argumentative essay nuclear power plants

 / 

The 3,122-megawatt Civaux Nuclear Power Plant in France, which opened in 1997. GUILLAUME SOUVANT / AFP / Getty Images

Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution

By Richard Rhodes • July 19, 2018

Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions. 

In the late 16th century, when the increasing cost of firewood forced ordinary Londoners to switch reluctantly to coal, Elizabethan preachers railed against a fuel they believed to be, literally, the Devil’s excrement. Coal was black, after all, dirty, found in layers underground — down toward Hell at the center of the earth — and smelled strongly of sulfur when it burned. Switching to coal, in houses that usually lacked chimneys, was difficult enough; the clergy’s outspoken condemnation, while certainly justified environmentally, further complicated and delayed the timely resolution of an urgent problem in energy supply.

For too many environmentalists concerned with global warming, nuclear energy is today’s Devil’s excrement. They condemn it for its production and use of radioactive fuels and for the supposed problem of disposing of its waste. In my judgment, their condemnation of this efficient, low-carbon source of baseload energy is misplaced. Far from being the Devil’s excrement, nuclear power can be, and should be, one major component of our rescue from a hotter, more meteorologically destructive world.

Like all energy sources, nuclear power has advantages and disadvantages. What are nuclear power’s benefits? First and foremost, since it produces energy via nuclear fission rather than chemical burning, it generates baseload electricity with no output of carbon, the villainous element of global warming. Switching from coal to natural gas is a step toward decarbonizing, since burning natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of burning coal. But switching from coal to nuclear power is radically decarbonizing, since nuclear power plants release greenhouse gases only from the ancillary use of fossil fuels during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning — about as much as solar power does, which is about 4 to 5 percent as much as a natural gas-fired power plant.

Nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.

Second, nuclear power plants operate at much higher capacity factors than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels. Capacity factor is a measure of what percentage of the time a power plant actually produces energy. It’s a problem for all intermittent energy sources. The sun doesn’t always shine, nor the wind always blow, nor water always fall through the turbines of a dam.

In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent , meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year. (The other 29 days they were taken off the grid for maintenance.) In contrast , U.S. hydroelectric systems delivered power 38.2 percent of the time (138 days per year), wind turbines 34.5 percent of the time (127 days per year) and solar electricity arrays only 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year). Even plants powered with coal or natural gas only generate electricity about half the time for reasons such as fuel costs and seasonal and nocturnal variations in demand. Nuclear is a clear winner on reliability.

Third, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source. This statement will seem paradoxical to many readers, since it’s not commonly known that non-nuclear energy sources release any radiation into the environment. They do. The worst offender is coal, a mineral of the earth’s crust that contains a substantial volume of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium. Burning coal gasifies its organic materials, concentrating its mineral components into the remaining waste, called fly ash. So much coal is burned in the world and so much fly ash produced that coal is actually the major source of radioactive releases into the environment. 

Anti-nuclear activists protest the construction of a nuclear power station in Seabrook, New Hampshire in 1977.  AP Photo

In the early 1950s, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission believed high-grade uranium ores to be in short supply domestically, it considered extracting uranium for nuclear weapons from the abundant U.S. supply of fly ash from coal burning. In 2007, China began exploring such extraction, drawing on a pile of some 5.3 million metric tons of brown-coal fly ash at Xiaolongtang in Yunnan. The Chinese ash averages about 0.4 pounds of triuranium octoxide (U3O8), a uranium compound, per metric ton. Hungary and South Africa are also exploring uranium extraction from coal fly ash. 

What are nuclear’s downsides? In the public’s perception, there are two, both related to radiation: the risk of accidents, and the question of disposal of nuclear waste.

There have been three large-scale accidents involving nuclear power reactors since the onset of commercial nuclear power in the mid-1950s: Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.

Studies indicate even the worst possible accident at a nuclear plant is less destructive than other major industrial accidents.

The partial meltdown of the Three-Mile Island reactor in March 1979, while a disaster for the owners of the Pennsylvania plant, released only a minimal quantity of radiation to the surrounding population. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission :

“The approximately 2 million people around TMI-2 during the accident are estimated to have received an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem above the usual background dose. To put this into context, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem and the area’s natural radioactive background dose is about 100-125 millirem per year… In spite of serious damage to the reactor, the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.”

The explosion and subsequent burnout of a large graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl in 1986 was easily the worst nuclear accident in history. Twenty-nine disaster relief workers died of acute radiation exposure in the immediate aftermath of the accident. In the subsequent three decades, UNSCEAR — the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, composed of senior scientists from 27 member states — has observed and reported at regular intervals on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident. It has identified no long-term health consequences to populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout except for thyroid cancers in residents of Belarus, Ukraine and western Russia who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, who drank milk contaminated with 131iodine, and who were not evacuated. By 2008, UNSCEAR had attributed some 6,500 excess cases of thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl region to the accident, with 15 deaths.  The occurrence of these cancers increased dramatically from 1991 to 1995, which researchers attributed mostly to radiation exposure. No increase occurred in adults.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, located near Avila Beach, California, will be decommissioned starting in 2024. Pacific Gas and Electric

“The average effective doses” of radiation from Chernobyl, UNSCEAR also concluded , “due to both external and internal exposures, received by members of the general public during 1986-2005 [were] about 30 mSv for the evacuees, 1 mSv for the residents of the former Soviet Union, and 0.3 mSv for the populations of the rest of Europe.”  A sievert is a measure of radiation exposure, a millisievert is one-one-thousandth of a sievert. A full-body CT scan delivers about 10-30 mSv. A U.S. resident receives an average background radiation dose, exclusive of radon, of about 1 mSv per year.

The statistics of Chernobyl irradiations cited here are so low that they must seem intentionally minimized to those who followed the extensive media coverage of the accident and its aftermath. Yet they are the peer-reviewed products of extensive investigation by an international scientific agency of the United Nations. They indicate that even the worst possible accident at a nuclear power plant — the complete meltdown and burnup of its radioactive fuel — was yet far less destructive than other major industrial accidents across the past century. To name only two: Bhopal, in India, where at least 3,800 people died immediately and many thousands more were sickened when 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesticide plant; and Henan Province, in China, where at least 26,000 people drowned following the failure of a major hydroelectric dam in a typhoon. “Measured as early deaths per electricity units produced by the Chernobyl facility (9 years of operation, total electricity production of 36 GWe-years, 31 early deaths) yields 0.86 death/GWe-year),” concludes Zbigniew Jaworowski, a physician and former UNSCEAR chairman active during the Chernobyl accident. “This rate is lower than the average fatalities from [accidents involving] a majority of other energy sources. For example, the Chernobyl rate is nine times lower than the death rate from liquefied gas… and 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations.” 

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem, is not any longer a technological problem.

The accident in Japan at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 followed a major earthquake and tsunami. The tsunami flooded out the power supply and cooling systems of three power reactors, causing them to melt down and explode, breaching their confinement. Although 154,000 Japanese citizens were evacuated from a 12-mile exclusion zone around the power station, radiation exposure beyond the station grounds was limited. According to the report submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency in June 2011:

“No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits. By December, government health checks of some 1,700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/year, 98 percent were below 5 mSv/year, and 10 people were exposed to more than 10 mSv… [There] was no major public exposure, let alone deaths from radiation.” 

Nuclear waste disposal, although a continuing political problem in the U.S., is not any longer a technological problem. Most U.S. spent fuel, more than 90 percent of which could be recycled to extend nuclear power production by hundreds of years, is stored at present safely in impenetrable concrete-and-steel dry casks on the grounds of operating reactors, its radiation slowly declining. 

An activist in March 2017 demanding closure of the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant in France. Authorities announced in April that they will close the facility by 2020. SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP / Getty Images

The U.S. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico currently stores low-level and transuranic military waste and could store commercial nuclear waste in a 2-kilometer thick bed of crystalline salt, the remains of an ancient sea. The salt formation extends from southern New Mexico all the way northeast to southwestern Kansas. It could easily accommodate the entire world’s nuclear waste for the next thousand years.

Finland is even further advanced in carving out a permanent repository in granite bedrock 400 meters under Olkiluoto, an island in the Baltic Sea off the nation’s west coast. It expects to begin permanent waste storage in 2023.

A final complaint against nuclear power is that it costs too much. Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide, but there is no question that a full accounting of the external costs of different energy systems would find nuclear cheaper than coal or natural gas. 

Nuclear power is not the only answer to the world-scale threat of global warming. Renewables have their place; so, at least for leveling the flow of electricity when renewables vary, does natural gas. But nuclear deserves better than the anti-nuclear prejudices and fears that have plagued it. It isn’t the 21st century’s version of the Devil’s excrement. It’s a valuable, even an irreplaceable, part of the solution to the greatest energy threat in the history of humankind.

Related Articles

Despite official vote, the evidence of the anthropocene is clear.

By Anthony Barnosky and Mary Ellen Hannibal

How China Became the World’s Leader on Renewable Energy

By Isabel Hilton

In Rush for Lithium, Miners Turn to the Oil Fields of Arkansas

By Boyce Upholt

More From E360

At 11,500 feet, a ‘climate fast’ to save the melting himalaya, octopuses are highly intelligent. should they be farmed for food, nations are undercounting emissions, putting un goals at risk, as carbon air capture ramps up, major hurdles remain, biodiversity, as flooding increases on the mississippi, forests are drowning, in mongolia, a killer winter is ravaging herds and a way of life, food & agriculture, how a solar revolution in farming is depleting world’s groundwater, what will it take to save our cities from a scorching future, rain comes to the arctic, with a cascade of troubling changes.

Back to the Future Josh Freed

Leslie and mark's old/new idea.

The Nuclear Science and Engineering Library at MIT is not a place where most people would go to unwind. It’s filled with journals that have articles with titles like “Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry of electrons from heavy flavor decays in polarized p + p collisions at √s = 200 GeV.” But nuclear engineering Ph.D. candidates relax in ways all their own. In the winter of 2009, two of those candidates, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, were studying for their qualifying exams—a brutal rite of passage—and had a serious need to decompress.

To clear their heads after long days and nights of reviewing neutron transport, the mathematics behind thermohydraulics, and other such subjects, they browsed through the crinkled pages of journals from the first days of their industry—the glory days. Reading articles by scientists working in the 1950s and ‘60s, they found themselves marveling at the sense of infinite possibility those pioneers had brought to their work, in awe of the huge outpouring of creative energy. They were also curious about the dozens of different reactor technologies that had once been explored, only to be abandoned when the funding dried up.

The early nuclear researchers were all housed in government laboratories—at Oak Ridge in Tennessee, at the Idaho National Lab in the high desert of eastern Idaho, at Argonne in Chicago, and Los Alamos in New Mexico. Across the country, the nation’s top physicists, metallurgists, mathematicians, and engineers worked together in an atmosphere of feverish excitement, as government support gave them the freedom to explore the furthest boundaries of their burgeoning new field. Locked in what they thought of as a life-or-death race with the Soviet Union, they aimed to be first in every aspect of scientific inquiry, especially those that involved atom splitting.

1955: Argonne's BORAX III reactor provided all the electricity for Arco, Idaho, the first time any community's electricity was provided entirely by nuclear energy. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Though nuclear engineers were mostly men in those days, Leslie imagined herself working alongside them, wearing a white lab coat, thinking big thoughts. “It was all so fresh, so exciting, so limitless back then,” she told me. “They were designing all sorts of things: nuclear-powered cars and airplanes, reactors cooled by lead. Today, it’s much less interesting. Most of us are just working on ways to tweak basically the same light water reactor we’ve been building for 50 years.”

1958: The Ford Nucleon scale-model concept car developed by Ford Motor Company as a design of how a nuclear-powered car might look. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But because of something that she and Mark stumbled across in the library during one of their forays into the old journals, Leslie herself is not doing that kind of tweaking—she’s trying to do something much more radical. One night, Mark showed Leslie a 50-year-old paper from Oak Ridge about a reactor powered not by rods of metal-clad uranium pellets in water, like the light water reactors of today, but by a liquid fuel of uranium mixed into molten salt to keep it at a constant temperature. The two were intrigued, because it was clear from the paper that the molten salt design could potentially be constructed at a lower cost and shut down more easily in an emergency than today’s light water reactors. And the molten salt design wasn’t just theoretical—Oak Ridge had built a real reactor, which ran from 1965-1969, racking up 20,000 operating hours.

