Is There a Place For Nuclear Energy in This Worlds

Future?
Alexander Tischner

Since the discovery of nuclear energy, it has become an energy resource to

produce electricity. It has been long debated if nuclear energy does in fact have a
place in our society as an energy resource since the nuclear meltdown of
Chernobyl, Russia where a whole town has been evacuated. That area is no
longer safe for humans to be live for the next thousand years. Since then there
has been a comeback in nuclear energy as our technology advances we have
accepted nuclear energy as a safe resource to be used. But since March 11,
2011 debates have sparked due to the meltdown of Fukushima reactor in Japan
when a 9.0 magnitude destabilized the reactor. Unable to contain in to this day, it
is still leaking nuclear waste into the ocean greatly impacting the environment.
Since then some countries have taken steps to completely be non-nuclear reliant.
But as new trends come about to go green, some argue that nuclear energy is
the safest path to go for cost efficiency. As technology, progresses in our lives,
nuclear energy has become more stable and efficient. Does nuclear energy
belong on our planet? Is it necessary?

A good amount of people and engineers will argue that nuclear energy is a
viable power source. With our population growing exponentially throughout the
years, more and more energy to sustain the public is necessary. But with all
energy, there comes the downside of how it affects our planet. The main negative
focus on our planets climate change propelled by increasing greenhouse carbon
emissions. When most people look at a power plant, they see big large cooling
towers with mass amounts of vapor coming out of them thinking that this is what
is hurting our planet. The truth could not be further from this misunderstood
opinion. The cooling towers are meant to cool down the nuclear reactions
occurring when heat is created thus heating the water turning it into steam. It is
no different than boiling a pot of water and watching steam be the byproduct of
the energy transfer. Nuclear plants produce virtually no emissions harmful to our
planet. It is the greenest energy resource that can produce mass amounts of
electricity for the public.

Another positive view of nuclear energy is that it is very cost efficient. The
cost of producing nuclear-related energy (Shah, Abhishek) in 2007 was 1.7 cents

per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas, and
10.2 cents for oil. The cost of a nuclear generated power was 1/3 that of natural
gas. Instead of wasting high priced natural gas for electricity production, it would
make a lot more sense to replace the gas with additional nuclear power and
clean-coal plants while using solar, wind and other renewables to meet peak
demand. Noland E. Hertel. Prof. Nuclear and radiological engineering. ( July, 27,
2008) Has the time come for nuclear power? Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Web.
The renewable energy industry is one that is very cost efficient and healthy for
our ecosystem. However, they cannot produce the mass amounts of energy that
coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, and oil can. Even though nuclear energy is
non-renewable, we do need a power source that can produce large amounts of
energy next to the renewable energy sources to keep this planet clean. Without
nuclear energy, fossil fuels is the only alternative. The same fossil fuels that
produce carbon emissions. The economic benefits of nuclear energy is
undeniable, and is predicted to increase further.

One major concern of the public and also critics is that nuclear energy is not
safe. The argument is that nuclear reactors are safe until natural disaster strikes.
Many relate this possible outcome to the meltdown of the Fukushima Reactor in

Japan of March 11, 2011. The meltdown of Fukushima was caused by an

earthquake, and hit after by a tsunami. (Steven Starr) This disaster resulted in
mass amounts of radioactive contamination of 11,580 square miles of land in
Japan. The economic loss of this area is close to $250-$500 billion dollars. As
radioactive waste and water is still leaked into the ocean still to this day, it causes
concern to new nuclear plants to be built. Another meltdown is the Chernobyl
meltdown of 1986, which was a result of a poorly designed reactor. The accident
resulted in the death of 31 workers and the mass evacuation/relocation of
350,400 civilians. As safe as nuclear reactors are, accidents do happen. Many
people have decided that the benefits have not outweighed the risks.

Another view leading off the view of the unsafty of nuclear energy is growing
concern is the waste that nuclear reactors produce, and where it is being stored.
As nuclear energy is non-renewable, neither is the byproduct of it. Depleted
uranium is considered a low-level hazard, but becomes progressively more
radioactive over thousands of years, posing an environmental hazard deep into
the future, long after the civilization that produced the waste disappears. Brian
Maffly. Utah stepping closer to taking 250,00 tons of radioactive waste-forever.
(April 12, 2015) The Salt Lake Tribune. Web. Right now, the waste from building

weapons and energy, is being stored at three locations in South Carolina,

Kentucky, and Ohio with the company Energy Solutions placing Tooele, Utah as
the next sight. Energy Solutions are planning on storing 250,000 metric tons of
uranium byproduct underground in Utah. The problem is with energy waste is that
it is permanent, forever, and gets worse over time.

As we look to the affect energy has on our planet, we look at how long we
can reuse our sources. One of the main viewpoints against nuclear energy is its
renewability, which is nonexistent. The main source of nuclear energy comes
from finite resource of the earth, uranium. In order for a resource to be
renewable, it must be able to be reused and sustainable indefinitely. Just as our
nuclear sun, as the atoms bounce around creating heat and split, they are done
for. As a resource, uranium is found in rocks and oceans. But only a limited
amount of it is accessible for humans. In moderate estimates of available
resources of uranium, the known supplies are 5.327.000 tones. In an extreme
scenario, using 70,000 tones per year would last us 76 years.

As it is non

renewable and extremely limited, it has not been viewed as a sustainable

resource. Lasting to potentially the end of the century, and producing
untouchable waste for an indefinite amount of time, energy activists have strongly

protested its use. Navid Chowdhury. Is Nuclear Energy Renewable Energy.

( March 22, 2012) stanford.edu. Web.

Despite the downsides of nuclear energy, the U.S. has decided to go ahead
with the temporary use of nuclear energy. Having 99 nuclear reactors in 30
states, operated by 30 different power companies it accounts for 20% of the
power used. The industry invests about 7.5 billion per year in maintenance and
upgrade of them. The need for nuclear energy is undeniable and, has been
recognized as a viable power source. Looking at its negative cons, it is important
to make sure that we as humans are responsible with the waste contamination
and storage by regulating energy waste companies in the disposal of nuclear
waste. I believe that we need nuclear energy as our country and world are in
great needs of global reform if we are to make sure that future generations do not
suffer the consequences of greenhouse gas. Although it has the potential to be
dangerous meltdown incident, waste is permeant, and that it becomes more and
more radioactive with time, it is beneficial to exploit this power source for the time
being to decrease emissions rather than turning to and relying on oil, natural gas,
and coal. With generators averaging a life of 60 years, it gives time to find
alternatives for future energy resources while producing energy in the mean time.

Michael Totty. The Case For and Against Nuclear Power. Wall
Street Journal. Web. June 30, 2008.
Conserve Energy Future. Advantages of Nuclear Energy. Web.
Conserve Energy Future. Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy. Web
Paul Voosen, How Long Can a Nuclear Reactor Last. Scientific
American. Web. November 20, 2009.
Frank Leonard. Thorium: A Safer Alternative For a Nuclear
Generation. Gizmag. Web. May 26, 2011.
Nuclear Energy. Alternative Energy. Web.
Nuclear power plants: protecting soil, water, air and wildlife.
Nuclear Energy Institute. Web. July 2015.
Costs and Benefits Analysis. Nuclear Energy Institute. Web. July
2015.
Abhishek, Shah. Nuclear effienciey vs. (gas, fuels) in power load factors, density
and waste. (July 7, 2011) Green world investor. Web. Dec 1, 2015.
Steven Starr. Cost and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Web.
Physicians For Social Responsibility. Dec 1, 2015