Nuclear Energy: The New Green Energy Alternative? Essay

Nuclear energy is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. "Renewables" like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale. The use of nuclear energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain. “Currently, there are 103 commercial nuclear power plants producing electricity in the United States, located at 64 sites in 31 states. They are, on average, 24 years old, and

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

The United States should use nuclear energy to help supplement energy demand because it’s cost-effective, safer for the environment, and a more reliable source of energy than any of the other types of fuel. Some of the topics of interest are cost-effectiveness, recycling options, long term storage options, environmental protection technologies currently being used, and a breakdown of how nuclear energy out performs other sources of power year round.

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

Studies have been performed on activities like disposing in the oceans, as well as on more exotic proposals such as deep geological disposal and launching into space. Some of these methods have been found wanting in terms of feasibility, costs and legal restrictions [1]. The management community in charge of nuclear waste disposal had come to the agreement that the only practical route for ensuring sufficient long-term isolation of HLW from the environment is deep geologic disposal[3].For example, Canada has focused on the concept of Deep Geological Disposal for long term management of nuclear wastes generated from nuclear activities. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is in charge of disposing radioactive wastes in the country. Canada’s long term management plan for used nuclear fuel is called “Adaptive Phased Management” [3] ,The plan is to confine and isolate the used fuel in a suitable host-rock with the help of a multiple barrier system. Selection of the site is based on screening of potential sites followed by a preliminary assessment of

The following year, after environmental impact assessments were conducted by DOE, the list was narrowed to five potential locations (Richton Dome, Mississippi; Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Deaf Smith County, Texas; Davis Canyon, Utah; and, Hanford, Washington).5 Finally, in 1986, DOE narrowed the field to three sites: Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Hanford, Washington. The fact that each of these locations had a prior involvement with nuclear technology probably contributed to their selection since DOE likely concluded that any opposition to establishing a radioactive waste repository would be muted.6 The site selection process in the East was even more difficult. As Michael Kraft, Professor of Environmental Studies, points out:

The disposal of of nuclear waste is another environmental concern that must be dealt with in a smart manner. This is a highly debated topic for several reasons. Having a half-life of 10,000+ years, some radioactive substances will stay highly dangerous for thousands of years. One possible solution to the storage of nuclear waste is the Yucca mountain project (McCombie). This would provide a universal storage site for all of the nuclear waste of the United States. However; there still are many things to be worked out for this solution such as - how will the nuclear waste be safely transported to Yucca Mountain?

Modern concerns about global warming have rekindled ideas about nuclear power in the United States but one concern still remains: what is to be done with the waste? Right now most spent nuclear fuel is stored in large casks at the plants where it was used with plans in the works for a common location to store the waste for long periods of time. Long term storage is not the only option, technology exists to take this spent nuclear fuel and remove the unused plutonium and uranium from the waste products to create more fuel. The remaining waste would be stored in a long term facility as discussed above. This process is highly controversial due to economic and safety concerns, but could increase the capacity of a long term storage facility.

There are two pivotal arguments against nuclear energy: the public’s perception and nuclear waste. In arguments pertaining to this topic, it is commonly asked as the waste continues to build up, what can be done with it? However, Bennie Olsen stated, “All

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

The steam spun the wheel of the turbine with a Whoosh. The ecstasy of finding a new energy source is ineffable, and when found, the discovery always immediately prompts a race to use this newfound source. In accordance with this behavior, many sought to integrate nuclear power into society upon its development. The difference being nuclear energy is far more complicated and powerful than anything the field of energy has dealt with thus far. There are two types of nuclear reactions, fission and fusion; working reactors only using fission currently. In fission a neutron reacts with Uranium-235 to produce energy, two fragment nuclei, and multiple neutrons to continue the reaction. Meanwhile, in fusion two hydrogen isotopes react to produce energy, protons, neutrons, and Helium. As a consequence of these processes ' complex and formidable natures, there is a hesitance to their utilization as it is difficult to discuss the complexities of the procedures with the public without some misinterpretation. Despite the benefits found in nuclear power, it still undergoes harsh debate as governments oppose giving money to such an unexplored area of science. Yet, an increase in funding for U.S. nuclear programs would prompt advancements that replace less effective energy sources, creating opportunities for specialization in the field.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?

Nuclear energy could be the future of energy and potentially solve the energy crisis problem. Nuclear energy is a sustainable energy source and it can provide millions of times the amount of energy output from a fixed mass of fuel than any other energy source, such as fossil fuel, for the same mass of fuel. Nuclear energy is also very clean for the atmosphere. It produces no greenhouse gases at all. However, nuclear energy can be very harmful to both people and the rest of the natural environment if not managed well. Nuclear meltdowns etc. can release