclear accident could cause deaths in numbers similar to
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as much as 140,000). Also, the plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain are apparently dangerous, as there have been known incidents of seismic activity in the
region, and the gradual decay and disposal of the nuclear waste could theoretically cause a
person fatal harm. The author also highlights the risks of transporting nuclear waste, and the
potential costs of each incident. The author closes by saying that wind energy is a safer, more
economical alternative to nuclear energy.x
The arguments against nuclear energy are solid for the most part. All of the important
issues are covered, and logical arguments against nuclear energy are frequently utilized. The
author also frequently suggests alternatives to nuclear energy. However, there are some key
issues with the article. First, the author does not provide enough facts to back up arguments.
The author states that nuclear energy releases emissions throughout the nuclear process, which is
true as emissions are released during construction and mining, but the same can be said for any
form of energy. This means that wind energy could have emissions similar or on par with
nuclear energy, theoretically speakingxi. Next, the author’s claim that nuclear energy is
expensive because the government has paid $165 billion in subsidies since 1949 fails to address
fossil fuels.xii The U.S. government pays an estimated $10-52 billion annually, making nuclear
energy comparatively cheapxiii. Also, the author makes a rather foolish mistake by stating that
Shell Oil and other fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in wind and solar energyxiv. Shell
Oil stopped investing in wind and solar energy back in 2009, so the statement that Shell Oil and
other fossil fuel companies are investing heavily in wind and solar is a blatant liexv. Next, the
author uses an argument of logic to prove that an increase in nuclear energy would increase the
odds of nuclear weapons proliferation. However, according to the IAEA, there are strict
regulations and processes which monitor the distribution of all nuclear materials, making it
difficult for nuclear materials to simply “go missing”xvi. Also, the author states that none of the
reactors could survive being hit with a hijacked plane as in the 9/11 attacks. However, the
Department of Energy performed a study proving that the reactors containment chambers would
not be breached even if a plane collided at full-speedxvii. When refuting the claimed “safety” of
nuclear reactors, the author failed to address any of the three key nuclear disasters, namely
“Three Mile Island”, “Chernobyl”, and the “Fukushima Daiichi” disasters. Instead, the author
speculates, making the arguments seem as though they do not have a solid base, making the
article as a whole less convincing. The largest problem is the lack of an attempt to refute nuclear
energy, and the more obvious attempt to promote wind and solar as an alternative. The author
fails to thoroughly deny nuclear energy because of nuclear energy, and instead tries to gain
support for wind and solar. This method supports solar energy, but does not eliminate nuclear
power as an option.xviii
Overall, I think that the arguments against nuclear energy are mostly a result of paranoia.
The three major incidents with nuclear reactors have caused a state of fear as to what might
happen. Also, the fear of the sheer power of an atomic explosion has caused people to believe
that a nuclear reactor core meltdown would produce a similar explosion when it would not.
However, there is an article which highlights an interesting issue; the actual causes behind Three
Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Three Mile Island was a result of human error. A
partial meltdown occurred, and when the personnel attempted to shut down the reactor, there
were several equipment failures that were missed due to human error. In Chernobyl, guidelines
were ignored and an experiment was performed on one of the reactors to see if the remaining
rotation of the turbines could power the shutdown process while the generators started. Policies
were ignored, and the Chernobyl disaster is what resultedxix. Finally, with the Fukushima
Daiichi power plant, the disaster was caused because regulatory agencies allowed the power
plant to ignore safety regulations in order to produce more electricity, which ultimate resulted in
a disaster, since the reactor complex was designed to withstand an earthquake, as well as the
ensuing tsunami. Instead, the disaster was “man-made”xx. Each of these disasters was a result of
human error, which suggests that the people working in positions related to the nuclear power
plants were not suitable for those positions. Based on those facts, it is possible that nuclear
disasters could be avoided entirely if people are trained properly. With education progressing
farther, nuclear engineers are becoming better educated, so the risk of a nuclear disaster will be
further decreased. Both articles fail to address the human factor which can change the issue of
nuclear power significantly.
In my own personal opinion, I believe that nuclear power should be revived. It has the
highest energy output per quantity of fuel utilized, and is the closest thing we have to a perfect
mass-to-energy conversion. If the potential for human error is decreased, I think the issues of
safety with nuclear energy will be eliminated. Nuclear weapons proliferation will not be affected
by an increase in nuclear power plants, as there are regulations which prevent materials from
being stolen. Also, there are technologies which can make use of the residual radiation of
radioactive waste in order to generate heat, which further reduces the risk of nuclear waste.
Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators produce electricity by using the residual radiation of
nuclear waste to heat water and generate electricityxxi. Overall, I think that nuclear is a viable
alternative to fossil fuels, and that with proper regulation, safety could be virtually guaranteed.
Reduce the odds of human error, and we have a viable source of energy.
i
"June 27, 1954: World’s First Nuclear Power Plant Opens." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 27 June 2012. Web. 15
Oct. 2012. <http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2012/06/june-27-1954-worlds-first-nuclear-power-plantopens/>.
ii
"NEI: Nuclear Energy Institute." Nuclear Energy Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/worldstatistics/>.
iii
"Publications." CANES. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://web.mit.edu/canes/publications/abstracts/nsp/nsp016.html>.
iv
"Five Myths About Nuclear Energy." America Magazine -. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884>.
v
"Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review Online." Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review
Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=ZGY3ZjdhZTg2MDBiOTYxZTVhYWExYTBlMThkYjM4MjA=>.
vi
"Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review Online." Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review
Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=ZGY3ZjdhZTg2MDBiOTYxZTVhYWExYTBlMThkYjM4MjA=>.
vii
"ArsTechnica." Ars Technica. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012. <http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/frackedpennsylvania-shale-could-be-naturally-leaky/>.
viii
"Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review Online." Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review
Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=ZGY3ZjdhZTg2MDBiOTYxZTVhYWExYTBlMThkYjM4MjA=>.
ix
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf
x
"Five Myths About Nuclear Energy." America Magazine -. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884>.
xi
"NEI: Nuclear Energy Institute." Nuclear Energy Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissionsanalysis/>.
xii
"Five Myths About Nuclear Energy." America Magazine -. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884>.
xiii
"Oil Change International." The Price of Oil. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012. <http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuelsubsidies/>.
xiv
"Five Myths About Nuclear Energy." America Magazine -. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884>.
xv
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/37602411/shell-pulls-plug-wind-solar-power
"NEI: Nuclear Energy Institute." Nuclear Energy Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/factsheet/preventingproliferationofn
uclearmaterials/?page=1>.
xvii
"Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review Online." Nuclear Power? by Iain Murray - National Review
Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=ZGY3ZjdhZTg2MDBiOTYxZTVhYWExYTBlMThkYjM4MjA=>.
xvi
xviii
"Five Myths About Nuclear Energy." America Magazine -. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10884>.
xix
"Nuclear Disasters." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012.
<http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_disasters/nuclear_disasters.html>.
xx
Fujita, Akiko. "Japan Investigation Finds Fukushima Nuclear Disaster ‘Man-Made’." ABC News. ABC News
Network, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/japan-investigation-findsfukushima-nuclear-disaster-man-made/>.
xxi
http://nuclear.gov/pdffiles/mmrtg.pdf