Sustainability of nuclear energy

7/29/2019 Sustainability of nuclear energy

1/10

Patrick FoxGreen

Critical Thinking:

Nuclear EnergyPatrick Fox


2/10

Patrick FoxGreen

Critical Thinking Paper: Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is an irresponsible way to address issues of green power generation because

radioactive creates hazards for future generations, plants are prone to meltdown, used fuel rods can be

used to create nuclear warheads, and the global market for nuclear energy is quickly decaying. In

response, The U.S government needs to move its research and development funds away from nuclear

energy development to exploring safe alternative energies.

The U.S spends 9% of its energy spending on nuclear energy. It is the only nonrenewable energy

source without carbon emissions. The government aids funding for building and examining plants, led by

the U.S Department of Energy. There already exist 103 nuclear power plants in the United States, and

America remains the top world producer of nuclear energy by far. The nuclear industry invests 7.3 billion

dollars per year in maintenance and upgrades. This accounts for about 20% of the U.Ss energy

consumption. These numbers dwarf all renewable energy source funding. In fact, all of the U.Ss

renewable energy source funding (solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass) only adds up to 8% of

energy spending, mostly made up of biomass and hydroelectric power (Nuclear Information and Resource

Service.) The initiatives by the government to combat climate change and environmental destruction are

beneficial, but considering the risks of nuclear energy compared with docile and infinitely renewable

energies such as solar and wind, nuclear is an irresponsible way to solve global warming. It will leave

future generations filled with radioactive refuse, and is prone to state size catastrophes. The original

purpose of nuclear energy was an infinite energy source with no repercussions, and now it is being used

to combat global warming. Although this is a beneficial cause, to riddle the nation and world with nuclear

plants will present the next generation with another catastrophe: that of dealing with the remains. The


3/10

Patrick FoxGreen

most promising and environmentally friendly alternatives to nuclear energy come from solar and wind,

which, unfortunately receive the least amount of funding from the federal government besides

geothermal. These sources have little to no lasting environmental effects, no maintenance risks, and do

not produce byproducts. Wind costs less in dollars per megawatt hours (average 96.8 USD/MWH

compared with nuclear 112 USD/MWH) Solar power is placed in a similar range of 156 USD/MWH

(Midwest Energy News,) but perhaps because of international pressure or nuclear lobby, The U.S has

invested very small amounts of research and defense funds in renewable energy, while donating a

considerable amount of money to nuclear research and construction. The government needs to reconsider

the long term benefits of investing in nuclear and fully commit itself to renewable energy.

One of the largest dangers of nuclear power, the part that classifies it as a nonrenewable energy

source, is the irradiated waste, or the radioactive leftovers of the fuel rods used in power plants. How

these plants work is with rods of different isotopes of uranium in a huge pool of water. Similar to a coal

fired plant, the rods heat the water, and the steam turns turbines to power the generators. Unfortunately,

approximately every two years or so, the rods need to be replaced. The spent rods still maintain their

radioactivity, and have to be stored in places where no one can reach them. These are some of the most

dangerous materials on earth. This irradiated fuel is the most intensely radioactive material on the planet,

and unshielded exposure gives lethal radiation doses to humans and most other living things. The

radioactive waste slowly loses its energy, through radioactive decay, a process in which the material loses

half of its radioactivity in a half- life. Some materials have longer half-lives than others do, and generally,

the amount of time for waste to stop becoming hazardous is 10- 20 half- lives (not years)(World Nuclear

Association) For example, Plutonium- 239, a radioactive fuel has a half life of 24,400 years. This means

that at the least, the amount of time it is dangerous to people is a quarter million years, or 12,000 human

generations. While the plutonium is decaying, it produces uranium- 235, which has a half- life of 710,000

years.


4/10

Patrick FoxGreen

Thus, one can assume that radioactive waste will not simply disappear, or change. To create a

nuclear plant means creating thousands of pounds of waste, and creating a problem that has yet to be

solved: where to put the waste. In 2000, the total global spent volume of nuclear waste was 220,000 tons.

It grows by about 10,000 tons a year. Almost all nuclear waste is stored at the nuclear plants. If all U.S.

reactors continue to operate through their current license period, the inventory of high-level irradiated fuel

will more than triple(Greenpeace.) The fact that nuclear waste is being stored at the plants is truly

terrifying, considering many of their proximity to water, vulnerability to disaster, and the fact that a man

made structure simply does not last a million years. There are already existing nuclear plants known to be

leaking low level nuclear waste into the environment, including Drigg in the UK and CSM in LeHague,

France (Greenpeace.)

