Nuclear Power: Is it really all that bad?

On March 11^th, 2011 a terrible earthquake and subsequent tsunami struck Japan. The first reports focused on the waves’ damage to city after city, town after town. Then, all reports focused on one place damaged, Fukushima. What was special about this town? Did many people live here? No, only a couple of water pumps were damaged. The problem was that these pumps cooled a nuclear power plant. The lack of cooling started a chain of events of explosions, spreading radiation and questioning of the safety of nuclear power. This is the last thing the planet needs right now, the problems facing the world today are numerous, greenhouse gases are causing some troubling effects and our climate itself is changing. Humans, for the most part, have done nothing to curb the effects of global warming. We are waiting for an easy way out, all the while burning coal and oil to power our homes. Now, we can’t just stop making electricity and wait for a perfect energy source. We don’t have the time. However, there is a technology that is developed and ready to be used, that can produce massive amounts of power and no uncontrolled pollution. The human race cannot stand around waiting for a new energy solution to appear, we must use the nuclear technology available today to create clean energy today. Although nuclear power is often viewed as dangerous, it causes more good than harm because of its efficiency, cleanliness and safety.

 

Efficiency is the key to any good power source and nuclear energy leads the pack. Every year the United States burns 1 billion tons of coal to make electricity.  60,000 tons of Uranium would create the same amount of energy because a small fifty gram Uranium pellet puts off the same amount of energy as 1780 pounds of coal. (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006) Now this equals less work and energy goes into getting the fuel. Although Uranium is more expensive than coal, the plant needs much less, so per kilowatt-hour, nuclear power (1.76 cents/per kilowatt-hour) is cheaper than coal (2.21). (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006) The fuel supply is a huge factor to consider when selecting a power plant. Oil and coal are running out. Uranium is still easily mined and will continue to be for years after oil and coal mines have dried up. Also, some reactors are set up to recycle used nuclear fuel and create more fuel. (Yangco, 1996) Let’s see a coal plant do that. Burn 50 tons of coal and end up with 60 tons. This process is not science fiction and can stretch the use of the fuel many times its lifetime. This efficiency is a big plus for nuclear power over other forms of alternatives. Unlike solar or wind, a nuclear plant can provide vast amounts of constant, reliable energy. They are also exempt from many kinds of fuel shortages, unlike oil. Uranium is evenly distributed around the globe so a conflict in theMiddle Eastwill not affect energy prices here. (Yangco, 1996)

 

The biggest advantage for the environment over conventional energy plants is that a nuclear power plant puts out no pollution during operation. (Clyde, Schleier-Smith & Tseng, 1996) No air pollution means no gases released into atmosphere means no contributing to global warming. This is much different from smoke belching coal plants that produce 40% of the CO² released by the US and cause endless health problems. (Godin, 2011) The massive amounts of dangerous gases released are uncontrollable and deadly. Air pollutants can never be controlled while radioactive waste can be put in containers and stored. A silent killer, coal plant air pollution kills 30,000 people every year. (Yangco, 1996) The only time people are hurt by nuclear power is when something goes wrong. Coal pollution kills when everything goes right. So it’s clear that nuclear energy is cleaner, but how can it be safer?

 

Some will say that nuclear power has a different kind of nasty pollution, radiation. The disaster inJapanand the past disasters of 3 Mile Island andChernobylcreated massive amounts of fear in the general public. Anything that can silently penetrate walls and produce cancer and death with no warning is scary. A full nuclear meltdown is even scarier and can release huge amounts of radiation. Nuclear waste even when everything goes right will continue to give off radiation for thousands of years. However, radiation is not understood well by the general public. Radiation is normal. The three disasters mentioned really didn’t cause much human damage. At 3 Mile Island people received 0.3% more radiation than normal. (Yangco, 1996) Radiation is everywhere, from bricks to fire. More radiation is released burning coal then from a nuclear power plant, even one with a leak! (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006)

 

I can only hope that nuclear power production does not get stifled by these fears. This form of clean energy has to be utilized if we as humans want to keep our way of life. The efficiency, cleanliness, and safety of nuclear power cause too many good things for the environment for us to ignore this energy source of the future.

 

Clyde, J., Schleier-Smith, J., & Tseng, G. (1996, October 28). Nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy_body.html

 

Godin, S. (2011, March 13). Deaths per twh by energy source. Retrieved from http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

 

Klimas, R., Anderson, D., & Azadian, N. (2006, December 13). Nuclear power pros and cons. Retrieved from http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~azadini/group/website/

 

Yangco, R. (1996, June 06). The pros and cons of nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm