Jennifer Collins
Environment and Politics, sec 5
Debate Paper #3: Nuclear Power
Atomic science has been in the workings since 1895, and has brought about many great
achievements, one of the greatest being nuclear fission. Since 1965, the main focus of all of these
achievements and research has been designing more efficient nuclear reactors. In 1939, scientists
Hahn and Strassmann found that neutrons could collide with uranium particles and break them
apart, leaving more neutrons and a substantial amount of energy. They also realized that this
reaction was a chain, and that once one fission reaction occurred, it produced the neutrons for
many more fission reactions. However, all power aspects of nuclear fission were pushed aside
for many years of research to develop the atomic bomb, until the end of World War II, when
focus was redirected towards harnessing the power for electricity. In 1951, the first nuclear
reactor to produce energy was operational, and although it was a very small amount, it started the
pathway for where the United States is today. By the 1960s, nuclear had gone commercial (3). In
the typical, modern designs for nuclear reactors, the main functions are the same. In the center of
the reactor is a core that is filled with fuel rods, filled with uranium pellets. These pellets are
bombarded with neutrons, which causes the fission. The energy given off as fission occurs is
given off as heat, thus heating the core, which heats up water (reactor coolant) surrounding the
core. As the water heats up, it turns into steam, and travels to a turbine. The steam spins the
turbine, which thus turns a generator, producing power. After the steam goes through the turbine,
it reaches a condenser, where it is turned back into water, and the cycle continues. Nuclear
reactors do all of this without producing any carbon emissions (3). Stakeholders related to the
issue of reviving nuclear power include the employees who work at nuclear power plants, the
miners of uranium, workers at uranium enrichment plants, the U.S. Department of Energy, any
power grid reliant upon nuclear power, homeowners near nuclear power plants, and anyone who
uses electricity that has been generated by nuclear power (at least 30% of the U.S.). In order to
address the main issue, some sub-issues that must be addressed is the actual safety of nuclear
power plants, the disposal of nuclear waste, and the amount of energy nuclear power contributes
to the U.S. All of these factor in to the importance versus unimportance of nuclear power.
There are many different ways to argue that nuclear should be revitalized in the United
States. The article entitled “Advantages of Nuclear Energy” on the website Conserve Energy
Future addresses the main reasons why nuclear energy should be used more. They explain how
since 1998, greenhouse gas emissions have gone down by almost 50% because nuclear has
increased in popularity (1). Nuclear power plants, in fact, do not release any greenhouse gases at
all, and thus does not contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Secondly, nuclear
power is much more efficient than the energy alternatives, and new technology makes it a much
more viable option. Thirdly, nuclear power is much more reliable than solar or wind, which
depend upon the sun being out and the wind blowing, respectively. Nuclear, however, does not
depend on anything related to the weather, and can operate no matter what the weather
conditions, within safe limits. Fourthly, it produces fairly cheap electricity, because uranium is
inexpensive and running costs is low. Although they cost a lot to build, they can last for up to 60
years without needing serious maintenance, making them cheaper in the long run. Fifthly, very
little uranium is needed to produce a large amount of energy, and it is much more efficient than
other sources of energy. Also, uranium releases million times more energy than more traditional
sources, such as coal or oil. Sixthly, nuclear energy has a continuous supply that is expected to
last for at least another 100 years due to large uranium deposits. Finally, transportation of
uranium is much easier than transportation of coal, because so much less of it is needed. For
example, 28 grams of uranium can release the same amount of energy as 100 metric tons of coal
(1).
The pro-argument for nuclear is a strong one, that is backed by research and statistics.
While this article does a good job of showing those things, and offers many good reasons as to
why nuclear should be revitalized, it is missing some things. It would be a much stronger article
if they addressed some of the public’s fears towards nuclear power. Many people are so afraid of
nuclear, that they do not care if it produces zero carbon emissions, or if it is much more efficient
than coal, because they are too busy being afraid of a nuclear meltdown. Thus, this article could
have been stronger if the authors had chosen to show how few nuclear meltdowns there are, or if
they had shown how it is much less likely to occur in today’s world. Other than that, however,
they did a strong job of portraying nuclear as a good option for future power sources. They
showed seven reasons as to why nuclear can be advantageous, and also were able to use facts to
back up each one. By including these facts, they bolstered their arguments and give their
arguments more backing and credibility. Their facts are accurate and persuasive, and help to
show the reader why nuclear is good, from a purely scientific point of view. Also, another
potential problem with this article’s argument is that it is backed by extremely pro-nuclear
organizations. Because of this, they show the utmost positive aspects of the statistics, which can
be sometimes misleading. For example, while they say there is at least 100 years-worth of
uranium, this is a figure that is on the higher side. The actual range is closer to at least 70 years,
which can make a difference.