Undoubtedly, the most infamous attempt at storing nuclear waste is the Yucca Mountain Nuclear

Waste Repository. The U.S government would bore deep into Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and ship all of

the nations high- level nuclear waste to the facility for storage. It would have to last about 10,000 years

without leaking, being uncovered by geologic activity, or seeping through underground channels. This

time is about twice as long as recorded human history. 70% of Nevadans oppose the placement of the

plant in the state, and Yucca Mountain is less than 50 miles away from Las Vegas (Nevada.us) Ingesting

only one billionth of an ounce of plutonium will cause mutations and cancer, and, of course, direct contact

is lethal. Not one gram of waste has been stored there, thanks to the President and the U.S Department of

Energy, as well as the anti- nuclear movement. Other proposals include sending spaceships, packed full of

radioactive material, speeding away from our planet. This theory is widely speculated, but dangerous,

considering the consequences of highly toxic waste raining down upon the world. Scientists have

considered transmutation, a process in which common byproducts can be transformed into Argon, a safe

element. It is complicated and expensive, incapable of operating on a large scale (Stanford University.)

According to Greenpeace International, the leading environmental group in the world, Currently, no

options have been able to demonstrate that waste will remain isolated from the environment over the tens


5/10

Patrick FoxGreen

to hundreds of thousands of years. There is no reliable method to warn future generations about the

existence of nuclear waste dumps. It is simply impossible to litter the world with the most lethal and

dangerous chemicals on earth without repercussions.

The second, and most troubling problem with the advent of nuclear power plants is their

vulnerability to meltdown, or overheating causing the core of the plant to become damaged, and possibly

explode. The way a meltdown happens is that the cooling fluid, which runs through the plants rods,

overheats or disappears. If the rods become too hot or damaged, the entire plant to starts to melt. In fact,

when the rods get too hot, or about 2700 degrees Celsius, molten uranium fuel rods melt through the

bottom of the reactor and melt about 50 feet into the earth beneath the power plant(Thinkquest

Educational Foundation.) The rods, upon reaching groundwater, can contaminate everything living for

hundreds of miles around. In the case of Chernobyl, the most famous nuclear disaster, the amount of

coolant was too low running through the rods, so it began overheating and evaporating into steam. The

radioactive rods quickly began overheating and soon broke. The entire roof lifted off the plant from the

pressure inside as well as multiple uranium and steam explosions, and outside air started pouring in and

mixing with the graphite being used as cooling liquid. Since graphite is mostly carbon, the mixture began

pouring off carbon monoxide and other flammable fumes. They started a violent fire that poured tons of

radioactive smoke into the surrounding area. The station was 80 miles from Kiev (International Atomic

Energy Agency.) Another famous nuclear disaster was at the Three Mile Island plant in Middletown,

Pennsylvania. A steam release valve at the plant had malfunctioned, causing intense buildup of steam and

coolant. When a worker flipped the emergency release valve, it stuck open, venting all of the vital coolant

steam from the plant. The meltdown process ensued as the core overheated even more. Another worker

disabled the emergency coolant system, and later that day, the buildup of hydrogen gases resulted in an

explosion, which, fortunately, did not damage the containers. By the end, the government had authorized

a dump of 40,000 gallons of radioactive waste into the Susquehanna River. There were no cancer deaths

officially recorded, but No one really knows what the consequences were (Thinkquest Educational


6/10

Patrick FoxGreen

Foundation.) The smallest of human or mechanical errors can trigger a terrible meltdown. Although there

have not been many large meltdowns recently, the threat always exists within nuclear powered countries.

With global warming ramping up to full scale, one never knows what disasters will end up knocking out

the next plant.

An international concern, spawned out of the cold war and the end of WWII, is the ever-present

threat of nuclear warfare, the mother of nuclear energy. Although it is not simple to reprocess plutonium,

there is a complicated process for obtaining the correct type of uranium for an atomic bomb. Although the

United States does not seem to recognize itself as a dangerous country with a nuclear arsenal, it tends to

devolve into hysteria and fear when it hears of an unstable nation obtaining nuclear weapons.

Reprocessing is done through many chemical processes on leftover nuclear waste. The resulting

chemicals can be used as nuclear reactor cores again, but also creates valuable and dangerous heavy

metals, namely weaponizable plutonium. According to the Science Council for Global Initiatives, reactor

fuel is going to be recycled, whether we like it or not. Many countries, including the United States,

Russia, India, Japan, France, and the U.K recycle plutonium. These countries all own nuclear warheads

(BBC World News.) When unstable countries begin making nuclear power plants, it leaves open the

option to reprocess the plutonium, and then make warheads. For example, North Korea has, successfully

reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods since 2003(James Martin Center for Non Proliferation.) In

2006, North Korea became the worlds 6thnuclear power (New York Times.) One of the most pertinent

and important international debates occurring now is Irans reprocessing of plutonium. Iran has taken

steps to install more advanced centrifuges, continued installation of additional centrifuges at Fordow and

Natanz, production of enriched uranium, and construction of the IR-40 reactor at Arak(Israel National

News.) To stop the proliferation of nuclear energy is to stop the proliferation of nuclear warheads. The

original purpose of the nuclear plant was to create plutonium for the atom bomb, and the United States

has already gone to war in fear of weapons of mass destruction.Nuclear power is a tempting resource

for power hungry nations in want of bombs.


