Should Countries Make the Transition from the Actual Energy Resources to Nuclear Energy?

Back in 1950, it was the promise of unlimited cheap energy, and it was expected to revolutionize the way of living of the human race, surpassing invents like writing, the printing press, or even the first tools that started man on the road to civilization. Nevertheless, human mutations and other consequences caused by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 darkened the wonderful future that was waiting for nuclear energy. Since then, the possibility to use nuclear energy as the primary resource of power has gained a negative reputation, but today, international leaders are putting the nuclear power option back on the table. There are two main different opinions around the nuclear energy debate: People who defend the use of nuclear energy as the future main resource of power, and people who oppose the use of nuclear energy for any purpose. The first group includes professors from universities like Berkeley or Stanford to government leaders and ecological organizations. They argue that the nuclear industry is becoming more economically reliable over the past few years, that no other source has the ability to deliver the same amount of energy, and that nuclear energy is the source which causes the least damage to the environment. On the other hand, the second group is constituted by ecological groups principally, as Greenpeace. They want to end nuclear power because they say that the nuclear industry is still uncompetitive against the fossil fuels industry, that a country which produces nuclear energy can also produce nuclear weapons, and that the process to produce nuclear energy contaminates the environment more than the use of gas-fired power. These arguments are very contradictory, so each one is going to be analyzed. Then I will state, from my point of view, which is the better solution to the debate about the use of nuclear energy as the primary world resource of power. Arguments in favor of using nuclear energy as the main resource of power The first argument by those who support nuclear energy as the main resource of power is that nuclear energy promises economic reliability. They say nuclear power is cost competitive with other resources of energy. According to a report of the University of Chicago in 2004, requested by the US Department of Energy, that compares the power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the US, nuclear energy gives 3.4 c/kWh while (c)oal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.

These numbers show that the nuclear option will produce the same amount of energy as the other options, but with lower costs. Consequently, the nuclear industry is more attractive in the global market, and more money will be invested in it. The second reason why people support the massive use of nuclear energy is because no other source can deliver the amount of energy that nuclear power can. One kilogram of uranium can generate the same energy as nearly 3000 tons of coal. Nuclear energy proponents assure that renewable energies like the power of the wind, waves, or sun cant provide the energy required by the world. One of these proponents is SG Cowen, a leading investment bank in New York. SG Cowen calculates that, to replace a single nuclear power station in France, you would need to install one wind turbine every 100 metres along the French coast. The renewable energies are complementary resources only, so they cant substitute for nuclear energy. The last argument used to defend the use of nuclear energy as the major resource of power is that nuclear energy is the source which causes the least damage to the environment. They say that nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment because nuclear power plants dont generate toxic or greenhouse gases. In addition, a nuclear plant requires a small area and reduces other environmental impacts. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) refers to nuclear energy as the most eco-efficient of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. According to this, nuclear energy is the most efficient resource of energy because it can generate plenty of power with minimal negative environmental consequences. NEI also says that nuclear plants serve endangered species as protective areas where they can live and thrive nearby. To here, the positive aspects of nuclear energy have been covered. Now the disadvantages of the use of nuclear energy are going to be analyzed separately and objectively. Arguments against nuclear energy as the main resource of power The first argument used by the opponents of nuclear energy is that the nuclear industry is still uncompetitive against the fossil fuels industry. Opponents to nuclear energy say that nuclear energy is uncompetitive for two main reasons. The first one is because the disparity between the taxes on the disposing of nuclear waste and the taxes on fossil fuels. The second reason is because nuclear industry is a highly dependent and regulated industry. John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard and co-chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), says: "Take into account the higher cost of construction and you get about 4.5 to 5 cents per kWh for coal-powered electricity, and 6.5 cents for nuclear You would need a tax on carbon of about $100 a ton in order to make nuclear energy competitive." So, in order to gain competitiveness against fossil fuels, nuclear industry would need equality on government taxes.

The second reason why people disagree with the use of nuclear energy is because a country which produces it can also produce nuclear weapons. Some members of the United States Congress, specifically the democrats, fear that government incentives on the nuclear industry may lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons materials. In addition, the pools where discharged nuclear fuels are stored constitute a terrorist hazard. The National Academy of Sciences has recognized this threat: On March 28, 2005, the Washington Post revealed that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed a study commissioned by Congress, and in a classified report raised concerns about terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools. These people think that a terrorist attack on the pools would cause a release of radioactivity with devastating consequences.

The last argument against the use of nuclear energy is that the processes used to produce nuclear energy seriously contaminate the environment. Greenpeace, an international ecological organization, is campaigning to end nuclear power, reprocessing, and waste dumping arguing that (t)he planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste, which will be radioactive for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. It is well known that nuclear waste as fuel rods can pollute the environment if they are not well disposed. Other waste besides the fuel rods is caused by radioactive contamination. This is when a reactor becomes radioactive over time; consequently, the disposal of the reactor after its decommission constitutes a big problem because it is extremely radioactive. Besides, Dr Mark Diesendorf, University of NSW Institute of Environmental Studies senior lecturer, says nuclear power stations dont emit carbon dioxide themselves, but the processes involved in creating nuclear energy do. These processes include mining, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel production, and others. According to him nuclear power generates more damaging greenhouse gas emissions than gas-fired power. The arguments in favor of and against the massive use of nuclear energy have been analyzed one by one. Now I would like to show why nuclear energy should not be considered as the major source of energy. Some studies show a promising economic future for nuclear industry. Although the University of Chicago report shows that the typical cost per unit of energy will be lower in the nuclear option than in the other options, this cost is attributed to a company which has built its eighth nuclear plant. The cost of building the first plant is still greater in the nuclear option, 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh, than in the others. So the higher cost of building a new nuclear plant means that nuclear energy remains uncompetitive. Another argument to defend the massive use of nuclear energy is that it has the lowest impact on the environment because nuclear plants dont pollute water, air, or soil. This is totally wrong. Even though a nuclear plant doesnt emit toxic gases, the processes related to generate nuclear energy require the burning of fossil fuels. Hence, carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere contaminating it. Actually, greenhouse gas emissions of the nuclear industry are bigger than those produced by the fossil fuels industry.

Nuclear energy implicates many other risks. For example, if the security measures of a nuclear plant are not strictly met, an accident could occur. A nuclear accident would unleash devastating consequences as in Chernobyl. Also, the radioactivity generated in a nuclear reactor lasts for many years. This radioactivity is highly dangerous for the environment and for humans. By choosing the nuclear power option, the world could satisfy its energy demand forever, perhaps, but unfortunately, the human race might not live as long as its precious nuclear energy. So my conclusion is that while the arguments in favor of nuclear energy appear to be solid, they are not. When they are analyzed from a broader perspective, some arguments are only partially true, and other arguments are completely misleading. The reality is that gas-fired power degrades the environment, and the power of wind, waves, and sun cant satisfy the energy demand. The best solution to meet future energy needs is to keep investigating other sources of energy. Governments who support nuclear industry should reconsider their position because nuclear energy could be the last success of the human race.