Liptak 1

Joey Liptak
Prof. Malcolm Campbell
English 1103
12 April 2016
Would More Nuclear Power Be a Meltdown?
Disaster, destruction, death; these thoughts often come to mind if nuclear accidents are
mentioned in a conversation. These phrases shed light on a dark perspective regarding nuclear
energy: nuclear power is dangerous and will only harm the world. The negative stigma attached
to nuclear energy is also associated with nuclear weapons, yet weapons have almost nothing to
do with the majority of nuclear energy around the world, apart from sharing the word nuclear.
According to an annual report composed by the World Nuclear Association (WNA), 436 nuclear
power power reactors are currently in operation in 29 different countries around the world. These
power plants generate approximately 15% of the global electricity supply, including an
astounding 30% in the member countries of the European Union. Multiple countries around the
world are also proposing the construction of new, modern plants in order to slow the use of coalgenerated electricity as well.
However, a tremendous amount of doubt accompanies these new plants, even though the
nuclear power industry is growing so rapidly. The main concern of the doubting public is the
safety of the energy. Several major disasters have occurred over the years, including Chernobyl,
Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, and these disasters showcase the negative effects of the
industry when something goes wrong, whether the reason is human error or natural causes.
However, the notion that nuclear energy is entirely too dangerous to use commercially around
the world should be dispelled; this form of power generates efficient and useable energy and has

Liptak 2
little to no impact on the surrounding environment as long as it goes as planned. Nuclear energy
is generally safe, but will only be foolproof if certain changes are made.
Whats so promising about nuclear energy?
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear power is the most efficient
energy-producing method, generating electricity around the clock at a 92% capacity factor, as
opposed to only a 47% capacity factor for natural gas methods and 61% for coal-burning. Not
only is it the most efficient in terms of energy produced, it also emits very little amounts of
greenhouse gases into the environment, proving that it is one of the cleanest forms of energy.
Nuclear energy emits 13 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per gigawatt-hour, while coal, natural
gas, and hydropower emit 979, 462, and 76 tons, respectively (Life-Cycle Emission Analyses).
Based on these statistics, nuclear power has an undeniable advantage over other forms of energy.
Solar, wind, and hydro power do not have an even remotely close amount of emissions, but
nuclear has even less than all of these. Nuclear power has almost no greenhouse gas emissions
and remains one of the most environmentally-friendly forms of producing energy. High
efficiency and low emissions are two of the main selling points of this form of energy.
Although expensive to construct, power plants are typically a one-time investment
instead of remaining expensive to maintain and keep in business. Uranium, the main resource
used in the industry, is abundant and energy-rich. The process of generating electricity is
practically the same process as burning coal or using other methods; Everett Redmond, director
of nonproliferation and fuel cycle policy at NEI describes the process by stating:
Nuclear plants, like plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, produce electricity by
boiling water into steam. This steam then turns turbines to produce electricity. The

Liptak 3
difference is that nuclear plants do not burn anything. Instead, they use uranium fuel,
consisting of solid ceramic pellets, to produce electricity through a process called fission.
Nuclear power plants obtain the heat needed to produce steam through a physical process.
This process, called fission, entails the splitting of atoms of uranium in a nuclear reactor.
Redmond and the NEI provide basic information about how power plants are operated, thus
proving that generating electricity from radioactive materials is essentially the same as using
water in a dam or wind on a windmill farm, but only with a different starting resource. The
positive aspects of nuclear energy are undeniable.
Nuclear power provides a cost-effective, high reward, and environmentally safe option
when generating electricity. Nothing is burned, unlike coal-generated electricity, which helps to
provide nuclear energy with a status of being harmless for the environment and those
surrounding the plants, provided that nothing in the plants goes wrong during the energy creation
process. Nuclear power is also relatively inexpensive, as long as the initial cost of building the
plant is achieved. Maintaining the plants is relatively cheap, and mining for uranium is also
straightforward and inexpensive. Who wouldnt want a low-emission, inexpensive, and efficient
energy source for the years to come?
If its so great, why is there negativity surrounding the industry?
The statistics and facts surrounding nuclear energy show how efficient and simple it is, but there
is still a large amount of doubt surrounding the industry. This doubt stems largely from the
possibility of a nuclear accident occurring. As seen in the past in incidents such as the full-blown
meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Pripyat, Ukraine in 1986 or the equipment failures at
Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan due to an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, nuclear energy