The 1960s-era salt reactor was interesting, but at first blush it didn’t seem practical enough to revive. It was bulky, expensive, and not very efficient. Worse, it ran on uranium enriched to levels far above the modern legal limit for commercial nuclear power. Most modern light water reactors run on 5 percent enriched uranium, and it is illegal under international and domestic law for commercial power generators to use anything above 20 percent, because at levels that high uranium can be used for making weapons. The Oak Ridge molten salt reactor needed uranium enriched to at least 33 percent, possibly even higher.

Aircraft Reactor Experiment building at ORNL (Extensive research into molten salt reactors started with the U.S. aircraft reactor experiment (ARE) in support of the U.S. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program.) Wikimedia Commons

1964: Molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge. Source: Wikimedia Commons

But they were aware that smart young engineers were considering applying modern technology to several other decades-old reactor designs from the dawn of the nuclear age, and this one seemed to Leslie and Mark to warrant a second look. After finishing their exams, they started searching for new materials that could be used in a molten salt reactor to make it both legal and more efficient. If they could show that a modified version of the old design could compete with—or exceed—the performance of today’s light water reactors, they knew they might have a very interesting project on their hands.

First, they took a look at the fuel. By using different, more modern materials, they had a theory that they could get the reactor to work at very low enrichment levels. Maybe, they hoped, even significantly below 5 percent.

There was a good reason to hope. Today’s reactors produce a significant amount of nuclear “waste,” many tons of which are currently sitting in cooling pools and storage canisters at plant sites all over the country. The reason that the waste has to be managed so carefully is that when they are discarded, the uranium fuel rods contain about 95 percent of the original amount of energy and remain both highly radioactive and hot enough to boil water. It dawned on Leslie and Mark that if they could chop up the rods and remove their metal cladding, they might have a “killer app”—a sector-redefining technology like Uber or Airbnb—for their molten salt reactor design, enabling it to run on the waste itself.

By late 2010, the computer modeling they were doing suggested this might indeed work. When Leslie left for a trip to Egypt with her family in January 2011, Mark kept running simulations back at MIT. On January 11, he sent his partner an email that she read as she toured the sites of Alexandria. The note was highly technical, but said in essence that Mark’s latest work confirmed their hunch—they could indeed make their reactor run on nuclear waste. Leslie looked up from her phone and said to her brother: “I need to go back to Boston.”

Watch Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie on the future of nuclear energy

Climate Change Spurs New Call for Nuclear Energy

In the days when Leslie and Mark were studying for their exams, it may have seemed that the Golden Age of nuclear energy in the United States had long since passed. Not a single new commercial reactor project had been built here in over 30 years. Not only were there no new reactors, but with the fracking boom having produced abundant supplies of cheap natural gas, some electric utilities were shutting down their aging reactors rather than doing the costly upgrades needed to keep them online.

As the domestic reactor market went into decline, the American supply chain for nuclear reactor parts withered. Although almost all commercial nuclear technology had been discovered in the United States, our competitors eventually purchased much of our nuclear industrial base, with Toshiba buying Westinghouse, for example.* Not surprisingly, as the nuclear pioneers aged and young scientists stayed away from what seemed to be a dying industry, the number of nuclear engineers also dwindled over the decades. In addition, the American regulatory system, long considered the gold standard for western nuclear systems, began to lose influence as other countries pressed ahead with new reactor construction while the U.S. market remained dormant.

Yet something has changed in recent years. Leslie and Mark are not really outliers. All of a sudden, a flood of young engineers has entered the field. More than 1,164 nuclear engineering degrees were awarded in 2013—a 160 percent increase over the number granted a decade ago.

So what, after a 30-year drought, is drawing smart young people back to the nuclear industry? The answer is climate change. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of the electric power in the United States, and it does so without emitting any greenhouse gases. Compare that to the amount of electricity produced by the other main non-emitting sources of power, the so-called “renewables”—hydroelectric (6.8 percent), wind (4.2 percent) and solar (about one quarter of a percent). Not only are nuclear plants the most important of the non-emitting sources, but they provide baseload—“always there”—power, while most renewables can produce electricity only intermittently, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-based organization that is the leading international body for the assessment of climate risk, issued a desperate call for more non-emitting power sources. According to the IPCC, in order to mitigate climate change and meet growing energy demands, the world must aggressively expand its sources of renewable energy, and it must also build more than 400 new nuclear reactors in the next 20 years—a near-doubling of today’s global fleet of 435 reactors. However, in the wake of the tsunami that struck Japan’s Fukushima Daichi plant in 2011, some countries are newly fearful about the safety of light water reactors. Germany, for example, vowed to shutter its entire nuclear fleet.

November 6, 2013: The spent fuel pool inside the No.4 reactor building at the tsunami-crippled Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Source: REUTERS/Kyodo (Japan)

The young scientists entering the nuclear energy field know all of this. They understand that a major build-out of nuclear reactors could play a vital role in saving the world from climate disaster. But they also recognize that for that to happen, there must be significant changes in the technology of the reactors, because fear of light water reactors means that the world is not going to be willing to fund and build enough of them to supply the necessary energy. That’s what had sent Leslie and Mark into the library stacks at MIT—a search for new ideas that might be buried in the old designs.

They have now launched a company, Transatomic, to build the molten salt reactor they see as a viable answer to the problem. And they’re not alone—at least eight other startups have emerged in recent years, each with its own advanced reactor design. This new generation of pioneers is working with the same sense of mission and urgency that animated the discipline’s founders. The existential threat that drove the men of Oak Ridge and Argonne was posed by the Soviets; the threat of today is from climate change.

Heeding that sense of urgency, investors from Silicon Valley and elsewhere are stepping up to provide funding. One startup, TerraPower, has the backing of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold. Another, General Fusion, has raised $32 million from investors, including nearly $20 million from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. And LPP Fusion has even benefited, to the tune of $180,000, from an Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign.

All of the new blood, new ideas, and new money are having a real effect. In the last several years, a field that had been moribund has become dynamic again, once more charged with a feeling of boundless possibility and optimism.

But one huge source of funding and support enjoyed by those first pioneers has all but disappeared: The U.S. government.

The "Atoms for Peace" program supplied equipment and information to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the U.S. and throughout the world. Source: Wikipedia

From Atoms for Peace to Chernobyl

December 8, 1953: U.S. President Eisenhower delivers his "Atoms for Peace" speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Source: IAEA

In the early days of nuclear energy development, the government led the charge, funding the research, development, and design of 52 different reactors at the Idaho laboratory’s National Reactor Testing Station alone, not to mention those that were being developed at other labs, like the one that was the subject of the paper Leslie and Mark read. With the help of the government, engineers were able to branch out in many different directions.

Soon enough, the designs were moving from paper to test reactors to deployment at breathtaking speed. The tiny Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, which went online in December 1951 at the Idaho National Lab, ushered in the age of nuclear energy.

Just two years later, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made his Atoms for Peace speech to the U.N., in which he declared that “The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. The capability, already proved, is here today.” Less than a year after that, Eisenhower waved a ceremonial "neutron wand" to signal a bulldozer in Shippingport, Pennsylvania to begin construction of the nation’s first commercial nuclear power plant.

1956: Reactor pressure vessel during construction at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Source: Wikipedia

By 1957 the Atoms for Peace program had borne fruit, and Shippingport was open for business. During the years that followed, the government, fulfilling Eisenhower’s dream, not only funded the research, it ran the labs, chose the technologies, and, eventually, regulated the reactors.

The U.S. would soon rapidly surpass not only its Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, which had brought the first significant electricity-producing reactor online in 1954, but every other country seeking to deploy nuclear energy, including France and Canada. Much of the extraordinary progress in America’s development of nuclear energy technology can be credited to one specific government institution—the U.S. Navy.

Rickover’s choice has had enormous implications. To this day, the light water reactor remains the standard—the only type of reactor built or used for energy production in the United States and in most other countries as well. Research on other reactor types (like molten salt and lead) essentially ended for almost six decades, not to be revived until very recently.

Once light water reactors got the nod, the Atomic Energy Commission endorsed a cookie-cutter-like approach to building additional reactors that was very enticing to energy companies seeking to enter the atomic arena. Having a standardized light water reactor design meant quicker regulatory approval, economies of scale, and operating uniformity, which helped control costs and minimize uncertainty. And there was another upside to the light water reactors, at least back then: they produced a byproduct—plutonium. These days, we call that a problem: the remaining fissile material that must be protected from accidental discharge or proliferation and stored indefinitely. In the Cold War 1960s, however, that was seen as a benefit, because the leftover plutonium could be used to make nuclear weapons.

2005: An ICBM loaded into a silo of the former ICBM missile site, now the Titan Missile Museum. Source: Wikipedia

With the triumph of the light water reactor came a massive expansion of the domestic and global nuclear energy industries. In the 1960s and ‘70s, America’s technology, design, supply chain, and regulatory system dominated the production of all civilian nuclear energy on this side of the Iron Curtain. U.S. engineers drew the plans, U.S. companies like Westinghouse and GE built the plants, U.S. factories and mills made the parts, and the U.S. government’s Atomic Energy Commission set the global safety standards.

In this country, we built more than 100 light water reactors for commercial power production. Though no two American plants were identical, all of the plants constructed in that era were essentially the same—light water reactors running on uranium enriched to about 4 percent. By the end of the 1970s, in addition to the 100-odd reactors that had been built, 100 more were in the planning or early construction stage.

And then everything came to a screeching halt, thanks to a bizarre confluence of Hollywood and real life.

On March 16, 1979, The China Syndrome —starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon, and Michael Douglas—hit theaters, frightening moviegoers with an implausible but well-told tale of a reactor meltdown and catastrophe, which had the potential, according to a character in the film, to render an area “the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable.” Twelve days later, the Number 2 reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in central Pennsylvania suffered an accident that caused the release of some nuclear coolant and a partial meltdown of the reactor core. After the governor ordered the evacuation of “pregnant women and preschool age children,” widespread panic followed, and tens of thousands of people fled in terror.

1979: Three Mile Island power station. Source: Wikipedia

But both the evacuation order and the fear were unwarranted. A massive investigation revealed that the release of radioactive materials was minimal and had posed no risk to human health. No one was injured or killed at Three Mile Island. What did die that day was America’s nuclear energy leadership. After Three Mile Island, plans for new plants then on the drawing board were scrapped or went under in a blizzard of public recrimination, legal action, and regulatory overreach by federal, state, and local officials. For example, the Shoreham plant on Long Island, which took nearly a decade to build and was completed in 1984, never opened, becoming one of the biggest and most expensive white elephants in human history.

The concrete "sarcophagus" built over the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's fourth reactor that exploded on April 26, 1986. Source: REUTERS

Chernobyl sarcophogi Magnum

The final, definitive blow to American nuclear energy was delivered in 1986, when the Soviets bungled their way into a genuine nuclear energy catastrophe: the disaster at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine. It was man-made in its origin (risky decisions made at the plant led to the meltdown, and the plant itself was badly designed); widespread in its scope (Soviet reactors had no containment vessel, so the roof was literally blown off, the core was exposed, and a radioactive cloud covered almost the whole of Europe); and lethal in its impact (rescuers and area residents were lied to by the Soviet government, which denied the risk posed by the disaster, causing many needless deaths and illnesses and the hospitalization of thousands).

After Chernobyl, it didn’t matter that American plants were infinitely safer and better run. This country, which was awash in cheap and plentiful coal, simply wasn’t going to build more nuclear plants if it didn’t have to.

But now we have to.

The terrible consequences of climate change mean that we must find low- and zero-emitting ways of producing electricity.

