Velasco 1

Daniel Velasco
Writing 1010
Professor E. Rogers
11/5/15
Nuclear energy
Nuclear energy is often associated with negative events; the atomic bomb, Three Mile Island,
and Chernobyl have almost become synonymous with this term amongst the general population.
These events have led to strict regulations, a deeper understanding of what nuclear physics is,
and how it can be made safer. There is no debate amongst the science community that carbon
dioxide (CO2) pollution emitted from the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the rapid
warming of the earth. But sadly, science has no place in politics, and especially not when it goes
against money making giants such as the petroleum industry. Instead of burning fossil fuels we
should look at investing more time and money into a potentially lifesaving source such as
nuclear energy.
The word Nuclear seems to have a connotation with the word complex but really the general
means of obtaining the energy from an atom are quite simple. Nuclear and fossil fuel power
plants both work by heating water into pressurized steam to create electricity. The atom used in
nuclear fission (the splitting of a heavy nucleus to create energy) is uranium 235 (U-235); the
splitting of this atom is induced by firing a free neutron into a U-235 nucleus causing it to
become unstable & spilt, creating huge amounts of energy (Marshall and Lamb). This was first
discovered [in] 1932 Cockcroft and Walton produced nuclear transformations by bombarding
atoms with accelerated protons (Outline History of Nuclear Energy). Much of the development
in nuclear power however occurred during the WWII era where both sides of the war

Velasco 1

experimented to create an atomic bomb. This subatomic explosion is what powers about 20
percent of the United States energy and has been far more eco-friendly compared to fossil fuels
(Maehlum, Mathias).
The end result is the same of the two, they produce energy, but one key difference is that nuclear
energy produces negligible carbon emission. CO2 emissions are a big issue in our world right
now and an alternative source of energy is desperately needed human-induced climate change
and the loss of cheap oil places nuclear energy front and center (Rosner, Robert). Humans are
responsible for emitting 29 gigatons of carbon dioxide, that is a very large number and it is
destroying our fragile ecosystem. The burning of fossil fuels kills about 35,000 US residents and
about 500,000 Chinese residents every year, and that number is likely to stay the same (Post,
Willem). However incredible the statistics may be, people, mainly with monetary incentives,
have the audacity to claim that we as humans have not contributed to the unnatural warming of
the earth. Nuclear energy is the only power we have that is capable of sustaining our immense
consumption of electricity; it is the only way we have of saving the earth, the only planet we
have and yet people still refuse to see that.
A big part of getting nuclear energy to being our primary source is the public opinion, getting the
public to see the positive side of it and also showing them the detrimental health effects to us and
our environment that fossil fuels cause. A pair of NASAs Goddard Institute researchers claim
that nuclear energy has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths & 64 giga-tons
of carbon emissions globally over the past four decades (Atherton, Kelsey). Not only has
nuclear power saved lives and cut down on emissions but we have done it all without having the
necessary support or funding. Now imagine what the world would be like if it did. We have

Velasco 1

places such as China, that are literally covered with smog to the point that you cannot leave your
home and breathe safely and yet politicians and people of interest in the fossil fuel industry still
manage to use their witty rhetoric and convince people that the use of fossil fuels is okay and that
no changes have to be made. Seeing how nuclear energy is our most efficient option, it really
depends on the public view and knowledge about this issue. Unless we start seeing unbiased
advertisements or propaganda; education about this has to be more of an individual thing, most
people know that carbon emissions arent good for the environment but also believe that nuclear
energy is bad. This is a subject that must be viewed without bias and we have to come to
conclusions and make decisions based on weighing out the facts. Through that comes funding
and inevitably the world will see that this is our best solution.

One of the counterpoints against nuclear energy is the cost: indeed the startup of a nuclear power
plant can in fact be costly but generating electricity at a nuclear plant is much more cost effective
than generating electricity with oil, gas, and coal. As Robert Rosner, director at Argonne National
laboratory puts it expensive compared to what? We do not know enough about the input of new
technologies to reliably predict costs out to 2050. And this would be correct, advances in
science and computers are apparent and will be so great that costs will eventually reach a more
competitive level. Not to mention that the energy per weight released from nuclear fission is also
a lot higher than what is released from fossil fuels; so the argument that it is more costly falls
apart quickly. The cost of peoples lives is much higher than the cost of trying to seek alternative
forms of energy; this debate is quite a ridiculous one considering the fact that we are destroying
our atmosphere with completely unnecessary pollution.

