Running head: NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear Energy: an Invention the World could be better off without

Name

Institutional Affiliation
NUCLEAR ENERGY 2

Nuclear Energy: an Invention the World could be better off without

Introduction

In the current world, new technologies are been inverted and refined every day. One will

consider himself technologically advanced if he does not have to pull over to inquire direction

because the address can only be put on a smartphone. When one does to have to drive all the way

to the grocery shop but can arrange for them to be delivered at home. Technological

advancement has also had a positive impact on the environment due to the use of email rather

than letters in communication. Most of the technological advances have been made with an

objective to increase the welfare of society.

However, there is technological advancement that has a negative impact on society and

the world will be better off without. One of those technologies is nuclear energy particularly

nuclear weapons (Hasegawa et al., 2015). It works by nuclear fission which a process when

atoms split to release a lot of energy in the form of heat. The fuel for nuclear energy is Uranium

235 because it breaks easily at corrosion with neutrons. The neutron from Uranium begins to

collude with each other beginning a chain reaction. It has made nuclear bombs to be very

powerful (Hasegawa et al., 2015). People who argue for nuclear power stations say that they are

environmentally friendly and have high power than thermal stations. In addition that the nuclear

weapon can be applied in ensuring peace in the globe (Hasegawa et al., 2015). Nevertheless,

everybody accepts that those weapons have the potential of destroying the world.

In case of an Accident

Nuclear energy is one of the worst practical application by the human mind. It was

created and tested in the city of Hiroshima and proved to have a destruction ability that is not
NUCLEAR ENERGY 3

comparable to any kind of weapon on earth (Field, Remec and Le Pape, 2015). The energy is

very dangerous to use and hard to use it without having negative effects. In case of an accident

on the site, the radioactive materials will be released in the environment in the form of cloud-like

or plume formation of radioactive particles and gases. The particles would be ingested or inhaled

by humans and animals (Field, Remec and Le Pape, 2015). Those particles are unstable atoms

that produce energy in the form of radiation until becoming stable. Those radio in a low dose do

not have any harm but in high doses, it leads to illness, mutation and even death. The possibility

of a nuclear meltdown is very low but has bad effects.

Perfect examples of the negative effect of a nuclear meltdown were the destruction

witnessed in Fukushima and Chernobyl (Field, Remec and Le Pape, 2015). There was an

earthquake in the northeast section of Tokyo that led to a Tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima

Daiichi nuclear power plant that developed radioactive linkages. Cooling at the station was

destroyed by the tsunami that led to the core been destroyed in 72 hours (Field, Remec and Le

Pape, 2015). Emission from that meltdown is said to have caused the death of about one

thousand staff. In addition, radiation was also observed in the local vegetables, milk and drinking

water. On the other hand, on April 26, 1986, at Chernobyl, Ukraine there was an accident in a

nuclear power station that was attributed to human error. Radiation from the accident was higher

than the atom bomb at Hiroshima (Field, Remec and Le Pape, 2015). It affected Belarus, Russia,

and Ukraine. Most of the radioactive materials spread into Europe.

Disposal of Nuclear Waste

The low-level waste that comes with nuclear energy is disposed of on-site or sent in a

low waste facility. Those wastes are safe because they have low radioactivity. While high-level

waste comprises of spent fuel that can take a lot of time to reactive. Most of the waste sit around
NUCLEAR ENERGY 4

idle in various reactors because there is no country want to make safe storage for them (Kamiya

et al., 2015). Those reactors are close to rivers, oceans, and lakes.

The U.S congress had told the U.S nuclear regulatory commission to create and run a

permanent geologic repository to dispose of high level waste in Yucca Mountain at Nevada.

However, local officials delayed the process as they did want such waste in their location. The

commission had its way through intervention by the court (Kamiya et al., 2015). The proposed

facility is said to have a capacity to store the waste for 40 years but those waste will remain in

radio-active for a hundred thousand years (Kamiya et al., 2015). The nuclear energy is not

renewable and there are 80 years, worth of the energy that is available in the know reserves. It

will mean that the global will enjoy the energy for 80 years and bear the cost for a hundred

thousand years. In that perceptive investment in nuclear energy is a bad investment.

Benefits of Nuclear Energy

On the positive side, nuclear energy does not lead to the emission of any greenhouse gas

like natural gas and coal (Ho et al., 2019). Thus, the energy does not have an impact on climate

alternations. The benefit is attractive and tries to reduce global warming. The nuclear power

station is also more resilient in case of a natural disaster. For instance, hurricanes can destroy

wind and solar farms but not a power station (Ho et al., 2019). The stations also create

employment than other forms of other plants that produce other forms of energy.

Conclusion

Clearly, nuclear energy is one of the technological advancements that should not have

taken place. It true that it is environmentally friendly, creates jobs and power more energy.

However, the cost associated with nuclear energy is higher than the benefits. Meltdown at a
NUCLEAR ENERGY 5

nuclear station has led to the direct death of thousands of people and threatens the health of

millions. It the current consumption of nuclear energy was not to change it is expected that the

fuel in the reserves will be depreciated in 80 years. However, the waste will be expected to

remain reactive for a hundred thousand years.

NUCLEAR ENERGY 6

References

Field, K. G., Remec, I., & Le Pape, Y. (2015). Radiation effects in concrete for nuclear power

plants–Part I: Quantification of radiation exposure and radiation effects. Nuclear

Engineering and Design, 282, 126-143.

Hasegawa, A., Tanigawa, K., Ohtsuru, A., Yabe, H., Maeda, M., Shigemura, J., ... & Ishikawa,

T. (2015). Health effects of radiation and other health problems in the aftermath of

nuclear accidents, with an emphasis on Fukushima. The Lancet, 386(9992), 479-488.

Ho, S. S., Oshita, T., Looi, J., Leong, A. D., & Chuah, A. S. (2019). Exploring public

perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and

Vietnam: A qualitative approach. Energy policy, 127, 259-268

Kamiya, K., Ozasa, K., Akiba, S., Niwa, O., Kodama, K., Takamura, N., ... & Wakeford, R.

(2015). Long-term effects of radiation exposure on health. The lancet, 386(9992), 469-

478.