November 2014: Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie at MIT. Source: Sareen Hairabedian, Brookings Institution

The Return of Nuclear Pioneers

Five new light water reactors are currently under construction in the U.S., but the safety concerns about them (largely unwarranted as they are) as well as their massive size, cost, complexity, and production of used fuel (“waste”) mean that there will probably be no large-scale return to the old style of reactor. What we need now is to go back to the future and build some of those plants that they dreamed up in the labs of yesterday.

Which is what Leslie and Mark are trying to do with Transatomic. Once they had their breakthrough moment and realized that they could fuel their reactor on nuclear waste material, they began to think seriously about founding a company. So they started doing what all entrepreneurial MIT grads do—they talked to venture capitalists. Once they got their initial funding, the two engineers knew that they needed someone with business experience, so they hired a CEO, Russ Wilcox, who had built and sold a very successful e-publishing company. At the time they approached him, Wilcox was in high demand, but after hearing Leslie and Mark give a TEDx talk about the environmental promise of advanced nuclear technology, he opted to go with Transatomic— because he thought it could help save the world.

November 1, 2014: Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan giving a TEDx talk . Source: Transatomic

In their talk, the two founders had explained that in today’s light water reactors, metal-clad uranium fuel rods are lowered into water in order to heat it and create steam to run the electric turbines. But the water eventually breaks down the metal cladding and then the rods must be replaced. The old rods become nuclear waste, which will remain radioactive for up to 100,000 years, and, under the current American system, must remain in storage for that period.

The genius of the Transatomic design is that, according to Mark’s simulations, their reactor could make use of almost all of the energy remaining in the rods that have been removed from the old light water reactors, while producing almost no waste of their own—just 2.5 percent as much as produced by a typical light water reactor. If they built enough molten salt reactors, Transatomic could theoretically consume not just the roughly 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste currently stored at U.S. nuclear plants, but also the additional 2,000 metric tons that are produced each year.

Like all molten salt reactors, the Transatomic design is extraordinarily safe as well. That is more important than ever after the terror inspired by the disaster that occurred at the Fukushima light water reactor plant in 2011.When the tsunami knocked out the power for the pumps that provided the water required for coolant, the Fukushima plant suffered a partial core meltdown. In a molten salt reactor, by contrast, no externally supplied coolant would be needed, making it what Transatomic calls “walk away safe.” That means that, in the event of a power failure, no human intervention would be required; the reactor would essentially cool itself without water or pumps. With a loss of external electricity, the artificially chilled plug at the base of the reactor would melt, and the material in the core (salt and uranium fuel) would drain to a containment tank and cool within hours.

Leslie and Mark have also found materials that would boost the power output of a molten salt reactor by 30 times over the 1960s model. Their redesign means the reactor might be small and efficient enough to be built in a factory and moved by rail. (Current reactors are so large that they must be assembled on site.)

Click image to play or stop animation

Transatomic, as well as General Fusion and LPP Fusion, represent one branch of the new breed of nuclear pioneers—call them “the young guns.” Also included in this group are companies like Terrestrial Energy in Canada, which is developing an alternative version of the molten salt reactor; Flibe Energy, which is preparing for experiments on a liquid-thorium fluoride reactor; UPower, at work on a nuclear battery; and engineers who are incubating projects not just at MIT but at a number of other universities and labs. Thanks to their work, the next generator of reactors might just be developed by small teams of brilliant entrepreneurs.

Then there are the more established companies and individuals—call them the “old pros”—who have become players in the advanced nuclear game. These include the engineering giant Fluor, which recently bought a startup out of Oregon called NuScale Power. They are designing a new type of light water “Small Modular Reactor” that is integral (the steam generator is built in), small (it generates about 4 percent of the output of a large reactor and fits on the back of a truck), and sectional (it can be strung together with others to generate more power). In part because of its relatively familiar light water design, Fluor and a small modular reactor competitor, Babcock & Wilcox, are the only pioneers of the new generation of technology to have received government grants—for $226 million each—to fund their research.

Another of the “old pros,” the well-established General Atomics, in business since 1955, is combining the benefits of small modular reactors with a design that can convert nuclear waste into electricity and also produce large amounts of heat and energy for industrial applications. The reactor uses helium rather than water or molten salt as its coolant. Its advanced design, which they call the Energy Multiplier Module reactor, has the potential to revolutionize the industry.

Somewhere in between is TerraPower. While it’s run by young guns, it’s backed by the world’s second richest man (among others). But even Bill Gates’s money won’t be enough. Nuclear technology is too big, too expensive, and too complex to explore in a garage, real or metaphorical. TerraPower has said that a prototype reactor could cost up to $5 billion, and they are going to need some big machines to develop and test it.

So while Leslie, Mark, and others in their cohort may seem like the latest iteration of Silicon Valley hipster entrepreneurs, the work they’re trying to do cannot be accomplished by Silicon Valley VC-scale funding. There has to be substantial government involvement.

Unfortunately, the relatively puny grants to Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox are the federal government’s largest contribution to advanced nuclear development to date. At the moment, the rest are on their own.

The result is that some of the fledgling enterprises, like General Atomic and Gates’s TerraPower, have decamped for China. Others, like Leslie and Mark’s, are staying put in the United States (for now) and hoping for federal support.

UBritish Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (2nd R) chats with workers beside Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co Ltd General Manager Guo Liming (3rd R) and EDF Energy CEO Vincent de Rivaz (R), in front of a nuclear reactor under construction at a nuclear power plant in Taishan, Guangdong province, October 17, 2013. Chinese companies will be allowed to take stakes in British nuclear projects, Osborne said on Thursday, as Britain pushes ahead with an ambitious target to expand nuclear energy. REUTERS/Bobby Yip (CHINA - Tags: POLITICS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY ENERGY) Source: REUTERS

June 2008: A nearly 200 ton nuclear reactor safety vessel is erected at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam, near the southern Indian city of Chennai. Source: REUTERS/Babu (INDIA)

Missing in Action: The United States Government

There are American political leaders in both parties who talk about having an “all of the above” energy policy, implying that they want to build everything, all at once. But they don’t mean it, at least not really. In this country, we don’t need all of the above—virtually every American has access to electric power. We don’t want it—we have largely stopped building coal as well as nuclear plants, even though we could. And we don’t underwrite it—the public is generally opposed to the government being in the business of energy research, development, and demonstration (aka, RD&D).

In China, when they talk of “all of the above,” they do mean it. With hundreds of millions of Chinese living without electricity and a billion more demanding ever-increasing amounts of power, China is funding, building, and running every power project that they possibly can. This includes the nuclear sector, where they have about 29 big new light water reactors under construction. China is particularly keen on finding non-emitting forms of electricity, both to address climate change and, more urgently for them, to help slow the emissions of the conventional pollutants that are choking their cities in smog and literally killing their citizens.

Since (for better or for worse) China isn’t hung up on safety regulation, and there is zero threat of legal challenge to nuclear projects, plans can be realized much more quickly than in the West. That means that there are not only dozens of light water reactor plants going up in China, but also a lot of work on experimental reactors with advanced nuclear designs—like those being developed by General Atomic and TerraPower.

Given both the competitive threat from China and the potentially disastrous global effects of emissions-induced climate change, the U.S. government should be leaping back into the nuclear race with the kind of integrated response that it brought to the Soviet threat during the Cold War.

But it isn’t, at least not yet. Through years of stagnation, America lost—or perhaps misplaced—its ability to do big, bold things in nuclear science. Our national labs, which once led the world to this technology, are underfunded, and our regulatory system, which once set the standard of global excellence, has become overly burdensome, slow, and sclerotic.

The villains in this story are familiar in Washington: ideology, ignorance, and bureaucracy. Let’s start with Congress, currently sporting a well-earned 14 percent approval rating. On Capitol Hill, an unholy and unwitting alliance of right-wing climate deniers, small-government radicals, and liberal anti-nuclear advocates have joined together to keep nuclear lab budgets small. And since even naming a post office constitutes a huge challenge for this broken Congress, moving forward with the funding and regulation of a complex new technology seems well beyond its capabilities at the moment.

Then there is the federal bureaucracy, which has failed even to acknowledge that a new generation of reactors is on the horizon. It took the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the successor to the Atomic Energy Commission) years to approve a design for the new light water reactor now being built in Georgia, despite the fact that it’s nearly identical to the 100 or so that preceded it. The NRC makes no pretense of being prepared to evaluate reactors cooled by molten salt or run on depleted uranium. And it insists on pounding these new round pegs into its old square holes, demanding that the new reactors meet the same requirements as the old ones, even when that makes no sense.

At the Department of Energy, their heart is in the right place. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz is a seasoned political hand as well as an MIT nuclear physicist, and he absolutely sees the potential in advanced reactor designs. But, constrained by a limited budget, the department is not currently in a position to drive the kind of changes needed to bring advanced nuclear designs to market.

President Obama clearly believes in nuclear energy. In an early State of the Union address he said, “We need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." But the White House has been largely absent from the nuclear energy discussion in recent years. It is time for it to reengage.

May 22, 1957: A GE supervisor inspects the instrument panel for the company’s boiling water power reactor in Pleasanton, CA. Source: Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images

Getting the U.S. Back in the Race

So what, exactly, do the people running the advanced nuclear companies need from the U.S. government? What can government do to help move the technology off of their computers and into the electricity production marketplace?

First, they need a practical development path. Where is Bill Gates going to test TerraPower’s brilliant new reactor designs? Because there are no appropriate government-run facilities in the United States, he is forced to make do in China. He can’t find this ideal. Since more than two-thirds of Microsoft Windows operating systems used in China are pirated, he is surely aware that testing in China greatly increases the risk of intellectual property theft.

Thus, at the center of a development path would be an advanced reactor test bed facility, run by the government, and similar to what we had at the Idaho National Lab in 1960s. Such a facility, which would be open to all of the U.S. companies with reactors in development, would allow any of them to simply plug in their fuel and materials and run their tests

But advanced test reactors of the type we need are expensive and complex. The old one at the Idaho lab can’t accommodate the radiation and heat levels required by the new technologies. Japan has a newer one, but it shut down after Fukushima. China and Russia each have them, and France is building one that should be completed in 2016. But no one has the cutting-edge, truly advanced incubator space that the new firms need to move toward development.

Second is funding. Mark and Leslie have secured some venture capital, but Transatomic will need much more money in order to perform the basic engineering on an advanced test reactor and, eventually, to construct demonstration reactors. Like all startups, Transatomic faces a “Valley of Death” between concept and deployment; with nuclear technology’s enormous costs and financial risk, it’s more like a “Grand Canyon of Death.” Government must play a big role in bridging that canyon, as it did in the early days of commercial nuclear energy development, beginning with the first light water reactor at Shippingport.

For Further Reading

President Obama, It's Time to Act on Energy Policy November 2014, Charles Ebinger

Transforming the Electricity Portfolio: Lessons from Germany and Japan in Deploying Renewable Energy September 2014, John Banks, Charles Ebinger, and Alisa Schackmann

The Road Ahead for Japanese Energy June 2014

Planet Policy A blog about the intersection of energy and climate policy

Third, they need a complete rethinking of the NRC approach to regulating advanced nuclear technology. How can the brand new Flibe Energy liquid-thorium fluoride reactor technology be forced to meet the same criteria as the typical light water reactor? The NRC must be flexible enough to accommodate technology that works differently from the light water reactors it is familiar with. For example, since Transatomic’s reactor would run at normal atmospheric pressure, unlike a light water reactor, which operates under vastly greater pressure, Mark and Leslie shouldn’t be required to build a huge and massively expensive containment structure around their reactors. Yet the NRC has no provision allowing them to bypass that requirement. If that doesn’t change, there is no way that Transatomic will be able to bring its small, modular, innovative reactors to market.

In addition, the NRC must let these technologies develop organically. They should permit Transatomic and the others to build and operate prototype reactors before they are fully licensed, allowing them to demonstrate their safety and reliability with real-world stress tests, as opposed to putting them through never-ending rounds of theoretical discussion and negotiation with NRC testers.