Velasco 1

Nuclear fission however isnt even the end game for nuclear energy; it still gets better. Nuclear
fusion is really what we are aiming for, its the same concept but with lighter elements such as
hydrogen (the same way the sun gets its heat). This generates 3-4 times the power of nuclear
fission and radioactivity from these decaying particles would only last about 100 years or so as
opposed to tens of thousands of years for uranium particles (Dominguez, Trace). This would
practically give us an unlimited amount of energy; the reasons for support become clearer and
clearer through more understanding. Monetary incentives should not stop us from switching
over; this is the future and if money is the only reason we could consider doing it, then these
genius CEOs and politicians who oppose nuclear power should realize that there is also money to
be made in this industry. We have the potential to save the world but as humans we have a
tendency to adapt rather than to change until something disastrous happens.
Safety of course is a big concern and events in the past have led to strict regulations and safety
measures to ensure no incidents occur again. The most fatal of nuclear catastrophes was
Chernobyl. The disaster there occurred because of supervision flaws, and engineering flaws.
Safety precautions were not met, and construction of safety parameters such as a concrete
structure meant to stop leakage was not constructed. This taught us a valuable lesson about
nuclear engineering: no short cuts can be made. Since then no severe meltdowns have occurred
and engineers at power plants have to actually ensure that the plants dont shut down because of
extra safety precautions. However, in early 2011, a large tsunami and earthquake (9.0 on the
Richter scale) hit the power plant within a short amount of time and caused the backup
generators to be destroyed and eventually caused a meltdown (Comparison of Fukushima and
Chernobyl nuclear accidents). This resulted in 2 deaths both of which were caused by drowning.
It took a powerful and almost simultaneous earthquake and tsunami to cause failures to the plant;

Velasco 1

this was a rare event and one that cannot be used to generalize every power plant in the world.
Fukushima was an unlikely incident, this power plant had been operating safely for 40 years
already and the effects of the meltdown had no considerable damage to the people The United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report
on the Fukushima accident April 2, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to
support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an increase in cancer
rates or birth defects (List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll). In fact this can be
seen as evident to how safe nuclear power plants have become. Nuclear energy is not being
advertised as being completely risk free. There is just no viable solution for our energy problem
that is risk free yet. What proponents to this debate argue is that it is considerably safer than the
burning of fossil fuels. On the one hand we have nuclear energy who yes in fact has suffered its
casualties; although statistically far less, and on the other hand we have fossil fuels, who has
been responsible for the deaths of millions of people over the past decades. As already
mentioned, nuclear fission is not the end game here, we are still finding ways to improve and
making things safer. It really comes down to weighing out the pros and cons of the situation.
A country that is however worth looking up to in respects of energy is France; they get about
three fourths of their electricity from nuclear power and are the worlds largest exporters of
electricity due to its low cost. Not only that but they make gains [of] over 3 billion per year
from this (Nuclear Power in France). The French government decided that they would use
nuclear power after they saw oil setbacks in the early 1970s; since France has no abundance of
fossil fuels and a strong engineering community it made sense. Now France has an extremely
low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its
electricity is nuclear or hydro (Nuclear Power in France) and has set an example to the rest of

Velasco 1

the world. France has never had a meltdown, has never once had to shut down a facility, and has
actually improved their economy because of nuclear energy. The bad stigma it gets is from
conflicting interests, it is clear that fossil fuels in the U.S are so favorable because they are
lucrative, and if only we had been in the same position as France we would also probably think
very highly of nuclear power. After all, if we can be convinced that fossil fuels, which are
responsible for millions of deaths, are good, then it wouldnt be too hard to convince us that
nuclear energy is good too despite a few incidents in the past. If people couldnt make this into a
business it wouldnt have ever been an issue and the world might have seen the use of nuclear
power at least 50 years sooner. But the more we push global warming and CO2 emissions aside
the more we realize that we are in desperate need of alternative energy.
We can no longer continue with our desperate need of fossil fuels, it is endangering the planet,
our people, and all of its inhabitants. What many propose is moderation, cutting back on the use
of these fuels, and finding alternatives to help mitigate our problems. This places nuclear energy
at the center of a hot debate. We have the power save the world from ourselves; whatever
alternative form of energy it may be; hopefully we reach a solution before the effects to our
environment become irreparable.

Rosner, Robert. "Making Nuclear Energy Work: How Shifting Research Goals And Improving
Collaboration With Industry Will Help U.S. National Labs Spur New Nuclear Energy

Velasco 1

Development." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 64.1 (2008): 28-57. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 4 Nov. 2015
Maehium, Mathias. "Nuclear Energy Pros and Cons - Energy Informative." Energy Informative.
3 May 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Brain, Marshall, and Robert Lamb. "How Nuclear Power Works" 09 October 2000.
HowStuffWorks.com. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm> 04 November
2015.
Atherton, Kelsey. "Nuclear Reactors Kill Fewer People Than Fossil Fuels." Popular Science. 8
Apr. 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
"POLLUTION DEATHS FROM FOSSIL FUEL-BASED POWER PLANTS - Yarra Valley
Climate Action Group." POLLUTION DEATHS FROM FOSSIL FUEL-BASED POWER
PLANTS - Yarra Valley Climate Action Group. Ed. Gideon Polya. 2011. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
"France to Dim Its Reliance on Nuclear Power." WSJ. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Post, Willem. "Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes." Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Dominguez, Trace. "Why Nuclear Fusion Will Save The World." YouTube. YouTube, 4 Oct.
2015. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
"List of Nuclear and Radiation Accidents by Death Toll." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.
Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
"Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Velasco 1