An article that shows the negative argument in the nuclear debate is “Ten Strikes Against
Nuclear Power” on the website Green America. It points out ten reasons why nuclear power
should not be revitalized. First off, nuclear waste is toxic for over 100,000 years, and there is no
safe way to store all of it for a long period of time. Secondly, nuclear proliferation, or refining
nuclear waste to use as fuel for nuclear weapons, is a serious problem that comes with nuclear
power. Third, nuclear reactors are a potential threat to national security because they serve as
targets for terrorists. Fourth, nuclear reactors experience accidents, such as the ones at
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. Fifth, there is concern to some that living near
nuclear plants can increase the chance for leukemia in children. Sixth, there are not enough
nuclear plants to compensate for the energy being produced by coal. Seventh, there is only
enough uranium for a short amount of time. Eighth, the cost to build nuclear power plants is very
expensive, and building more plants will only cause that cost to rise. Ninth, there is very little
funding from the private sector, and thus a lot of their funding must come from taxpayers and
government loans. Finally, there is not enough time to build many nuclear power plants for
sudden and drastic improvements to greenhouse emissions (4).
The no-argument, while it has its strong points, has a large number of holes that must be
addressed. For starters, they do one of the biggest errors, which is showing all of the negative
sides of the argument and giving all of their reasons as to why it is a problem and why global
warming is a problem, but then offer no solution. They briefly mention alternatives such as solar
and wind, but talk about them as if they could come in within the next ten years and replace coal
entirely. They never once mention the potential negatives of these, or how expensive they are,
like nuclear power. Also, they offer very little fact, and the “facts” that they do offer, are lacking
not only scientific backing, but any kind of backing in general. For example, they talk about how
studies show that living near a nuclear reactor can increase risk of childhood leukemia, but then
oddly fail to mention who did this study or where this study’s results can be found. Also, they
make it seem like the only way that nuclear could be brought into the U.S. is if it were to
completely replace all coal and produce all of the U.S.’s energy. However, it is absurd to expect
one energy source to come in and rapidly replace an entire energy spectrum for millions of
people. They are looking for a complete solution, without mentioning the fact that such a
solution does not actually exist.
A third article from Time is entitled “Goodbye Nuclear Power—and Hello More
Carbon?” and has a very neutral standpoint in the nuclear debate. It talks about how Japan has
shut down all of its nuclear reactors after Fukushima, and it caused many other countries to
follow suit. However, soon after countries stopped relying upon nuclear power, they began to
start building new coal plants, because they were running into energy shortages without nuclear.
The interesting thing about this article is that it takes neither a positive nor a negative standpoint.
It merely shows what happened after countries went away from nuclear. Whether people want to
accept it or not, nuclear still produces about 12% of all of the world’s electricity. Shut that down,
and it must be replaced through other sources. However, the only way to replace it in today’s
world is through coal or oil, which are much harsher on the environment. Therefore, the world
must seriously consider replacements before it completely shuts itself away from nuclear power
(5). The most interesting thing about this article is that it was published by Time, a magazine that
was backed by neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear companies. Thus, they worked to only
present the actual facts and data that they found. It is, for the most part, completely unbiased fact.
My personal opinion towards nuclear is 100% positive. I am a nuclear engineer major,
thus it would be odd for me to be against nuclear. Despite that, I have always been in support of
nuclear power. Where I lived, I got a good portion of my electricity from the San Onofre Nuclear
Power Plant, while it was still in operation. Never were there stories on the news of people
getting cancer because of it, or of it being unsafe, or of it being a terrorist threat. The U.S. and
NRC take so many precautions and have so many laws regulating nuclear that it is completely
safe. In fact, I went and toured a nuclear reactor, and because of regulation, the water that they
released into a river was many times cleaner and containing less alpha particles than the natural
river water itself. Thus, I feel like debates against nuclear are weak, because nuclear offers a
viable, here-and-now solution to carbon-free energy.
Works Cited
1. "Advantages of Nuclear Energy." Conserve Energy Future. Conserve Energy Future, n.d. Web.
<http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Advantages_NuclearEnergy.php>.
2. "Boiling Water Reactors." U.S. NRC. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Apr. 2013.
Web. <http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html>.
3. "Outline History of Nuclear Energy." World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association, Mar.
2014. Web. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/OutlineHistory-of-Nuclear-Energy/>.
4. "Ten Strikes Against Nuclear." Green America. Green America, n.d. Web.
<http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm>.
5. Walsh, Bryan. "Goodbye Nuclear Power--and Hello More Carbon?" Time. Time, May 2012. Web.
<http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2114166,00.html>.