None of this is easy. The seriousness of the climate change threat is not universally acknowledged in Washington. Federal budgets are now based in the pinched, deficit-constrained present, not the full employment, high-growth economy of the 1950s. And the NRC, in part because of its mission to protect public safety, is among the most change-averse of any federal agency.

But all of this is vital. Advanced nuclear technology could hold a key to fighting climate change. It could also result in an enormous boon to the American economy. But only if we get there first.

Who Will Own the Nuclear Power Future?

Josh Freed, Third Way's clean energy vice president, works on developing ways the federal government can help accelerate the private sector's adoption of clean energy and address climate change. He has served as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill and worked in various public advocacy and political campaigns, including advising the senior leadership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Nuclear energy is at a crossroads. One path sends brilliant engineers like Leslie and Mark forward, applying their boundless skills and infectious optimism to world-changing technologies that have the potential to solve our energy problems while also fueling economic development and creating new jobs. The other path keeps the nuclear industry locked in unadaptable technologies that will lead, inevitably, to a decline in our major source of carbon-free energy.

The chance to regain our leadership in nuclear energy, to walk on the path once trod by the engineers and scientists of the 1950s and ‘60s, will not last forever. It is up to those who make decisions on matters concerning funding and regulation to strike while the iron is hot.

This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking—we have done this before. At the dawn of the nuclear age, we designed and built reactors that tested the range of possibility. The blueprints then languished on the shelves of places like the MIT library for more than fifty years until Leslie Dewan, Mark Massie, and other brilliant engineers and scientists thought to revive them. With sufficient funding and the appropriate technical and political leadership, we can offer the innovators and entrepreneurs of today the chance to use those designs to power the future.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #BrookingsEssay or share this on Facebook .

This Essay is also available as an eBook from these online retailers: Amazon Kindle , Barnes & Noble , Apple iTunes , Google Play , Ebooks.com , and on Kobo .

This article was written by Josh Freed, vice president of the Clean Energy Program at Third Way. The author has not personally received any compensation from the nuclear energy industry. In the spirit of maximum transparency, however, the author has disclosed that several entities mentioned in this article are associated in varying degrees with Third Way. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Babcock & Wilcox have financially supported Third Way. NEI includes TerraPower, Babcock & Wilcox, and Idaho National Lab among its members, as well as Fluor on its Board of Directors. Transatomic is not a member of NEI, but Dr. Leslie Dewan has appeared in several of its advertisements. Third Way is also working with and has received funding from Ray Rothrock, although he was not consulted on the contents of this essay. Third Way previously held a joint event with the Idaho National Lab that was unrelated to the subject of this essay.

* The essay originally also referred to Hitachi buying GE's nuclear arm. GE owns 60 percent of Hitachi.

Like other products of the Institution, The Brookings Essay is intended to contribute to discussion and stimulate debate on important issues. The views are solely those of the author.

Graphic Design: Marcia Underwood and Jessica Pavone Research: Fred Dews, Thomas Young, Jessica Pavone, Kevin Hawkins Editorial: Beth Rashbaum and Fred Dews Web Development: Marcia Underwood and Kevin Hawkins Video: George Burroughs- Director, Ian McAllister- Technical Director, Sareen Hairabedian and Mark Hoelscher Directors of Photography, Sareen Hairabedian- Editor, Mark Hoelscher- Color Correction and Graphics, Zachary Kulzer- Sound, Thomas Young- Producer

1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington , DC 20036

• Media Relations

More Brookings Essays

Published 12/12/2014

© 2014 The Brookings Institution

• Terms and Conditions
• Brookings Privacy Policy

Javascript Required!

Javascript is required for this site.

The Nuclear Debate

(Updated May 2022)

• The underlying question is how electricity is best produced now and in the years to come.
• Between 1990 and 2019 electricity demand doubled. It is expected to roughly double again by 2050.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that at least 80% of the world's electricity must be low carbon by 2050 to keep warming within 2 °C of pre-industrial levels.
• At present, about two-thirds of electricity is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. 
• Nuclear is proven, scalable and reliable, and its expanded use will be essential for many countries to achieve their decarbonization goals.

Notes & references

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),  Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report  – Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (2015) [ Back ] 2. International Energy Agency,  Data and Statistics   [ Back ] 3. IPCC, Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation – Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary , Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Annex II, Table A.II.4 (2011, reprinted 2012) [ Back ] 4. OECD International Energy Agency and OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity , 2015 Edition (September 2015) [ Back ] 5. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources , 2010 [ Back ] 6. UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation, Report to the UN General Assembly , 2008 [ Back ] 7. World Health Organization, Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes , Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health" , 2006 [ Back ] 8. American Cancer Society, Thyroid Cancer Survival Rates, by Type and Stage (revised 9 January 2020) [ Back ] 9. United Nations, No Immediate Health Risks from Fukishima Nuclear Accident Says UN Export Science Panel , 2013 [ Back ] 10. UK Government press release, Government confirms Hinkley Point C project following new agreement in principle with EDF (15 September 2016) [ Back ] 11. Ørsted website, Renewable energy record achieved at London Array (1 August 2016) [ Back ] 12. Kharechi and Hansen, Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power , 2013 [ Back ] 13. UNSCEAR, Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation , 2010 [ Back ]

You may also be interested in

Uranium Mining Overview

Submission to eu energy and environment sub-committee inquiry into the implications of brexit in the uk.

Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

• Live Chat Talk to a specialist
• Self-service options
• Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
• Ultius 101 New client? Click here
• Messenger  

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

• How it Works

Learn more about us

• Future writers
• Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample argumentative essay against the production of nuclear power.

Select network

This sample argumentative essay explores nuclear power production, how it is increasingly growing in number, and issues with safety and health. As one of the hottest debates of our time, there is no shortage of situations to which this type of document apply. Particularly in the academic world, this is a discussion worthy of everything from brief essays to full dissertations .

Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power

Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of greenhouse gasses and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little. This technology is readily available; it does not have to be developed first. It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant. (Rohrer)

Disadvantages

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy, also know as fusion energy , is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10,000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). Nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear waste, could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in New York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.

During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). (Rohrer) For all intents and purposes, the argument against the production of nuclear power seems to be the strongest.

Meeting the world’s energy needs

Nuclear energy does not contribute much to the world’s overall energy needs . This is one argument against the production of nuclear powers.

In fact, “Electricity generation uses 40% of the world's primary energy. Nuclear provides 14% of world electricity” (World Nuclear Association).

With about 160 nuclear power resources in the United States and approximately 440 commercial nuclear power reactors globally, there is a lot of information available regarding nuclear energy generation (World Nuclear Association). While most countries do not rely solely on nuclear energy, there are about 13 countries that get about 25% of their electricity by means of nuclear energy (NEI). The top contenders are:

• France – 76.3%
• Ukraine – 56.5%
• Slovakia – 55.9%
• Hungary – 52.7%

Nuclear power disasters

Another argument against the production of nuclear power is the risk of horrific nuclear explosions in power plants. In 1986, a nuclear power plant in Europe suffered from an accident that has become known as one of the most devastating in regards to nuclear power activity in world history. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded on April 26 when a sudden surge of power occurred during a systems test (The Chernobyl Gallery). Thirty-one people died and countless more were affected by exposure to radioactive substances released in the disaster.

"Nearly 400 million people resided in territories that were contaminated with radioactivity at a level higher than 4 kBq/m2 (0.11 Ci/km2) from April to July 1986. Nearly 5 million people (including, more than 1 million children) still live with dangerous levels of radioactive contamination in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia." (The Chernobyl Gallery)

The Mayak Nuclear Facility and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disasters

The second most disastrous nuclear disaster in history occurred in 1957. The Mayak Nuclear Facility in Kyshtym, Russia suffered a fate similar to that in the Chernobyl disaster.

"As a result of disregarding basic safety standards, 17,245 workers received radiation overdoses between 1948 and 1958. Dumping of radioactive waste into the nearby river from 1949 to 1952 caused several breakouts of radiation sickness in villages downstream." (Rabl)

There are many more nuclear power production incidents such as the Chernobyl and Kyshtym disasters that have had devastating effects on the environment, the human population, and even entire cities. Most recently, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster comes to mind. Accidents are rated based on a numbered system called the International Nuclear Events Scale, or INES. Events range from a Level 1, which is considered an Anomaly, to a Level 7, which is a Major Accident (Rogers). Some of the more disastrous incidents that have occurred are as follows:

• 1952 - Chalk River, Canada - Level 5
• 1957 - Windscale Pile, UK - Level 5
• 1979 - Three Mile Island, US - Level 5
• 1980 - Saint Laurent des Eaux, France - Level 4
• 1993 - Tomsk, Russia - Level 4
• 2011 - Fukushima, Japan - Level 5

Nuclear waste's impact on health and safety

The disposal of nuclear waste is yet another argument against the production of nuclear power.

“Nuclear waste is the material that nuclear fuel becomes after it is used in a reactor” (Rogers).

This waste is essentially an isotope of the Uranium Oxide fuel, or UO2, that nuclear reactors are powered by. This substance is highly radioactive and, if not disposed of properly, can leak into the environment, which subsequently can cause irreparable damage to the environment and people coming into contact with it.

The process of nuclear waste disposal is a lengthy process that can take years to mediate. Once the waste is captured, it must never become exposed to the outside world. The most method of disposal is underwater storage until the radiation in the waste decays and it can be moved to concrete tanks.

Keeping on the topic of nuclear waste disposal, the dangers of exposure to nuclear waste are catastrophic. In regards to plants, animals, and humans, exposure to radioactive waste can cause cancer, genetic problems, and death. Which brings to mind the nature and prospects of nuclear fusion- often called the "perfect" source of power - emitting neither radioactive waste nor greenhouse gasses that add to the global warming problem .

But because there is always the possibility of error in nuclear waste production, storage and disposal, there is always the risk that waste is somehow being exposed to the environment. The symptoms of exposure range from the following:

• Nausea and vomiting - within 10 minutes to 6 hours;
• Headache - within 2 hours to 24 hours;
• Dizziness and disorientation - immediately to 1 week;
• Hair loss, infections, low blood pressure - immediately to within 1 to 4 weeks. (Mayo Clinic Staff)

With the vast array of symptoms, illnesses, and effects of exposure to nuclear waste, it is easy to see why this is such a strong argument against the production of nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons' impact on the environment

The development and usage of nuclear weapons have become a hot topic of debates and essay assignments in recent years. It has always been, but even more so in the 20th and 21st centuries. Seldom do most people make the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power production. It was once deemed that the production of nuclear power for the sole purpose of electricity production. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower first came to the realization that the two concepts could be connected.

"In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would receive uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors." (NEIS) 1

As the process of linking nuclear power production and nuclear weapon development has become more evident, so has the fact that the connection is more political than historical. The political and microeconomic aspects of energy production are vast. Because of how little the world relies on nuclear power for energy production, it only makes sense that many countries would instead use nuclear energy solely for the production of nuclear weapons. This leaves this type of energy production in the hands of terrorist-friendly countries and organizations. These entities often camouflage their intentions with “peaceful” nuclear production (NEIS).

Alternative renewable energy sources

As the world’s population continues to grow at exacerbated rates, so does its need for renewable and sustainable energy sources. In years past, nuclear power was a feasible solution to the problem. Yet another argument against the production of nuclear power lay in the fact that there are many more options available. The world has taken notice to the natural energy that lights upon us everyday care of Mother Nature. Sun, wind, and water offer many opportunities at alternative energy sources without the aid of the environmentally detrimental energy that nuclear power provides (World Nuclear Association).

There is a rather large list of potential alternative energy sources that could prove to be healthier and safer options to nuclear power. These options include:

• Rivers and hydroelectricity
• Wind energy
• Solar energy
• Ocean energy
• Decentralized energy.

(World Nuclear Association)

The problem with these types of energy sources is the act of harnessing them. It makes sense that if the world is willing to accommodate the cost of nuclear power exploration that it would also be willing to harness much safer means of energy production that can be found in natural resources.

