Petrakis 1

Dimitri Petrakis
Mrs. Searle
ELA 11 AP
April 25, 2014
Nuclear Power Research Paper
Nuclear power, a process in which a neutron splits a Uranium atom, releasing
tons of energy, defines the world. First worked on by the Germans and then completed
by the Americans in 1945 for war purposes, nuclear power became the symbol of power
and influence in the world. Even today, the country with the biggest stockpile of nuclear
weapons has the most power which is currently the United States of America, followed
by Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The
only time a nuclear bomb was ever used against another country was at the end of
World War Two when the United States of America dropped two nuclear bombs on the
Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, the world entered the Nuclear
Age where a few countries have the power to destroy the world many times over,
causing the extinction of nearly all life on earth.
Along with war purposes, nuclear power can also be harnessed for energy
collection. But lately, much controversy erupted over the validity, safety, and reliability of
using nuclear power for energy collection, arguing over its cost, energy output,
environmental impact, efficiency, and its threat of causing widespread damage.
Although some argue that control of nuclear power provides inexpensive and clean
energy, its detrimental effect to the environment, its massive cost, and its weaponized
potential outweigh the benefits to the extent that nuclear power should be completely

Petrakis 2
abandoned.
Some critics argue that nuclear power can be low cost, saying that improved
nuclear reactors will run longer and produce more energy more efficiently. They argue
that because uranium is much denser than other materials like coal or wood, more
energy can be extracted from the Uranium, producing more energy per unit of weight
and making nuclear fission more efficient compared to other energy sources. They say
that eventually, due to the advancement of technology, the energy collected from the
nuclear reactors will be cheaper than the energy collected from using renewable energy
resources because of the massive amount of energy extracted from only a little bit of
uranium. They also contend that the materials used to build a nuclear reactor are
cheaper compared to the materials used to build a renewable energy collection station
such as a wind farm, arguing that a nuclear reactor is more efficient in materials
because building a wind farm requires massive amounts of concrete and steel while a
nuclear fission reactor requires much fewer materials.
Critics argue that nuclear energy can be renewable. While admitting that
uranium is a limited, finite resource, these critics point to the untapped potential of
Thorium, arguing that it, produces abundant energy and small quantities of short-lived
waste products... (offering)... a compact source of clean, dependable energy so
enormous as to be essentially unlimited (McInnes). They contend that the renewable
and clean energy produced by the nuclear reactors will replace coal burning stations
and other buildings that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in order to help fight
global warming. Critics even contend that the use of nuclear energy is safe, pointing to
developing new methods of reusing some of the waste material produced by nuclear

Petrakis 3
reactors to extract more energy from the waste material. This process would produce
more energy per amount of uranium and would leave less waste of which to dispose.
When the uranium fuel cell becomes completely depleted, critics argue that the
discarded waste gets safely stored in abandoned salt mines, posing absolutely no threat
to human health. While these critics contend that nuclear power remains inexpensive,
recyclable, and safe, they fail to see its downfalls, making nuclear power a poor choice
for extracting energy. Busy bragging about its energy output, its energy efficiency, and
its material efficiency, these critics fail to take into account the environmental impact of
radiation leaks and increased diseases. They fail to realize that nuclear power only
remains cheap because of massive government subsidies, and that the recyclable
waste still requires burial, leading to various radiation leaks and the destruction of the
environment.
Nuclear power should also be completely abandoned because of its massive
cost. The United States government spends billions of dollars a year researching and
developing its nuclear program. Not only does the United States government continue
to waste its money maintaining and running its current nuclear reactors, but also, in a
statement by Barack Obama's energy secretary Ernest Moniz, Moniz expressed the
United States government's plans to build two new nuclear reactors and further invest
and develop its nuclear program. In order to build these nuclear reactors, a massive
amount of funds are needed. As a result, the United States government guaranteed a
six point five billion dollar loan to Georgia Power and Oglethorpe Power to finish
building the Vogtle nuclear power plant. In addition, steps are in place for an additional
one point eight billion dollar guarantee to the Municipal Electric Association of Georgia

