Varma 1

Manas Varma
Ms. Gardner
English 10H, period 4
10 May, 2016
Nuclear Energy:
A Shocking Revelation
A golf-ball-sized lump of uranium would supply the lifetime's energy needs of a
typical person, equivalent to 56 tanker trucks of natural gas, [or] 800 elephant-sized
bags of coal (Connor). Nuclear energy has been an issue of hot debate ever since the
first few reactors were pioneered. Scientists and critics have argued about the benefits
and drawbacks of this form of energy, but the United States population still seems wary.
Because of this wariness, the US has fallen behind in terms of the number of nuclear
reactors active versus places like Russia and Japan. The construction of nuclear
reactors would greatly benefit our society, as this form of energy has a lower carbon
footprint and is more efficient than burning coal. Nuclear energy is a widely used source
of energy in other parts of the world, but is not being harnessed to its full abilities by the
United States, it is also an extremely efficient way to generate energy and is a safe
alternative form of energy, as it limits the carbon footprint and eliminates the byproduct
of greenhouse gases that are present when burning coal.
Initially, one may be dumbfounded at the idea of nuclear energy, as the events
that have occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima seem to have brought down the final
hammer on nuclear energy by validating their danger to the environment. Rik Stevens of
the Portsmouth Herald insists that Opponents worried and still worry about safety

Varma 2

and evacuation plans that they scoffed would never work during the seacoast's trafficchoked summer months (Stevens). The lingering fears from these disasters has shown
the destructive capabilities of nuclear energy. Many people also believe that there are
other ways to produce energy, albeit without the risks. Jim Riccio, a Nuclear policy
analyst for Greenpeace, proposes that Making our buildings more energy efficient is 10
times more cost effective than new nuclear; clean, renewable energy from wind and
solar is getting cheaper as technology improves and markets expand (Riccio). In
essence, the destructive capabilities demonstrated by the meltdowns at Chernobyl and
Fukushima display danger; however, comparing the energy and emission outputs, one
can see that in the long term, nuclear energy is beneficial to our society and
environment.
Although there is always a danger that comes with the advent of nuclear
reactors, the US should switch to using this form of energy as one of its main suppliers
as many others have already: according to the World Nuclear Association, there are
437 nuclear reactor power plants across 31 countries, currently producing around 11
per cent of global electricity (McHugh). Professor Chris Greig states that "Not many
new plants are being built in the first world so much, but it's in the developing countries
where we're seeing quite a lot of activity" (qtd. From McHugh). Here we can see the
wariness towards nuclear energy; even though many developing countries have already
started on this path towards cleaner energy. India has around 20 reactors, with 25 under
planning; China has 17 operational, with 80 under construction (McHugh). In addition,
France, a developed country in the heart of Europe produces 75 per cent of all its
electricity from nuclear energy (McHugh). Based on this information, one can see that

Varma 3

many other countries, such as France, China, and India have begun to use nuclear
energy as one of their primary sources of energy. This shows the level of trust many
have put into this form of energy, prompting others to follow suit.
Following the onset of more reactors, we would also see energy efficiency levels
skyrocket. For example, Professor Andrew Balmford, a conservation biologist at
Cambridge; and Professor Tim Blackburn, an expert in biodiversity at University College
London explain that A golf-ball-sized lump of uranium would supply the lifetime's
energy needs of a typical person, which is equivalent to 56 tanker trucks of natural
gas, [or] 800 elephant-sized bags of coal (Connor). This mind boggling comparison
shows the disparity between the efficiency of different forms of energy, and clearly
shows that nuclear energy is the most efficient. In fact, Professor Barry Brook of the
University of Tasmania argues that out of seven different energy sources tested, nuclear
energy had the one of the best energy-to-cost ratios (Connor). The worlds increasing
population and technological advancement also uncovers a higher, ever-growing,
energy demand. James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, and Tom Wrigley,
scientists associated with major research institutions, proclaim that because of the
rapidly rising demand of energy and as a result the rising carbon emissions, our current
sources of energy would never be able to keep up with the increased demand (Biron).
This leads us to turn to alternative forms of energy in order to rival the rising demand,
without causing major increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and nuclear energy
seems like a perfect fit to increase the energy output while increasing efficiency.
Ultimately, nuclear energy is also extremely good for the environment as it
produces close to no emissions and greenhouse gases as the uranium or thorium

Varma 4

undergo fission. Admittedly, the prospect of nuclear waste and resulting accidents from
mishandling aforementioned waste may not seem appealing, the four scientists
mentioned earlier: Hansen, Caldeira, Emanuel, and Wrigley suggest that new nuclear
plant designs are cheaper and much safer than older reactors, while new incineration
methods can solve the waste disposal problem (Biron). Because of these newer
technological advances, many of the pre-existing fears can now be put to rest as
failsafes and other safe disposal methods have been pioneered. In conjunction, the
international energy agency claims that nuclear energy is an integral portion of our push
towards the elimination of greenhouse gases, as our production would have to increase
by 700 Gigawatts within the next few decades (Bryce). At first this may seem like a
daunting task, especially with our current methods, but with the employment of nuclear
reactors, we should see a considerable push in a few years. All in all, the advent of
more nuclear reactors is greatly supported everywhere as they play a huge role in the
limitation of greenhouse gases that are generated as a byproduct of generating energy
through burning coal. And if they are used to their full extent, they can be a huge
catalyst to push for emission goals. Therefore, nuclear energy is a great resource that
can be used to limit the greenhouse gas production and generate more energy cleanly
and quickly.
In conclusion, nuclear energy is very efficient and clean and as a result should be
used more widely by major superpowers such as the US as a main source of energy.
The use of nuclear energy would allow us to meet and even exceed the rising energy
demands, while potentially minimizing our greenhouse gas emission and spending less
money per gigawatt of energy. Looking at our current technological achievements,

Varma 5

nuclear energy seems to be the only answer to combat the rising pollution and energy
demands that are now associated with other forms of energy generation and an ever
growing population with dynamically changing needs.

Works Cited
Biron, Carey L. "Nuclear Called a Lesser Evil Than Fossil Fuels." Global Information
Network. 04 Nov. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 May 2016.

Bryce, Robert. "Losing Our Nuclear Edge." Los Angeles Times. 12 Nov. 2015: A.19.
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 May 2016.

Varma 6

Connor, Steve. "Nuclear Power Is Greenest, Say Top Scientists." The Independent on
Sunday. 04 Jan. 2015: 10. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 May 2016.

Hutton, Lord. "We Need Nuclear Now to Ensure Right Mix of Low-Carbon Energy."
Telegraph.co.uk.. 11 Sep. 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher.Web. 03 May 2016.

McHugh, Babs. "Nuclear Energy Finding Favour with Developing Nations Looking to..."
ABC Regional News. 30 Dec. 2015: n/a. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 May
2016.

Riccio, Jim. "Phase Out the Reactors." USA TODAY. 13 Dec. 2011: A.10. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 05 May 2016.

Stevens, Rik. "25 Years Later, Seabrook Remains Pivotal in Nuclear Debate."
Portsmouth Herald. 22 Aug. 2015: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 05 May
2016.

Tucker, William. "Memo to Anti-Coal Warriors: Make Nuclear Peace." Wall Street
Journal. 01 Jul. 2014: p. A.11. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 May 2016.