The argument against the production of nuclear power is a strong one and one popularly presented in opinion pieces and research papers alike . The production of nuclear power is dangerous and comes with many negative ramifications. Nuclear disasters are tragedies that are unlike any other in history and are unnecessary. The consequences of nuclear waste exposure are immeasurable and create long lasting legacies of destruction, fear, and pain.

Despite efforts from the US Department of Defense to move toward energy efficiency , the correlation between nuclear power production and nuclear weapon promotion will inevitably be the world’s ultimate demise. There are too many other renewable and sustainable energy sources available that nuclear power production should no longer be an option.

The world does not rely on nuclear energy heavily enough for it to be a necessity. The majority of countries that once sought the “peaceful” exploration of nuclear energy production now use it with malicious intent. As politics take precedence in all things global, the protection of the planet and its inhabitants has taken the backseat. The world once survived with nuclear power. Hopefully, we will see those days again.

Works Cited

EIA. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." How Much Electricity Does a Nuclear Power Plant Generate? 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 02 June 2016. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104.

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Radiation Sickness." Symptoms. 2016. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/radiation-sickness/basics/symptoms/con-20022901.

NEI. "World Statistics." Nuclear Energy Institute. Web. 02 June 2016. http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics.

Rabl, Thomas. "The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War | Environment & Society Portal." The Nuclear Disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the Politics of the Cold War | Environment & Society Portal. 2012. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/nuclear-disaster-kyshtym-1957-and-politics-cold-war.

Rogers, Simon. "Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Listed and Ranked since 1952." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2011. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank.

Rohrer, Jurg. "Time for Change." Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. 2011. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability.

The Chernobyl Gallery. "What Is Chernobyl? | The Chernobyl Gallery." The Chernobyl Gallery What Is Chernobyl Comments. 2013. Web. 03 June 2016. http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/what-is-chernobyl/.

World Nuclear Association. "Renewable Energy and Electricity." 2016. Web. 03 June 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/renewable-energy-and-electricity.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. "World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power." May 2016. Web. 02 June 2016. http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/world-energy-needs-and-nuclear-power.aspx.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

• Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 05 Jul. 2016. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2016, July 05). Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Argumentative Essay against the Production of Nuclear Power." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. July 05, 2016 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-argumentative-essay-against-the-production-of-nuclear-power.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

• Writer Options
• Custom Writing
• Business Documents
• Support Desk
• +1-800-405-2972
• Submit bug report
• A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

• Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

• Name Samantha M.
• From Pepperdine University '22
• Studies Psychology
• Won $2,000.00
• Award SEED Scholarship
• Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best nuclear energy topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy nuclear energy essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on nuclear energy.

• Why Nuclear Energy Is Not Good? Even those who say net production is cost effective for unit of nuclear energy produced may not be saying the truth because most of these estimate forget that nuclear energy is recipient of many government […]
• Nuclear Energy Effectiveness Although water is used to cool nuclear plants, we can conclude that nuclear energy is the most cost effective method of producing electricity. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Energy Disruption: Causes and Effects of the Fukushima Nuclear Reactors Leak The Fukushima nuclear disaster that occurred in March, 2011in Japan as the result of the earthquake and tsunami led to a number of the serious problems and energy disruption.
• Nuclear Power Provides Cheap and Clean Energy The production of nuclear power is relatively cheap when compared to coal and petroleum. The cost of nuclear fuel for nuclear power generation is much lower compared to coal, oil and gas fired plants.
• Sustainable Energy Source – Nuclear Energy One of the groups led by World Nuclear Association, believes that nuclear energy is a reliable and efficient source of energy.
• Metropolitan Edison Company vs. People Against Nuclear Energy In addition, the commission published a hearing notice which entailed an invitation to parties that were interested to submit their briefs explaining the impacts of the accident to the psychological harm or any other indirect […]
• Nuclear Energy: High-Entropy Alloy One of the tools for reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions is the development of nuclear energy, which is characterized by a high degree of environmental efficiency and the absence of a significant impact […]
• Nuclear Energy: Impact of Science & Technology on Society In spite of the fact that hopes of adherents of the use of atomic energy substantially were not justified, the majority of the governments of the countries of the world do not wish to refuse […]
• Nuclear Energy and The Danger of Environment Nuclear energy can be a benefit in the medium and long term perspective, but the communal and public awareness of nuclear energy breeds anxieties about nuclear technology that must be directed to attain the public […]
• Nuclear Energy: Safe, Economical, Reliable Thus, nuclear energy is viable and safe in meeting the current and future demand for energy across the world. Nuclear energy has significant implications for the environment and population health in case of an accident […]
• Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation: Business Principles The first 3 are enablers of the system of management while the fourth component is process-oriented, which helps in the development, production, and delivery of services coupled with products of an organization to the market […]
• Nuclear Power as a Primary Energy Source The energy crisis the world faces currently is one of the most urgent and disturbing questions countries have to deal with.
• Nuclear Energy and Its Risks The situation became difficult when the power in the reactors reduced and could not be enough to be used by the operators.
• Fossil Fuel, Nuclear Energy, and Alternative Power Sources It is important to keep in mind that the amount of coal is decreasing and there is no guarantee that people will be able to discover more.
• Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation’s Employee Training Program The problem is the need to incorporate training and development as part of the human resource management policies of the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation.
• Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation Managerial Accounting The flagship project and the construction of the first reactor of the four scheduled reactors began in 2011. In the execution of the role of management accountants, ENEC encounters challenges due to the use of […]
• Harmful Health Effects of Nuclear Energy The risk of developing thyroid cancer following exposure to nuclear radiations increased with a decrease in the age of the subject.
• A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Environmental and Economic Effects of Nuclear Energy in the United States The nature of damage posed to the environment depends on the nature of the nuclear plant being used and also the extraction process of fossil fuel themselves.
• Nuclear Energy Fusion and Harnessing Physicists use the equation E=MC2 to calculate the amount of energy that is generated as a result of the fusion of nucleus.
• Nuclear Energy Usage and Recycling The resulting energy is used to power machinery and generate heat for processing purposes. The biggest problem though is that of energy storage, which is considered to be the most crucial requirement for building a […]
• The Effect of Nuclear Energy on the Environment In response to the concerns, this paper proposes the use of thorium reactors to produce nuclear energy because the safety issues of uranium.
• The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, ENEC, brought together six UAE member states, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other countries such as the United States of America. The assertions made above indicate that UAE relies […]
• Nuclear Energy Benefits and Demerits The aim of the research is to provide substantial proof that nuclear energy is not efficient and sustainable. It is also argued that the whole process and the impacts of nuclear energy production make the […]
• Balanced Treatment of the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy Thus, the use of nuclear power presupposes a number of positive short-term and log-term consequences for the economy of the country and the environment of the planet.
• The Environmental Impact of Nuclear Energy The country has the opportunity to enhance its capacity to generate electricity from nuclear following the approval of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate between three to four units of the Vogtle […]
• Sources of Energy: Nuclear Power and Hydroelectric Power The main source of power in the world is the Sun. The Sun is the sole source of energy that plants use in the process of photosynthesis in order to manufacture their food.
• Corporate Governance Strategy for Emirates Energy Nuclear Corporation To establish the difference privatization will bring to the company in terms of resources and manpower To establish the feasibility of this undertaking in comparison to other companies that manage nuclear transmission such as Exelon […]
• Nuclear Energy in Australia The irony of the matter is that Australia does not use these reserves to produce nuclear energy; two main reasons that has contributed to the un-exploitation are availability of rich coal deposits in the country, […]
• Impact of Nuclear Energy in France Through the process, heat energy is released from the bombardment of the nucleus and the neutrons. The need to manage the nuclear waste affected the economic parameters attached to nuclear energy.
• Nuclear Energy Benefits One of the factors why nuclear energy is an effective source of energy is that it is cost effective. The other factor that makes nuclear energy cost effective is that the risks associated with this […]
• Understanding the Significance of Nuclear Energy
• The Nuclear Energy and Its Impact on the Environment and Economic Growth
• The Use of Nuclear Energy as an Alternative to Global Energy Crisis
• The Impact of Nuclear Energy in the Environment and Economic Growth
• The Economic Consequences of Shifting Away From Nuclear Energy
• The Issue of Climate Change and Nuclear Energy
• The Importance of Controlling the Use of Nuclear Energy
• The Environmental Benefits Of Utilizing Nuclear Energy Rather Than Fossil Fuel Energy
• The Problem Of Nuclear Energy
• Understanding How Nuclear Energy Is Produced from the Atom Level
• The Process Of Producing Nuclear Energy From Thorium
• The Dangers of Atomic Weapons and Nuclear Energy
• The Theory of Nuclear Energy and Its Applications in the Industry
• The Tommyknockers and Nuclear Energy
• The Future of the U. S. Nuclear Energy Industry
• The Nuclear Energy Advantage Of The United States
• The Controversy Regarding The Utilization Of Nuclear Energy
• The Future Industry In Energy: Dropping The Concept Of Nuclear Energy
• The Hope For Nuclear Energy As A Source Of Power
• The Role of Nuclear Energy in Our Lives Today
• The Environmental Benefits of Utilizing Nuclear Energy
• The Argument For Nuclear Energy
• The Ethical and Philosophical Implications of Harnessing Nuclear Energy
• The United States Should Use Nuclear Energy
• Why Do We Still Have Nuclear Energy And Fossil Energy
• The Phenomenon Of Decreased Usage Of Nuclear Energy
• The Politics of Nuclear Energy in Western Europe
• The Negative Issues Surrounding the Use of Nuclear Energy as an Alternative Source of Renewable Energy
• Thorium As An Alternative Form Of Nuclear Energy
• The Advantages of Using Nuclear Energy as a Source of Power
• The Complicated, Expensive, and Dangerous Use of Nuclear Energy
• Why European Countries Are Holding Off On Nuclear Energy
• The Socio-Political Economy of Nuclear Energy in China and India
• The Development of Nuclear Energy and It Importance in the World Today
• Should Nuclear Energy Developed Thailand
• Why the United States Should Stop Using Nuclear Energy
• The History, Advancements and Modern Uses of Nuclear Energy
• Transparency and View Regarding Nuclear Energy Before and After the Fukushima Accident: Evidence on Micro-data
• The Hazards in the Coal Mines and the Benefits of Nuclear Energy
• Use Of Nuclear Energy In Modern World
• The Scientific Discoveries on the Nuclear Energy During the 19th Century
• The Pros and Cons When Discussing the Use of Nuclear Energy
• The Potential Benefits and Risks of Using Nuclear Energy to Produce Electricity
• The Manhattan Project Was a Top Secret Nuclear Energy
• The Nuclear Energy Controversy: Finding a Place for the Nuclear Waste
• The Effects Of Nuclear Energy On The Environment
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, January 24). 76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/

"76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 24 January.

IvyPanda . 2023. "76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "76 Nuclear Energy Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-energy-essay-topics/.

• Alternative Energy Paper Topics
• Wind Energy Essay Topics
• Energy Essay Ideas
• Nuclear Power Questions
• Solar Energy Essay Ideas
• Nuclear Weapon Essay Topics
• Scientist Paper Topics
• Pollution Essay Ideas
• Air Pollution Research Ideas
• Experiment Questions
• Technology Essay Ideas
• Global Warming Essay Titles
• Environmental Protection Titles
• Greenhouse Gases Research Ideas
• Environment Research Topics

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Farhad Manjoo

Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense

By Farhad Manjoo

Opinion Columnist

Whenever I write about the plummeting costs and growing capabilities of wind power, solar power and batteries, I’m usually met with a barrage of radioactive responses from the internet’s overheated nuclear reactors — social-media-savvy environmental activists who insist that nuclear power should play a leading role in the world’s transition away from fossil fuels.

The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, they point out, but nuclear power plants produce carbon-free energy day and night, rain or shine. Their argument that nuclear power is unfairly maligned has been bolstered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; Germany, which shut down many of its nuclear plants in the past decade while building natural gas pipelines to Russia , now faces a deep energy crunch. It has had to burn more coal to keep the lights on.