Petrakis 4
(Geewax). This project of building two new nuclear fission reactors remains to be a
daunting task and as with any project, numerous problems will arise, costing millions if
not billions of dollars. The building of these nuclear fission reactors could also not be
built without government and state subsidies. Subsidies for nuclear research have
exceeded the subsidies for any other energy type in the last fifty years. Without these
massive subsidies, no investor in their right mind would ever invest in the nuclear
industry (Rosen). The nuclear industry only remains successful because of political
will, government support, and the ignorance of the public to let it continue.
Nuclear research also costs massive amounts of money. Because of the many
problems with storing radioactive waste in the ground for thousands of years, scientists
must continuously research new ways of storing radioactive waste without harming the
people or the environment around it, but this research remains costly. The American
government has developed a thirty one million dollar experiment designed to test how
salt deforms when it is heated and how water moves through it in order to see if salt
could be used to contain hot radioactive waste. Researchers are also experimenting
with drilling a five kilometer deep borehole into granite rock in order to contain the
radioactive waste, costing approximately twenty five million dollars. The United States
government planned on using Yucca Mountain in Nevada to store a lot of its radioactive
waste and spent over fifteen billion dollars developing the area until the then energy
secretary Steven Chu pulled the plug on the project saying that it was not a workable
option (Tollefson). This colossal waste of money has a big impact on society. All this
money will be indirectly paid by the taxpayers of the United States of America. Instead
of wasting the money on building risky and unsafe nuclear reactors, the United States

Petrakis 5
government could better spend the money to reduce the national debt of over
seventeen trillion dollars, invest in crucial infrastructure to try and jump-start the
economy, or try and create jobs for the ten and a half million unemployed people in the
United States of America. Because of the colossal waste of money, the use of nuclear
power should be completely abandoned.
The environmental impact remains to be one of the biggest problems of using
nuclear fission. Nuclear meltdowns have been occurring for decades but countries
around the world ignore this fact and continue to use nuclear power. Whether it be a
radiation leak or a total meltdown, harmful radiation gets spread out into the
environment, contaminating everything it comes into contact with. Everything in the
ecosystem whether it be a fish, a plant, or a tree becomes laced with radiation and
harmful chemicals. People exposed to the harmful radiation experience a much higher
rate of cancer and other diseases. Cities and towns nearby also have a higher rate of
stillbirths. Often people working within the nuclear reactor experience higher rates of
leukemia while politicians still vouch for the safety of a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors
are dangerous, unpredictable and could experience a meltdown anytime. Research in
the German Risk Study of Nuclear Power Plants shows that the possibility of a total
meltdown in Europe is sixteen percent for the next forty years. The risk of a total
meltdown for a modern nuclear plant running for forty years is point one percent and
there are over one hundred and fifty nuclear plants operating around Europe, so the
meltdown risk for Europe is sixteen percent (Rosen).
On April twenty sixth, nineteen eighty six, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl
exploded, the equivalent of one thousand Hiroshima bombs, and released hundreds of

Petrakis 6
different isotopes, contaminating much of Eastern Europe. The city, left abandoned,
was left to decay and die while one hundred and eighty thousand kilograms of highly
radioactive waste were spread amongst parts of the Soviet Union, Poland, Ukraine,
Belarus, the Czech Republic, Scandinavia, and Germany. To this day, people still live in
contaminated areas and breathe in radioactive dust. All types of cancer, thousands of
diseases, abortions, stillbirths, genetic abnormalities, physical defects, blindness,
depression, suicide rates, and leukemia sharply rose right after the catastrophe and
continue to remain higher than normal. Even worse, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) stopped the aid for the victims although people continue to suffer from
various diseases (Rosen).
Fukushima lies in a state worse than Chernobyl. After an earthquake and a
tsunami, a fuel cell at the Fukushima power plant overheated, causing widespread
disaster. Fukushima's four thousand four hundred tons of nuclear fuel cells dwarf the
size of the radiation sources in Chernobyl and spread over a vast area. There were
even detections of radiated rain in California but did not pose a health threat. Many of
Japan's coastlines are destroyed, parts of the country are uninhabitable, and high levels
of radiation were detected in Tokyo with a population of thirty nine million people. High
levels of cesium have been detected in one of the most famous tea factories in Japan
over three hundred kilometers from the disaster area and a distributor measured high
levels of radiation in tea already shipped out from the city, potentially harming
thousands of people. Radiation was also detected in building materials used in the
construction industry. Questions were even raised whether Japan's high-tech
components and electronics were contaminated, potentially affecting much of East and