Liptak 4
provides plenty of risks. Even though there have been few accidents, the accidents that have
occurred have been extremely high profile due to their dangerousness. Because of the high
profile dangers, such as these accidents, nuclear energy gets a reputation for being a high risk,
high reward system. However, many view the risk to be too great to take. Anti-nuclear forces
also believe the industry is dangerous due to the lack of proper disposal of radioactive material
and the possibility of nuclear weapons. Activists on the Greenpeace website write:
The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a U.S. nuclear plant can not be dismissed.
There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by
nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment, and
nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on
sitethe threat of nuclear weapons also looms large. The spread of nuclear technology
and nuclear weapons is a threat for the security of the entire planet.
The threat of disaster and improper waste disposal are the extremely dangerous aspects of using
nuclear energy, even though it still remains the most efficient form of generating electricity.
Nothing can guarantee the safety of current reactors other than the safety parameters that are
mandated by the WNA and NEI, which are obviously not foolproof as seen in the previous
disasters. These organizations are also not in charge of keeping countries with nuclear weapon
capabilities in check and nothing they do will protect from a potential attack. There are no
guarantees in the nuclear industry, and this is the main concern of those who oppose its
expansion.
What can be done to fix this?

Liptak 5
The nuclear power industry is constantly bombarded with complaints about how dangerous and
ineffective it is, even though statistics prove it has the least plant-related deaths and highest
efficiency rating of all forms of alternative energy. So how can the negative stigma be
eliminated? New reforms are necessary for the industry, not only to provide security and ensure
the prevention of another major accident, but also to convince the public that nuclear energy is
safe and reliable.
Karl Grandin, Peter Jagers, and Sven Kullander are contributors for AMBIO, which is a
peer-reviewed scientific journal that is published eight times per year. All three of the authors are
members of the Energy Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, as well as
professors in Swedish universities. Together, they are extremely qualified authors, as they all
teach about nuclear engineering. In this specific article, Nuclear Energy, they argue for the
production of a new generation of generators to be used in plants:
Without functioning fourth generation reactors, nuclear fission energy will not be
sustainable, but with such reactor designs in operation it will be a viable option for a long
time. Fusion energy has the potential of becoming a long-term environmental friendly
and material-efficient energy option. However, concerted scientific research and
technology development on an international scale is required for fusion to become a costeffective energy option in this century (30).
By using fusion, the combining of atoms, instead of fission, which is separating atoms, there
would be even more energy produced by smaller amounts of radioactive material, and the
efficiency of nuclear energy would be greatly increased. If nuclear organizations want to improve
their image and increase their production, these new generators must be researched and

Liptak 6
implemented in the coming years. Fusion is not currently feasible, as it has never been produced
in a control setting before, thus putting more emphasis on the need for research on it, especially
if it would yield even more efficient forms of nuclear energy. Fission energy might be around for
a long time, but it will rarely be used if fusion is accessible one day.
Safety protocols must also be redeveloped and pushed into the public more in order to
convince the opposing members of society. Safety is the main concern of the general population
because the disasters can have long-term effects on the environment as well as short-term effects;
the areas close to the Fukushima and Chernobyl incidents are still deemed too radioactive to live
near to this day. The implementation of new safety protocols would encourage the reform of the
plants that are susceptible to disaster and also reinforce the positive aspects of the entire industry.
Even though the WNA releases an annual report about the safety of nuclear power, more steps
must be taken in order to further shed light on how beneficial nuclear energy can be. The
majority of details about nuclear energy that get to the public are negative; high profile accidents
are shown in the news and in the public. The WNA needs to push for the constant reminder to the
public that nuclear energy is one of the keys for sustainable, clean emissions, instead of letting
news organizations cover only the negative aspects, such as disasters. Public knowledge of
nuclear power is severely limited to the negative effects, and in order for the reputation to
change, the public must become more well informed, and this lies in the hands of the
organizations in charge of the nuclear industry.
The incident at Fukushima was terrible because many lives were lost and thousands of
people were affected, but the disaster also encouraged the reform of safety issues. Plants will no
longer be built in areas susceptible to natural disasters because of this incident, as the Fukushima
Daiichi plant was built in a low area surrounded by the ocean. Also, at Fukushima, the power