I’m not a never-nuke, but I’ve had my doubts about atomic power. Still, I wanted to keep an open mind. So last week I flew to London to attend the World Nuclear Symposium , an annual conference put on by the nuclear industry’s global trade group, the World Nuclear Association. I heard an earful from industry executives, analysts, lobbyists and government officials who are giddy about nuclear power’s prospects for powering the world of tomorrow.

I’ll give the pronuclear folks this: They do make a good case that nuclear has gotten a too-bad rap . Nuclear power is relatively safe, reliable and clean; compared to the planetary destruction wrought by fossil fuels, nuclear power looks like a panacea. Patrick Fragman, the C.E.O. of the large American nuclear manufacturer Westinghouse, said his industry had to “unwind decades of brainwashing of public opinion in many countries” about the dangers of nuclear power.

But the argument for significantly ramping up the production of nuclear power — especially in places where overall energy consumption isn’t growing, like in the United States and Europe — falls short. That’s because the nuclear industry has long been hobbled by two problems that its boosters can’t really wish away: Nuclear is far slower to build than most other forms of power, and it’s far more expensive, too. And now there is a third problem on the horizon. As battery technology improves and the price of electricity storage plummets, nuclear may be way too late, too — with much of its value eclipsed by cheaper, faster and more flexible renewable power technologies.

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the goal set in the Paris Agreement to avert the worst effects of global warming — experts say that we need to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions to a net of zero by 2050 . Responding to such a climate emergency with nuclear power is like calling on a sloth to put out a house fire. The 63 nuclear reactors that went into service around the world between 2011 and 2020 took an average of around 10 years to build. By comparison, solar and wind farms can be built in months; in 2020 and 2021 alone, the world added 464 gigawatts of wind and solar power-generation capacity, which is more power than can be generated by all the nuclear plants operating in the world today .

The nuclear industry has been notorious for cost overruns and delays. The only nuclear reactors under construction in the United States — a Westinghouse project at the Plant Vogtle power station in Georgia —   were started in 2013 and projected to be finished in 2017 . They are still not done — and an initial budget of $14 billion has more than doubled to over $28 billion. In 2017, utilities in South Carolina canceled two reactors midway through construction after cost projections ballooned from $11.5 billion to more than $25 billion.

And after all this build time, you get a very expensive source of energy. In a common energy industry measure known as “levelized cost,” nuclear’s minimum price is about $131 per megawatt-hour , which is at least twice the price of natural gas and coal, and four times the cost of utility-scale solar and onshore wind power installations. And the high price of nuclear power doesn’t include its extraneous costs, such as the staggering price of disasters. Cleanup and other costs for the 2011 Fukushima disaster, caused by an earthquake and a tsunami off the Japanese coast, may approach a trillion dollars .

Nuclear boosters say that these problems can be solved. There was much talk at the conference about streamlining regulations and reducing costs and build times by constructing smaller, more advanced and less disaster-prone reactors. Once we start building more, the industry will start seeing the benefits of scale and efficiency, several industry insiders told me.

“The best way to become good at building nuclear power plants is to build nuclear power plants,” said Sama Bilbao y Léon, the director general of the World Nuclear Association. John Kotek, an executive at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s American trade group, pointed out that the U.S. Navy builds nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers in a matter of years — suggesting that quick build times for small reactors could be doable.

Perhaps. But the much-vaunted small reactors are still novel, mainly untested technology. In another era, it may have been worth taking a gamble on these systems in order to avert climate disaster.

But Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and a longtime proponent of renewable energy, told me that such a bet makes less sense today, when wind and solar power keep getting better — because any new money put in nuclear is money you aren’t spending on renewable projects that could lower emissions immediately.

There’s an opportunity cost “of waiting around for a nuclear reactor to be built when you could have spent that money on wind or solar and got rid of emissions much faster,” Jacobson said. This cost may be particularly onerous when you consider the rapid advancement in battery technology, which can help address the main shortcoming of renewable power: its intermittency. The price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by about 97 percent since they were introduced in 1991, and prices are projected to keep falling .

Jacobson is one of several researchers who have argued that such advances will render nuclear power essentially obsolete. As we build more renewable energy systems — onshore and offshore wind, solar power everywhere — and improve technologies to store energy (through batteries and other ideas ), wind and solar can meet most of our energy needs, says Jacobson. In a 2015 paper, he argued that the world can be powered through renewable energy alone . His findings have been hotly disputed , but other researchers have come to similar conclusions .

On the other hand, the International Energy Agency’s projections for reaching net-zero energy still rely on nuclear. The agency says that nuclear capacity will need to double by 2050, with two-thirds of that growth occurring in developing economies. Still, even with nuclear’s doubling, the I.E.A. says nuclear power will contribute less than 10 percent of global electricity in 2050; over the same period, the agency says renewable generation will grow eightfold, contributing 90 percent of electric power in 2050.

Clearly, then, nuclear’s problems don’t mean we should shut down all nuclear plants; existing plants are quite valuable in our energy mix as we ramp up solar and wind. And in places like China, India and other regions where demand for energy is growing, new nuclear plants may have a big role to play — and if the small, advanced reactors become viable, perhaps we’ll see some of those, too.

But it’s unlikely that nuclear can play anything close to a dominant role; its share of electricity production is quite likely to fall over time.

Which isn’t really a surprise. A quick glance at daily headlines suggests nuclear power is plagued by too many problems for comfort. I landed in London at around the same time that international energy regulators were making emergency plans for maintaining the safety of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which had come under shelling from Russian troops. In South Korea, operators of the Kori nuclear power plant were cutting production in anticipation of a massive typhoon. And this summer in France, which gets about 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, plant operators had to cut production because hot weather had raised the temperature of river water used to cool the reactors — kind of a big problem on a planet that keeps heating up.

Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at the advocacy group Public Citizen, summed up these problems neatly: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”

Office Hours With Farhad Manjoo

Farhad wants to chat with readers on the phone . If you’re interested in talking to a New York Times columnist about anything that’s on your mind, please fill out this form. Farhad will select a few readers to call.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Farhad Manjoo became an Opinion columnist for The Times in 2018. Before that, they wrote the State of the Art column. They are the author of “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” @ fmanjoo • Facebook

Argumentative Essay On Nuclear Power Plant

The United States is the worlds largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30 percent of the worldwide nuclear generation of electricity. Nuclear power is also among the verge of the most expensive, construction on a new power plant in Georgia skyrocketed past the projected expenses by $737 million to nearly $7 billion. In 2012 the approval of the new power plants in Georgia and South Carolina were among the first approved in over 30 years. While these approvals were a major setback for consumers, U. S. PIRG are not giving up.

The United States has 99 nuclear power reactors in 30 states, operated by 30 different power companies. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90%, generating up to 807 billion kWh per year accounting for 20% of total electricity generated. Nuclear power has always been a very controversial subject in America with multiple instances of harm occurring to neighboring areas. However, government policy changes since the late 1900’s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity.

Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs. The United States was a pioneer of nuclear power development. Nuclear developments suffered from a few major setbacks after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, though that actually validated the very conservative design principles of Western reactors, and no-one was injured or exposed to harmful radiation. Many orders and projects were cancelled or suspended, and the nuclear construction industry went into the doldrums for two decades.

Nevertheless, by 1990 over 1000 commercial power reactors had been commissioned. Operationally, from the 1970’s the United States nuclear industry dramatically improved its safety and operational performance, and by the turn of the century it was among world leaders, with average net capacity factor over 90% and all safety indicators exceeding targets. This performance was achieved as the United States industry continued deregulation, begun with passage of the Energy Policy Act in 1992.

Changes accelerated after 1998, including mergers and acquisitions affecting the ownership management of nuclear power plants. In February 2014 the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) warned: “Absent necessary changes in policies and practices, this situation has implications for reliability, long- term stability of electric prices, and our ability to meet everyone’s environmental goals. ” Practices have changed in order to ensure that safety measures are taken very seriously and that the prevention of poisonous substances into the atmosphere is minimal.

There have always been heavy threats of radiation because of the harsh substances contained within the nuclear power plants. The United States Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) found that 49 million Americans receive their drinking water from sources located within a 50-mile radius of some sort of active nuclear power plant – inside the boundary the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses to assess the risk to food and water supplies. Regulating these certain areas takes many reforms and laws in order to keep the public interest at rest with the outlying dangers of nuclear power.

United States PIRG reported that at least one out of every four U. S. nuclear reactors (27 out of 104) have leaked tritium- a cancer causing radioactive form of hydrogen— into groundwater. The NRC has also ignored clear evidence that nuclear plants deteriorate with age. The nuclear industry continues to push forward with license renewals— keeping old plants open for decades past their original design to withstand. On March 11, 2011 a magnitude 9. 0 earthquake struck an area 230 miles northeast of Tokyo, Japan at a depth of 15. 2 miles.

The offshore earthquake caused serious damage at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, about 40 miles south of Sendai. Three of the plant’s six reactors, which came into service between 1970 and 1979, were already shut down for inspection at the time the disaster struck. Those still in operation are designed to also shut down in the event of an earthquake, with diesel generators pumping water around the reactors to keep them cool, but when the tsunamis floodwaters hit they swamped the generators causing them to fail.

The reactors began to fail. By 8:15 p. m. on March 11, the Japanese government declared an emergency at Fukushima Daiichi power plant. Sunday, March 20, Japan’s National Police Agency said Sunday that 8,199 people were confirmed dead and 12,722 had been reported missing following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, the agency reported another 2,612 people had been injured. While building nuclear power plants to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis (and several other severe natural henomenon’s) is a new issue for many Americans, the U. S. nuclear industry and U. S. nuclear regulators have spent a great deal of time developing specific protocols for just such events. American regulators mandate that all U. S. reactors be built not only to withstand the most powerful earthquake ever recorded for their respective sites, but also to withstand the strongest earthquakes that geologists think are possible for each site.

Current earthquake, tsunami, and flooding regulations are now under review, as indicated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In an interview with Allison Macfarlane— the new chair for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a former commissioner for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future – told her experience full circle by reviewing what the commission accomplished in terms of managing waste and how it will be in the hands of Congress, not the NRC, to move forward and make something substantial of the commission’s efforts.

The NRC will then be tasked with regulating new developments, like centralized interim storage for nuclear waste. Many different interest groups continue to push the NRC in different directions to ensure its well being for the future. Although there are many dangers with using nuclear power the United States profits greatly from it. The NRC is continually working on new was to improve the nuclear power system to ensure the safety and well being of people living in the boundary areas of the nuclear power plants.

More Essays

• Argumentative Essay On Nuclear Power
• Nuclear Energy Pros And Cons Essay
• Essay about Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Energy
• Three Mile Island Case Study Essay
• Plant Labyrinth Lab Report Essay
• Informative Essay On Radium
• Renewable Energy Argumentative Essay
• Pros And Cons Of Wind Energy And Tidal Energy Essay
• The Power of Language
• Power In Animal Farm Essay

• Paper Writer Free >
• Essays Examples >
• Essay Topics >

Good Argumentative Essay About Nuclear Power As Source Of Energy

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Disaster , Atomic Bomb , Power , Nuclear Power , Plants , Energy , Electricity , China

Words: 2200

Published: 2020/10/23

Countries around the world are facing a need for more energy. One alternative is nuclear energy. Given the current concern about climate change and the finite nature of fossil fuel, is nuclear power the answer to the energy crisis as a whole?

Introduction The advent of climate change has affected and has, as a consequence, altered people’s way of life. No matter how opponents of the concept of climate change is denying it, all its footprints are there for the world to see. Flooding in places that are usually not prone to flooding, voluminous rains, extreme weather and other tell-tale signs prove that climate change is slowly about to radically impact the way of life on earth. One of the culprits usually ascribed as causing it is the mindless use of fossil fuel, which emits gases that cause the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel and the power it gives are hallmarks of modern civilization. A life without electricity is unthinkable, but there would be little life left if climate change continues to exacerbate. Alternative sources of energy must be considered and one of these sources is nuclear power. But is nuclear power the real answer to the present power crisis? This essay argues that it is not primarily because the risk it poses renders its disadvantages nil. For this purpose, this essay describes the various situations showing that nuclear power is potentially more harmful than useful.

