We have already talked about wind energy and geothermal energy. Each one had their pros and cons. For this week’s civic issues blog I want to talk about a lesser-known replaceable energy source. Take a guess – this source can provide a large amount of energy, it is not limited to only producing electricity, and a slight accident can cause homes to be evacuated and panic near the area. This type of energy is nuclear energy.
It is kind of hard to fully explain how a nuclear reaction works in order to generate energy. However, I can try to explain the basics. The structure that produces the energy is in the form of a radioactive uranium bundle. Uranium is an element that had spontaneous fission, meaning it breaks apart and releases energy. However, in order to speed up the action to generate a larger amount of energy in a shorter amount of time, the nuclear plant uses induced fission, meaning that fires a neutron at the Uranium to split it apart. Heat and radiation is released. The heat from this reaction is used to boil the water that surrounds the bundle and turn it into steam. This steam is what is used to turn the turbine and give energy to the generator to convert the energy into electricity. Also, an interesting this is that the water also has another function: it cools down the bundle and prevents overheating and melting. Without this function, there will be leakage of radioactive substances.
First off I will talk about the pros of nuclear energy. The most obvious benefit into using this type of energy is that we will not have to rely on fossil fuels. There will be less greenhouse gases being released because of the stop or slowing down of the use of fossil fuels. In addition, research has already been found about nuclear energy and there are already a lot of nuclear plants around the world today. Thus, it would be fairly simple to incorporate more plants in different places. In addition, the amount of energy that is being provided by nuclear plants has been significant so far. In fact, in March 1, 2011, it was estimated that “there were 443 operating nuclear power reactors spread across the planet in 47 different countries. In 2009 alone, atomic energy accounted for 14 percent of the world’s electrical production. [And] In the United States, 104 nuclear power plants supply 20 percent of the electricity overall, with some states benefiting more than others” (Brian et.al).
As for the cons, there are some that really need to be given full attention to. The biggest concern when it comes to nuclear power plants is the chance of leakage. Take for example instances like the Three Mille Island or the event in Japan that was caused by an earthquake. If sudden natural occurrences like tornados or earthquakes can cause radioactive products to diffuse into the air and harm those living around the plant, the question becomes more difficult. After all, radioactive substances cannot be looked down upon – the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima prove this point. It has been shown that rather than the explosion itself the most deadly was the radiation that killed most people in a painful death. According to the website http://www.atomicarchive.com, many symptoms can occur and can range from hair loss, seizures, killed nerve cells, a destroyed thyroid, and increase vulnerability to infections, heart failure, diarrhea, vomiting of blood, and sterility. In addition that that concern, there are smaller concerns like where to dump the toxic waste, a long construction time, and that uranium sources are limited.
Overall, there are really large questions that must be answered before we look deeper into this possibility of using nuclear energy as a substitute power source for the fossil fuels. The wind power and geothermal power had the main issue of having a really high initial investment and the limiting factor of where the source can be set up. For nuclear plants, this is not an issue. Plants can be built almost anywhere. However, with nuclear power, one must be very cautious of radiation leakage. Perhaps at a certain level of risk, it would be much better to just forget about this source of power because the risk on humans greatly outweigh that of the benefits of more energy.
Resources:
Brain, Marshall, and Robert Lamb. “How Nuclear Power Works” 09 October 2000. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm> 26 February 2015.
Presidio Buzz. “Nuclear Energy: Pros and Cons.” Triple Pundit RSS. TriplePundit, 23 Feb. 2009. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
“Radiation Effects on Humans.” Radiation Effects on Humans. AJ Software & Multimedia, 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
One of the biggest issues I think I have with nuclear energy is the amount of time it takes for the waste to decay. Unlike a landfill, this stuff needs to be put far underground where it will take countless years to becomes safe. That being said, nuclear power could be used over the short term maybe as a transitory step between fossil fuels and renewable energy? I think the possiblity for further development is immense, I just worry about all of the things that can go wrong. The event in Chernobyl was especially sad because most of the radioactive drift went towards the neighboring country of Belarus which had no say on how the nuclear power plant of its neighbor was run. If we work together as a planet maybe I can support this, but there are too many things that can go wrong and too many negative implications for people that may not want nuclear power to be developed.
I agree with Eric about the investment costs. Additionally, you mention radiation leakage as a prominent disadvantage. Radiation is a possible side effect of nuclear power, but it is almost never a problem. I posted an article about nuclear power last week that showed how little of a chance the radiation from nuclear power has of hurting a human. Also, every nuclear reactor built is inspected, and while I do not know the numbers off of the top of my head, the chances of reactor meltdown or incredibly low. Society hears about accidents like Three Mile and Fukushima not because they are prevalent, but because they are really bad. Nuclear meltdowns are incredibly dangerous when they happen, but they do not happen often. In fact, people who live near nuclear plants support the production of nuclear energy more than those who live far from plants (a fact backed up in my post). All in all, nuclear power generation can be dangerous, but the dangers are nowhere near what society makes them out to be.
I don’t really think your assertion that nuclear plants have low initial investments is true at all. Not only are the equipment and materials much more expensive than geothermal and wind, but the permitting costs are drastically higher than the renewable sources because of the large range of potential damage in the event of a failure. In fact, it is almost impossible to set up a nuclear plant in the US today because of the permitting. Also, nuclear energy is not renewable, since fuel is used up during the energy production (it just lasts longer than traditional non renewables).