Petrakis 7
Southeast Asia. Russian officials were also forced to confiscate irradiated Japanese
automobiles because they contained parts from the Nissan engine factory located only
forty two kilometers from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. As a result of the
destroyed industries and areas, Japan's imports have drastically decreased, The city of
Tokyo announced its first trade deficit since nineteen eighty, and Japan is no longer a
competing industrial nation in the global market. Because of nuclear power, millions of
people have died due to disease and millions more have been financially affected
because of economic dependance on the area affected. Because of the colossal
detriment to the environment, nuclear power should be completely abandoned.
There remains a virtually nonexistent line between civilian control of nuclear
power and military control of nuclear power. The first provides energy for the
surrounding area, while the latter serves as a base for military research and can be
used to build a bomb. Once a nation secures nuclear power for civilian use, it can
easily convert the civilian power plant into a military base and begin testing to build a
nuclear bomb; some examples being India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The nuclear
club has expanded from five to eight, with possibly Iran and Israel which possesses
nuclear weapons but does not admit to them.
The use of nuclear power could also contribute to war. With the dwindling supply
of the finite resources of Uranium, conflict could spark over the limited resources left.
Plus, these countries all possessing nuclear weapons could easily destroy the entire
world many times over, exterminating nearly all life on Earth. Also, nuclear power plants
provide terrorists an excellent target because of the widespread destruction that would
be caused by the demise of the nuclear fission plant (Rosen).

Petrakis 8
Because of nuclear power, the world almost entered an third world war. In the
Cuban Missile Crisis, The United States of America almost went to war with the Soviet
Union over nuclear missiles being brought to communist Cuba. For thirteen days the
Earth stood still as the United States put up a blockade around Cuba, and if the Soviets
crossed the line it would be treated as a declaration of war while the Soviet ships
carrying the nuclear missiles treaded steadily on. On the last day, the Soviet ships were
just about to cross when at the last moment the ships were called back and a deal was
made. Had the Soviets waited a few more minutes, the world would have been plunged
into world war three and with the use of nuclear weapons, the Americans and the
Soviets would have blown each other up along with the rest of the world, causing
mutually assured destruction.
Even today the world faces a possible world war three with the crisis in Iran.
Sitting on a pile of oil, the Iranians pushed for nuclear power, saying that they will use it
for energy purposes only. But when obtained, Iran immediately started testing to build a
nuclear bomb. If completed, Iran would immediately use the nuclear bomb and could
blow open the powder keg of the Middle East. Having religious differences with the rest
of the Arab world, Iran would be enemies with the Arab nations and of course Israel.
Everyone will be fighting with each other and will also pull in other powerful nations
because of the vast oil wealth in the region. The United States would back Israel,
Russia would back the Arab nations, and China would help out Iran, all powerful
nations, each with a colossal supply of nuclear weapons. A small regional conflict could
easily blow up into a world war with nuclear weapons, resulting in the extermination of
the human race. As of 2013, estimates said that it would take Iran up to a year to

Petrakis 9
acquire enough uranium to become a threat, so this crisis could easily blow up at any
moment (Shear). Because of the massive threat nuclear power poses to the human
race as a whole, nuclear power should be completely abandoned.
Nuclear energy remains to be a massive threat whether it be its massive cost, its
detrimental environment effects, or its potential to start a war. The use of nuclear
energy should be eliminated by society, because if left unchecked, nuclear power run
amuck could destroy the world.

Petrakis 10

Works Cited
Chossudovsky, Michel. Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis
of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation. Global Research. N.p., 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 25
Feb. 2014.
Geewax, Marylin. US Government Will Back Loans for Nuclear Power. Npr: n. pag.
The Two-Way. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
McInnes, Colin. Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming. Nuclear Power. Ed.
Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013.
Opposing

Viewpoints. Rpt. from Nuclear EnergyThe Key to a Low-Carbon

Future.

http://biztech.caledonianmercury.com 2 Feb. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints

in

Context. Web. 14 Mar. 2014.

Rosen, Alex. "Arguments Against Nuclear Energy." IPPNW. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Mar.
2014.
Shear, Michael D., and David E. Sanger. Iran Nuclear Weapon to Take Year or More,
Obama Says. New York Times [New York]: n. pag. Print.
Tollefson, Jeff. U.S. Seeks Nuclear Waste Research Revival. Scientific
Mar. 2014: n. pag. Print.

American 4