Liptak 7
supply and cooling mechanisms were disabled; this accident emphasized the necessity of new
failsafe mechanisms in order to provide security if another event like this were to happen. After
this incident, the WNA and NEI both created new security measures to ensure that plants would
be protected in the event of a loss of power.
Newwaysofobtainingenergyfromnuclearisotopeswouldalsoprovebeneficialtothe
nuclearpowermovement.Forexample,elementsotherthanuraniumhavethepotentialtobe
used.Uraniumisabundant,butnotentirelysustainable,andifitremainstheonlyelementused
inpowerplants,theearthwilleventuallybedepletedofit.DavidWarmflashofDiscoverargues
fortheuseofthoriuminsteadofuraniumbecauseitwouldbemoreeffectiveinshuttingdown
thefissionprocessifsomethinggoeswrong,thusstoppingdisasterbeforeitevenhappens:
Theuraniumprocesscontinuesinachainreactionandcanbecontrolledorstoppedonly
byinsertingrodsofneutronabsorbingmaterialintothereactorcore.Butthesecontrol
rodsarentfoolproof:theiroperationcanbeaffectedduringareactormalfunction.Thisis
thereasonthataconventionalfissionreactorhasthepotentialtostartheatingoutof
controlandcauseanaccident.Athoriumfuelcycle,bycontrast,canbeimmediatelyshut
downbyturningoffthesupplyofneutrons(2).
Inordertoimplementnewfailsafeoperations,thoriumshouldatleastbeusedsometimes
becauseitismucheasiertocontrolshouldsomethinggowrong.Thoriumisalsomuchmore
abundantthanuraniumintheenvironment,anditiseasiertoobtain,whichwouldprovidemore
materialtostartthenuclearfissionprocess.
Accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi show the negative effects that

Liptak 8
accompany nuclear energy, but engineers and power plant operators have all learned from these
mistakes and accidents; new safety measures have been introduced and new reactor mechanisms
have been proposed to reduce the risk of another incident happening. However, if the industry
wants to remain safe, reliable, and trustworthy, even more steps must be taken. New fusion
generators must be created in the near future, or the outdated fission technique may prove to be
too dangerous to use. Creating fusion generators would not only allow more safety when
producing energy, but this would also provide more efficient energy and reduce radioactive
waste, which can be harmful to the general public.
Radioactive waste is another of the main concerns in the nuclear industry. Too much
radiation is harmful to the human body, and can have negative health effects for those who are
exposed to too much of it. The highly irradiated waste produced by nuclear fission has the
potential to be dangerous to humans and the environment, and areas such as the site of the
Chernobyl power plant are inhabitable by humans. Proper disposal of this waste must be ensured,
but this is extremely difficult because of the nature of the nuclear industry. For example, in the
United States, the organizations are in charge of covering the costs for storage, not the federal
government. These costs are ludicrously expensive, thus making it hard for the organizations to
accommodate and pay for them. The governments of the countries who utilize nuclear power
should be in charge of covering the costs for these wastes, or else the organizations will most
likely not be able to afford them, thus not providing safe disposal of harmful materials.
In Conclusion Is Nuclear Power Safe and Reliable?
Nuclear power is not a foolproof industry; as of right now, power plants are not designed
to be completely safe. There is always a small possibility of a nuclear incident in every plant,

Liptak 9
thus proving it is not a completely safe process. However, it is one of the few forms of
alternative energy that can be modified in order to provide the complete security and safety that
is desired by the public. If new Generation IV reactors are created to utilize nuclear fusion, even
more new security measures are devised, and new methods of using nuclear materials are
engineered, this industry has the potential to become the most efficient, safe, and reliable form of
alternative energy. Going nuclear already has its benefits: little greenhouse gas emission, high
efficiency, energy-rich materials, and cost. However, in order for this to be seriously considered
as a major alternative energy source, new tactics must be employed. Overall, the nuclear industry
has the most potential for saving the world from the black hole of dangerous emissions and
depleting natural resources, but only if certain steps are taken.

Liptak 10

Works Cited
Fukushima Accident. World Nuclear Association. WNA, 2 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.
Grandin, Karl, Peter Jagers, and Sven Kullander. Nuclear Energy. AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment 39.1 (2010): 26-30. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.
How Nuclear Reactors Work. Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI, n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
Life-Cycle Emission Analyses. Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Nuclear Energy. Greenpeace. Greenpeace, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
Nuclear Energy in America. Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. World Nuclear Association. WNA, 12 Aug. 2015. Web. 3
Mar. 2016.
Warmflash, David. Thorium Power is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy. Discover.
Kalmbach Publishing. 16 Jan. 2015. 56-60. Web. 2 March 2016.