Overview: Nuclear Power

The process of generating electricity through nuclear power entails the generation of heat from a process called fission. Fission is the splitting of the nucleus of an atom resulting in nuclei of lighter atoms. Such transformation is accompanied by the release of heat, which is used to convert water into steam and generate electricity (Sample 2008). The fission process is also a chain reaction in that the neutrons released by the original fission also attack other atoms to split them and so on and so forth until the fuel is entirely used up. This process takes place in the furnace of a nuclear power plant called the reactor – a steel container about 17 feet wide and 6o feet high. A reactor can contain as much nuclear fuel that can generate electricity good for 12 to 18 months (Daley 1996). Inside the reactor is the core, which is the center of all the most important activities and where heat is generated. As shown in Fig. 1, the reactor is enclosed in thick, stainless steel to contain radioactivity and has fuel rods. Control rods, which absorb neutrons, are likewise inserted into or lifted away from the core to control fission and thus, prevent overheating.

The disadvantages of nuclear power plants

Nuclear power is not the answer to the present world energy crisis that stems from climate change because its disadvantages far more outweigh its advantages and the risks it entails are characteristically cataclysmic. These drawbacks primarily include risk of exposure by the public to radioactivity during accidents in nuclear power plants, the problem of disposing waste materials of nuclear power plants that are equally or even more harmful than nuclear fuel, and the costs for constructing, maintaining and operating nuclear plants are astronomical. 1. The risk of exposure to radioactivity Radioactivity is part and parcel of operating and maintaining a nuclear power plant because its concept is founded upon the idea of radioactivity. Fission - the main process that sustains a nuclear power plant – is only possible because of the instability of the atoms of U235. According to the EPA of the US, radioactive materials generate ionizing radiation that can damage the body that has been exposed to it. It can lead to cancer, which results when the body is unable tom properly repair the ill effects of radiation. If the exposure is acute, it can result into burns, radiation poisoning, and even death. Moreover, exposure to radiation may not be immediately visible, but affects health in the long-term. Such effects may be teratogenic or genetic mutations. Fetuses exposed to radiation are born with physical or mental abnormalities, such as smaller head or smaller brain size and other physical deformities, as well as mental retardation (EPA 2012). The exposure to radiation, especially by workers in such plants is, therefore, always a cause of anxiety. This apprehension worsens when accidents happen that can widen the coverage of radioactive exposure affecting nearby population and areas. When an accident happens in a nuclear power plant, the consequences are enormous, widespread and its impact felt for several decades as can evidenced by history. Nuclear power plants accidents are some of the worst disasters in history and there were several of these in the last century and even during this century. Some of these accidents were the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster in 1986, the Fukushima accident in 2011, and the Three-Mile Island disaster in 1979. a. The Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Reactor Explosion in 1986 The Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster proved that nuclear power plants can, at any time, fail because human failings can exacerbate faulty design resulting in a horrific disaster. In 1986, one of the reactors of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Kiev, Ukraine exploded. The reason was that the person assigned to oversee the operations that day was confused by the instrumentation reading and out of reflex punched the emergency shutdown. This triggered a domino effect ultimately ending in the explosion of reactor (Adams 1996). It released about 185 to 250 million curies of radioactivity into the atmosphere affecting an estimated number of 35 million people. Thirty-one people immediately died within the first few days of the explosion, and many more in the subsequent weeks and months. The International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA estimated that 4,000 of the 600,000 people most exposed to it will have cancer, and tens of thousands more will die prematurely. Between 40,000 to 70,000 were also estimated to likely contract cancer in the subsequent decades following the disaster. The radiation emitted by the explosion affected many animals in Scandinavia, Germany and Great Britain for many years necessitating their declaration as unfit for food. Similarly, vegetable became inedible in Italy and contaminated cheese and milk caused the increase of radioactive radiation levels in children. The impact of Chernobyl was such that food restriction had to be imposed on more than 100 million Europeans in the years that followed the disaster (McKinney et al 2012). 2. The Fukushima Disaster Even if the design of a nuclear plant is excellent, this does not preclude the happening of accidents as nature itself can be the triggering mechanism. This was illustrated by Fukushima Nuclear Plant accident in 2011 that was instigated by a natural disaster. When a major earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 hit Japan on March 11, 2011, it created a 15-meter tsunami to hit the eastern coast of Honshu Island flooding 560 sq. m. of land. The nuclear reactors – all 11 of them – of four nuclear power plants immediately shut down, but nonetheless, the Fukushima Daiichi reactors 1, 2, and 3 were affected by the flooding losing its backup generators and lost the capacity to cool down, and eventually melted. More than 1,000 people died in the efforts to cool the reactors and more than 160,000 residents in nearby area were evacuated. Although many were allowed to return in 2012, some 81,000 were prevented from doing so and, thus, have been displaced from their homes (WNA 2014). 3. The Three-Mile Island Nuclear Accident Nothing is accident proof because unforeseen incidents can occur at any time and if this happens in a nuclear power plant, the consequences are disastrous. In 1979, one of the two reactors of the Three-Mile Island Nuclear plant had a mechanical failure although it was not in the nuclear section. Water was thus prevented from transporting water to the steam generators used for cooling the reactor’s core. To ease the pressure in the nuclear sector that resulted from the automatic shutdown, a relief valve was opened. Although pilot-operated, the pilot did not know that the valve was stuck resulting in the pouring out of water through the valve. The indicator in the control room showed that the valve was closed after the pilot closed it. Not realizing this, the staff resorted to measures that were not responsive to the situation after hearing alarm bells. In the end, the core melted. Fortunately, the reactor containment held and contained the radioactive materials. Although investigations showed that the residents, plants and animals nearby did not suffer ill health effects, but only a dose of radiation slightly above the normal, it compelled the US government to stop ordering nuclear power plants from then on (USNRC 2013). 2. The problem of disposing the waste products of nuclear plants Nuclear power plants produce waste materials that are themselves radioactive. It is said that the harmful effects of these waste materials last up to 100,000 years (Munthe 2011). These waste products may be in liquid, gaseous or solid form and contain radioactive materials that can enter waterways and other water bodies. These harmful wastes can be transported to humans through the food chain from the water used for livestock or through plants exposed to contaminated irrigation water (Sharma 2005). Even the handling of such waste products can result in a disaster as proven by the Kyshtym disaster in 1957. The Mayak fuel reprocessing plant near Kyshtym in Russia handled spent or used radioactive fuel used in its nuclear plants. As earlier stated, spent radioactive fuel sustains its radiation emitting capacity for hundreds of years and has to be kept cool in water. For this purpose a liquid tank was built in Mayak, but one day the generator that would have kept the tank cool broke down resulting in the rise of temperature of the liquid fuel. The tank, which was made of concrete exploded and a cloud of dust rose in the air. About ten thousand people were evacuated, and Russia kept most of the impact of the explosion secret (Baker 2014). 3. The capital costs of nuclear power plants are high A nuclear power plant requires a large tract of land, energy and materials to operate. Operating a nuclear plant requires tremendous amount of uranium. For example, a 1000-megawatt capacity nuclear power plant would need about 140,000 metric tons of uranium ore good for one year’s consumption of electricity. To mine this amount of uranium ore entails more than 7 hectares or 18 acres of land resulting in the displacement of 2.5 million metric tons of earth and rocks. The process of mining, and thereafter, purifying, uranium ore itself is burdensome and dirty (McKinney et al 2012). Since uranium is a radioactive element, transporting it to the nuclear plant site can be very risky (Brain and Lamb 2015). Even after it has lived its life and is decommissioned, the same amount of money and efforts are needed to shut it down.

Nuclear Power in China

Recent news reveals that China is on a rush to construct nuclear power plants. The recent decades witnessed the rise of China as an economic powerhouse and as one of the most populous countries in the world the demand of electricity in this country is correspondingly rising as well. To meet this demand, the country is rushing to build nuclear power plants. At present, it is building more than 20 nuclear reactors and plans to triple this in the next five years. A French nuclear power regulator described this step as ‘overwhelmed’ (The Economist 2014). Although China can well-afford dozens of nuclear reactors, it must heed the lessons of the past. It should look at the most recent event that befell its Asian neighbor Japan in 2011 and even the Chernobyl incident. China has a population of about 1.3 billion as of 2013 (World Bank 2015), and it should, therefore, carefully consider its steps before rushing to build reactors, which if they failed, because of design, human error or because of nature, or a combination of them can affect those people. For example, another news item reveals that it is planning to build coastal nuclear power plants (WNN 2014) that are made in China (Spegele 2014). This is a decision that poses double risk. First, the Fukushima disaster showed that coastal power plants are at risk for tsunami and flooding because these might cause the incapacitation of generators that are important to cool down the core. The east coast of China is exposed to the South China Sea, where tsunami can develop after major earthquakes. Second, China is not an experienced designer of nuclear power plants. If Westinghouse, which is byname in nuclear power design and had been in the business for so long, can commit error in their design, how much more for the untested Chinese designers? China lives in a continent in which it shares borders with some neighbors, which might be affected if its nuclear plants fail. It should, therefore, carefully consider its plan to build nuclear plants ensuring that they are as safe as can be.

Nuclear power plants are potentially more harmful than useful because of the catastrophic risks it carries, especially when accident occurs. One might argue that accidents are preventable and an improved and advanced design can eliminate that risk. Concrete instances, however, prove that where nuclear plants are concerned, they are not accident-proof and when an accident occurs, the impact on public health and the environment can be potentially huge, widespread and long-lasting. Accident in a nuclear power plant is not only triggered by design, but human failing and by nature as well and even by happenstance. This is proven by the Fukushima case, where nature itself is the instigator of the accident. The Three-Mile Island proved, on the other hand, that any small malfunction, such as a stuck valve, can potentially cause catastrophe in a nuclear power plant and of course, the Chernobyl case is the mother of all nuclear power disasters. Nuclear power plants are useful, but it is too risky to take a chance. Other alternative power source must be looked into.

Adam R 1996, ‘The Accident at Chernobyl: What Caused the Explosion?’ Atomic Insights, http://atomicinsights.com/accident-at-chernobyl-caused-explosion/ Baker K 2014, The Worst World Disasters of All Time, eBookIt.com Brain M and Lamb R 2015, ‘How nuclear power works,’ howstuffworks, http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm Daley M 1996, Nuclear Power: Promise or Peril? US: Twenty-First Century Books EPA 2012, ‘Health Effects,’ Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html imgarcade.com 2015, Inside a nuclear reactor core, http://imgarcade.com/1/inside-a-nuclear- reactor-core/ McKinney M, Schoch R and Yonavjak L 2012, Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions, Jones & Bartlett Publishers Milman O 2013, ‘Government rules out nuclear power for Australia,’ The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/government-rules-out-nuclear- power-for-australia Myers R 2006, The Basics of Physics, Greenwood Publishing Group Munthe C 2011, The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk, Springer Science & Business Media Sample I 2008, ‘Beginner's guide: How nuclear power works,’ The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/30/particlephysics.energy1 Sharma P 2005, Ecology And Environment, Rastogi Publications Spegele B 2014, ‘China Wants ‘Made in China’ Nuclear Reactors,’ The Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-moves-to-keep-nuclear-work-local-1418669373 The Economist 2014, ‘Make haste slowly,’ The Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21635487-chinas-rush-build-nuclear-power- plants-dangerous-make-haste-slowly USNRC 2013, ‘Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident,’ United States National Regulatory Commission, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact- sheets/3mile-isle.html WNA 2014, ‘Fukushima Accident,’ World Nuclear Association, http://www.world- nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident/ World Bank 2015, Public Data, China, http://www.google.com.ph/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl &idim=country:CHN:IND&hl=en&dl=en WNN 2014, ‘China to develop coastal nuclear power plants,’ World Nuclear News, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-China-to-develop-coastal-nuclear-power-plants- 0812144.html

Share with friends using:

• Example Of Mental Health Of Children In Foster Children Literature Review
• Millet Essays
• Body Language Essays
• Model Essays
• Listening Essays
• Happiness Essays
• Belief Essays
• Strengths Essays
• Planning Essays
• Utilitarianism Essays
• Progress Essays
• Nonverbal Communication Essays
• Reflection Essays
• Integrity Essays
• Safety Essays
• Concentration Essays
• Attitude Essays
• Speech Essays
• Discipline Essays
• Vision Essays
• Beauty Essays
• Memory Essays
• English Essays
• Gold Essays
• The Outsiders Essays
• Gun Control Essays
• Constitution Essays
• Citizenship Essays
• Amendment Essays
• High School Essays
• Hazard Essays
• Bill Of Rights Essays
• Love Essays
• Trends Essays
• Chicago Essays
• Movies Essays
• Population Essays
• Cinema Essays
• Reality Essays
• Personality Essays
• Contrast Essays
• Reputation Essays
• Truth Essays
• Immigration Essays
• Fear Essays
• Fake News Essays
• Donald Trump Essays

We use cookies to improve your experience with our site. Please accept before continuing or read our cookie policy here .

