Nuclear Power: Advantages and Disadvantages

When you hear the words nuclear power, it may conjure up of different images: concrete coolant towers emitting continuous amounts of steam, a mushroom cloud growing and fading into the sky or even Homer Simpson asleep at the power plant control panel. Does nuclear power work? Can it be improved? What are the arguments for and against it? The following questions will be addressed in this essay. I am tremendously in favour of the nuclear option, since it is at our hands, with no waiting. It is safe, if managed properly, and most importantly is carbon-free.

I find the topic of nuclear energy very interesting because the nuclear option is an important carbon-free source of power. Deutch states in his article, "The Future of Nuclear Power," that by 2020, electricity based on fossil fuels is anticipated to account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If nuclear power is removed as an energy option, this will prevent the ability of our world to benefit from long-term control of carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power is definitely an important source of energy for countries and therefore works very well and is quite effective. According to Brain, on the Earth there were more than 430 operating nuclear power plants in July 2008. In 2007, all 430 plants produced about 15 percent of the world's electricity. 31 countries are dependent on nuclear power, some more than others. For example, nuclear power supplies about 77 percent of France's electricity. The United States has 104 nuclear power plants which supply the country with 20 percent of their energy. According to Lovelock, nuclear power is a safe and readily available source of energy. James Lovelock declared that environmental changes caused by global warming have accelerated, and that the only option now for policymakers is to encourage the growth and widespread adoption of nuclear energy. He mentions that with our ever-growing population, fossil fuels can no longer be the continual option for our needs. Renewables such as wind and water will not be able to provide energy fast enough. According to Lovelock, these renewables could take 50 years to develop. Our fossil fuel burning will leave a scar on the world for 1,000 years, if we stopped burning them today. Lovelock argues that nuclear energy is the only readily available energy to cure global warming. Renewables still provide a fine output, yet the focus should be put on nuclear energy. Lovelock finds that many people are opposed to nuclear energy from the fear bred by Hollywood. However, since its birth in 1952 it has proven to be the safest of all energy sources. Lovelock says that the population should not worry about the small cancer risks from radiation. Since one third of the population die from cancer from the air we breathe as it is laced with cancer-causing agents. If we do not focus on nuclear power, more will continue to die from global warming.

There is always room for improvement when talking about different options for energy. As mentioned before nuclear power is readily available and at our hands to use. Wind, solar and tide energy need a great deal of development to become main sources of power. However, that said, Thomson states that the U.S. Department of Energy has been working to improve the efficiency and output of nuclear power plants. In a recent three-year project they were able to modify the structure which generates heat from the uranium pellets. They were able to increase both heat transfer and power output by 50 percent. In addition they were able to produce major improvements to prevent a nuclear meltdown. According to Thomson, the Department was able to change several properties in the water so that it does not boil out of control. The new water, spiked water could allow for better protection in terms of a nuclear meltdown.

Nevertheless, nuclear energy boasts a number of advantages, as well as its share of downright gloomy drawbacks. Some people view nuclear power as a low-emission and low-cost option to eliminating fossil fuels, while others worry out nuclear meltdowns such as Chernobyl and the harmful impact of nuclear waste.

To begin with the advantages, I cannot stress enough that nuclear power is not dependent upon fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants emit a minimal amount of CO₂. Whereas natural gas or coal plants have enormous emissions of CO₂,which worsen climate change. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear power plant that is functioning correctly emits less radioactivity than a coal-burning power plant. If we no longer depend on fossil fuels, the price of nuclear power will not fluctuate like oil and gas prices. Moving on the negatives, the extraction of uranium is not a very sanitary process. Nuclear fuel also brings up the risk of contamination when transported from or to a plant. Brain states that, in addition, we must consider where all this radioactive fuel goes after it is used. It cannot just be discarded in a city dump, it has to be disposed of properly. Nuclear power plants normally generate an average of 20 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste every year. With all the nuclear power plants which operate today this amounts to 2,000 metric tons per year. As we all know, this waste not only emits radiation, but also heat, which can eat away at containers and lead to disaster. As well, low-level radioactive waste attaches itself to parts and equipment. It also takes tens of thousands of years for radioactive substances to decay. Although there is hope in this respect. Brain's article "How Nuclear Power Works," finds that nowadays the waste is cooled then mixed with glass and placed in a chilled concrete structure. There are also plans to transport this waste deep into the ground in future years. Money also comes into the picture when monitoring this waste and the construction cost attributed to a plant. When mentioning Chernobyl, this plant had a poor design and was not properly managed. Brain mentions that meltdowns such as this overshadow the many advantages that nuclear power can offer to the population and more importantly the environment.

The bottom line: we cannot invest our time and money solely on experimental energy sources. We have to begin the use and expansion of nuclear energy. If nuclear power, a safe, readily available source of energy is not used immediately, we will ultimately see the effects of global warming rise exponentially on our planet.

Works Cited

Brain, Marshall; Lamb, Robert. "How Nuclear Power Works." 2009. How Stuff Works. 23 April, 2009. http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm>

Deutch, John; Moniz, Ernest. "The Future of Nuclear Power." 2003. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 23 April, 2009.

Lovelock, James. "Nuclear Energy Can Avoid Global Warming." 2004. Nuclear Energy Insight. 23 April, 2009. http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Lovelock_insight_07_04.pdf>

Thomson, Elizabeth. "MIT Engineers Work to Improve Nuclear Power Generation." 2006. Innovations Report. 2 May, 2009. < http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/energy_engineering/report-71041.html>