7/10

Patrick FoxGreen

One of the most concerning issues surrounding the U.S nuclear debate, is not the obscene

implausibility of its long term functionality, but that many other nations have already completed or begun

dramatic nuclear phase out programs, to completely rid their nations of the power source. After the

Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan had a meltdown in 2011, the international energy debate was

rekindled. Many European countries had already banned nuclear energy, including Italy and Germany.

Previous meltdowns, such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island triggered worldwide protests and plant

discontinuations. In 1975, activists in Germany held huge demonstrations against the Whyl nuclear plant,

scheduled to be built near residential areas in response to the OPEC oil shortage crisis. It was never built.

Scientists began to have doubts about the feasibility of nuclear power as a fountain of vitality (Global

Nonviolent Action Database.) New questions appeared surrounding nuclear waste management and

meltdowns. In 1979, 70,000 marched on Washington in opposition to U.S energy investments. By then,

almost every country had an anti-nuclear organization. Decrepit plants began to decay, including the

Three Mile Island plant, which had a meltdown in 1979, where nuclear coolant material leaked from the

reactor, contaminating the surrounding lakes. Subsequently, in 1988, the worst nuclear meltdown in

history occurred in Ukraine at the Chernobyl power plant. It exploded dramatically, affecting a 150,000

kilometer radius, relocating 200,000 citizens and permanently mutating thousands. There have been 1,800

cases of thyroid cancer associated with the incident, and the blast was 400 times more powerful than the

bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This was our only experience with catastrophic, explosive meltdown, and it

took the world by storm. The installations of nuclear power plants in the U.S and Western Europe came to

a full halt. From the late 1970s to about 2002 the nuclear power industry suffered decline and stagnation.

Few new reactors were ordered, the number coming on line from mid 1980s little more than matched

retirements, though capacity increased by nearly one third and output increased 60% due to capacity plus

improved load factors. Many reactor orders from the 1970s were cancelled. (World Nuclear

Association.) Since then, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,

Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Norway have


8/10

Patrick FoxGreen

all imposed phase out programs, or remain nuclear free and opposed to nuclear. Germany began

a dramatic phase out in 2000, and has removed almost half its reactors. It plans on abandoning

all of them by 2050. Sweden , Italy, Belgium, Austria and Spain also have successfully

beginning to remove nuclear power (World Nuclear Association.) Since most of the world is

beginning to phase out, the United States will eventually have to too. Its decrepit plants wont

last forever, and soon, there wont be an international market for nuclear energy.

For these reasons, nuclear energy is an irresponsible and destructive force, inappropriate for use

in any country. Nuclear waste creates hazards for future generations, plants are prone to meltdown, used

fuel rods can be used to create nuclear warheads, and the global market for nuclear energy is quickly

decaying. The United States government needs to invest in the alternative energies that will make the

world a better place, instead of a more complicated and dangerous one. Most Western countries recognize

this and are drawing out of the resource. The United States is the top user of Nuclear Energy in the world

(KwH)(U.S Energy and Information Administration), and must change so that other nations may follow

suit.


9/10

Patrick FoxGreen

Works Cited"Chernobyl Questions."International Atomic Energy Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . Euronuclear. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . "Mass Occupation of Nuclear Plants." Global Nonviolent Action Database. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

."Outline History of Nuclear Energy." World Nuclear Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. .Bombs, Reprocessing, and Reactor Grade Plutonium." Science Council for Global Initiatives. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar.

2013. ."Chernobyl Questions."International Atomic Energy Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

. Every detail on the Chernobyl Incident in Q+A form"Factsheet on North Korea's Nuclear Reprocessing."James Martin Center for Non Proliferation. N.p., n.d. Web. 5

Mar. 2013. ."History of Nuclear Energy." World Nuclear Associaton. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . Complete history of Nuclear energy, start to finish. "North Korea's Nuclear Program." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . "Nuclear Disasters and Accidents." Thinkquest Educational Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

.

"Nuclear Waste." Greenpeace. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. .

"Nuclear Waste Disposal Methods." Stanford University. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . "Radioactive Waste Management." World Nuclear Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . Everything there is to know about waste management from half life to methods


10/10

Patrick FoxGreen

"Status of the U.S Nuclear Industry." U.S Energy and Information Administration. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

."Which Countries Have Nuclear Warheads?"BBC World News. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

.Why Nevada Opposes Yucca Mountain.Nevada State. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. . "World Powers Express Deep Concern over Iran Nuclear Progress." Israel National News. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar.

2013. .High Level Radioactive Waste."Nuclear Information and Resource Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.

. Contains data about the half life and dangers of radioactive matierials. Midwest Energy News. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. . Outlines U.S energy

spending by type and percentage. Nuclear takes up 9% compared with 8% being all renewable energy

sources combined."Nuclear Power in the USA." World Nuclear Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2013. . Almost complete overview of U.S investments in Nuclear energy

Documents

Sustainability of nuclear energy