Wait, have you seen our prices?

Nuclear power generates economic, environmental benefits for Tennessee | Opinion

Diversifying and expanding Tennessee’s energy mix, including our abundant clean energy resources, will help create jobs, support local businesses and spur economic growth in our communities. I was grateful to hear Gov. Bill Lee address the role of clean energy, particularly the importance of nuclear power, in his State of the State Address.

As mayor of Anderson County, I am particularly proud of our region’s rich history of embracing and supporting the nuclear sector, with both the Y-12 National Security Complex in Anderson County and Oak Ridge National Laboratory operating next door in Roane County. Both facilities are critical to our nation’s energy and national security, and both have helped advance nuclear power — as well as a range of other energy solutions — to strengthen national defense and our domestic energy capabilities.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Nuclear power plays an increasingly important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions released by other forms of energy production. America leads the world in emissions reductions, having reduced carbon dioxide emissions related to the energy sector by 15% since 2005, while countries like China continue to increase their emissions. Investing in and expanding our nuclear capabilities here at home will help America continue to lead on emissions reductions while transitioning to a carbon-free energy future.

Importantly, nuclear power can help us continue to slash carbon emissions without sacrificing energy reliability or affordability for Tennessee consumers and businesses. In fact, along with other clean energy resources, like wind and solar, as well as more traditional energy resources, nuclear power plays a critical role in strengthening the resiliency and reliability of our energy grid, helping keep the lights on and power running for Tennesseans even in the face of extreme weather.

The nuclear power sector creates reliable multi-generation jobs

Expanding our nuclear power capabilities in Tennessee and across the country will not only help solidify America’s global leadership role in clean energy and emissions reductions, it will also help create 21st-century jobs and new economic opportunities in the growing clean energy sector. According to data from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power sector directly or indirectly supports 475,000 jobs across the country.

Given that nuclear plants can operate for up to 80 years or more, those are jobs that can last for multiple generations of energy workers. Moreover, supporting growth in Tennessee’s nuclear power sector will also help create new opportunities for businesses up and down the nuclear energy supply chain, supporting local businesses and industries while attracting new ones to our state.

Notably, the share of Americans who favor nuclear power continues to grow, with recent polling finding that the majority of Americans (57%), both Democrats and Republicans, support more nuclear power plants to generate electricity across the country. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to policymakers, particularly given nuclear power’s role in supplying American homes, businesses and communities with low-cost, reliable, carbon-free power — while simultaneously protecting our environment and bolstering our economy.

The governor has been important in leading this effort, and lawmakers and elected officials at all levels of government should continue to support increased investments in building out, modernizing and expanding our nuclear power capabilities. Doing so will help us build a stronger, cleaner and more economically vibrant future for Tennesseans and all Americans.

Terry Frank is the mayor of Anderson County.

The debate around nuclear power in Australia isn't just political. There's also a generational divide

Driving her trusty red Camry, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with "Australian Nuclear Free Alliance", Aunty Sue Haseldine is on a cross-country mission.

"We've travelled a long way and a lot of miles," she tells 7.30  somewhere between her home at Ceduna in South Australia and Port Kembla in New South Wales.

Her latest target is AUKUS, specifically the part of the security pact between Australia, the US and UK that will as one pillar see Australia acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines that could one day rotate through "the beautiful waters" of Port Kembla.

For Aunty Sue, this is deeply personal.

"I was about two years old when the atomic tests started at Maralinga … I was on a mission called Koonibba," she recalls.

"I don't remember much of the tests, of course, but my oldies told me things about the Nullarbor dust storm.

"The kids all thought it was a dust storm coming in and the oldies are yelling at them to get in the house because they knew it was poison."

She later developed thyroid cancer and from then on, she decided to "fight anything nuclear".

In the 1950s and 60s, Britain conducted a dozen nuclear tests at Maralinga in South Australia and the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, scarring a landscape and a people, while helping to sow the seeds of a deep anti-nuclear movement.

Palm Sunday rallies drew hundreds of thousands of Australians protesting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and later, France's controversial nuclear testing program in the Pacific — a campaign fuelled further by the sinking of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior boat by French agents in Auckland.

The Cold War also cast a long shadow.

It would influence a generation of trade union and Labor leaders and ultimately, state and federal policies too.

To this day, Australia — a major uranium exporter — has just one nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney that produces life-saving medicines for cancer detection and treatment.

All other installations — including nuclear power — are banned.

Ban on nuclear 'stunted' the debate

Sydney-based lawyer Helen Cook has just finished drafting a national nuclear law for the Philippines government, one of several in the region considering nuclear to cut emissions and increase energy security.

She spent over a decade working overseas, including the United States — home to more than 90 nuclear reactors — and says colleagues would often hear her Aussie accent and immediately ask why Australia had banned nuclear energy.

"I found it a very difficult question to answer other than simply to use my own experience, which was to say that when I left Australia, I didn't know anything about nuclear energy," she says, emphasising: "Literally nothing."

Now recognised as an international expert, Ms Cook says she's found most Australians she talks to are curious about nuclear and she hasn't received the negative reaction she expected.

2024, it seems, is a different time to just two decades ago.

The year was 1998 and prime minister John Howard needed the support of the Greens and Democrats in the Senate to pass new laws upgrading the Lucas Heights reactor.

They would only agree if he added an amendment prohibiting "certain nuclear installations" including a nuclear power plant.

The same ban was later added to federal environmental laws and Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales doubled down, forbidding nuclear power in their states too.

When asked what impact these bans had on the nuclear debate in Australia, nuclear engineer and Australian Nuclear Association president Mark Ho has a simple answer. It's stunted the conversation.

"A lot of countries are using nuclear to decarbonise. The question is whether we should lift the ban," Dr Ho says. 

"I think we should. It's [been] a long time coming."

Thirty-two countries currently operate around 440 nuclear reactors, supplying 10 per cent of the world's electricity.

'Plan B'?

The Coalition, now led by Peter Dutton, wants Australia to be among them.

He's preparing to take an energy policy to the next election that includes a promise to lift the ban and explore the use of both large-scale and small modular reactors, or SMRs, possibly on the site of retiring coal-fired power stations.

Mr Dutton believes the world has changed since Australia last really considered the question of nuclear power under Mr Howard.

Australia has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, coal is exiting the grid, power prices are rising and there's a growing backlash in parts of regional Australia to the massive expansion of wind, solar and transmission projects.

Nuclear power plants, conversely, have a small footprint and perform a similar "firming" or "baseload" role to coal and gas, without the emissions.

But few have been built since the 1990s and the ones that have, have typically been beset by delays and huge cost blowouts. And that's what the political debate has boiled down to: cost and time.

Labor — long opposed to nuclear — isn't considering any use of a technology it believes is eye-wateringly expensive and too poisonous to sell to the electorate. It's banking on a grid dominated by renewables to meet Australia's future energy needs and mandated climate targets.

Tony Wood is the Grattan Institute's energy director and agrees that right now, the economics for nuclear power "are terrible".

But in the midst of a challenging, once-in-a-century energy transition, Mr Wood is also technology agnostic and reckons Australia would be wise to consider a plan B, just in case.

"Personally, I think Australia should have a grown-up discussion around the role of nuclear and I don't think the ban helps that," he says.

"There are some significant unknowns about nuclear, but the promise of small modular reactors [SMRs] is quite attractive to Australia because if you could dramatically drive down the cost, then that could be interesting in the future and so we should watch that."

According to Dr Ho, SMRs are an attractive prospect because they're smaller, safer, cheaper to build and easier to deploy than large-scale reactors.

"Their targeted time frames are about 3 to 5 years for construction compared to say 5 to 8 years for large nuclear," he says.

Several designs are in development, with the most advanced aiming to be completed around 2030.

In its GenCost report, the CSIRO estimated the capital costs of an SMR would top $31,000 per kilowatt, compared with $3,040/kW for wind and $1,525/kW for large-scale solar.

However, those figures are contested.

A peer-reviewed 2020 study by the University of Queensland estimated the cost would be between $4,700/kW and $9,900/kW. The report says the capital costs would be recovered over the lifetime of the project.

On the question of timing, Ms Cook cites the International Atomic Energy Agency's own figures, which suggest a country can go from considering nuclear energy to having nuclear energy in its grid within 10 to 15 years.

"And that is starting from scratch," she adds.

"Australia is not starting from scratch. Australia has existing nuclear infrastructure that we would build up if we decided to go down a nuclear path."

Are attitudes changing? 

The biggest obstacle to change, as Tony Wood sees it, is that nuclear by definition "sounds scary".

But as Ms Cook points out, the three countries where the worst nuclear disasters have taken place — the United States, Japan, and Ukraine — are not just doubling down but "trebling down on their nuclear generation commitments".

"The United States, Japan and Ukraine are signatories to the pledge that was made at COP28 to triple our global nuclear energy capacity by 2050," she says.

"To me, that is significant."

There are signs too that attitudes might be shifting — albeit for different reasons.

While the labour movement is broadly anti-nuclear, the Australian Workers' Union has always been open to nuclear energy for the jobs and energy-intensive industries it could support.

The Victorian branch of the Mining and Energy Union also became pro-nuclear following the shock closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in 2017, leaving nearly 1,000 workers without jobs.

Essential polling suggests about half of Australians back the development of nuclear power and a recent Newspoll found 55 per cent of respondents supported the use of small modular reactors on the site of retiring coal-fired power stations.

Support was highest among younger Australians.

"Young people are very open to it," says associate professor Edward Obbard, the head of nuclear engineering at UNSW. 

"They don't have the same kind of social upbringing that the Boomer and Gen X's did of living through the Cold War and nuclear disarmament and that whole tumultuous period.

"Nowadays people think the greatest threat to their future is climate change and they're willing to consider all good solutions to that."

Dr Obbard is training the next generation of engineers who will be in greater demand thanks to AUKUS — a pact that will force Australia to build up a nuclear workforce and settle on a location to store the waste, regardless of whether it pursues nuclear power.

He was "amazed" by the "deafening silence" when the submarine plans were announced and believes it has, unquestionably, changed the scene for nuclear more broadly.

"For me, the case to use nuclear energy is actually a moral case because it is an environmentally low-impact way to decarbonise," Dr Obbard says.

For Aunty Sue Haseldine, nuclear power would leave quite a different legacy.

"We must think about the next generation and what are we going to leave them. Are we going to leave them nice clean fresh air? Or nuclear mines and waste dumps?" she asks.

In her opinion, there's no place for nuclear anywhere. Her mission is far from over.

Watch 7.30 , Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Chris bowen says the average build time of a nuclear plant in the us has been 19 years. is that correct.

Why corporate Australia won't touch nuclear power

Five regions shaping up as favoured candidates for nuclear reactors under Coalition plan, as it eyes retiring coal stations

• Alternative Energy
• Environment
• Government and Politics
• Nuclear Energy

The Spectator Australia

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Lost your password?

← Go to The Spectator Australia