EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Nuclear Power: Removing the

Stigma for a Better Tomorrow
Bridgett Moore

ENGR 231 Technical Writing

Marcia Woodard

3/5/2017

1 | Page
 Abstract
Fossil fuels originate back as far as 500 million years ago. Within the last 200
years, not only have we consumed a significant amount of those resources,
but have negatively impacted our environment and climate in doing so.
Fossil fuel reserves are finite and its only a matter of when they will run out.
It has been estimated that if we continue this route of usage, with no growth
in population or aspirations, our known oil deposits will be depleted by 2052.
(CIA 2017) Nuclear power is an environmentally friendly and efficient means
of energy production that can be the answer to our energy needs.

This paper briefly reviews the history of nuclear power, the bad stigma
surrounding nuclear energy, and steps to take to ensure nuclear operations
grow and develop into the global source of energy the world needs.

2 | Page
 Table of Contents
Title Page 1
Abstract 2
Table of Content 3
List of Figures
3
List of Tables
3
Executive Summary
4 Introduction
5
Purpose 5
Background 5-6
Discussion 6-10
Carbon Footprint of Nuclear Power vs. other Low Carbon Energy Sources
6-7
Capacity Factors 7-8
Nuclear Power and The Media 8-9
Bridging the Perception Gap
9
Findings 9-10
Recommendations
10
Conclusion 10
Works Cited 11
Appendix A: Fog Index
12
Appendix B: Biography 13
Glossary 14

List of Figures
Figure 1. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators

List of Tables
Table 1. CO2 Emissions from U.S. Electric Power

3 | Page
 Executive Summary

The world is soon to run out of fossil fuels to cater to our energy intensive
lifestyles. Though this is a severe impending issue, few are aware of the
need of an alternative fuel source. Because it is not a current issue affecting
us immediately, many shy away from trying to better our current energy
situation, leading to an inevitable crisis. Nuclear power needs activism, and
removing the stigma is crucial to furthering nuclear research and bettering
the world and our economy.

4 | Page
 Introduction
Purpose

Within this report, I analyze the benefits of using nuclear power as our global
source of energy and the obstacles surrounding making this possible. I also
bring to light the importance of removing the negative stigma surrounding
the nuclear field to allow for further research of nuclear fission and its
capacity. There is a very wide perception gap in regards to the safety of
using nuclear operations to produce energy. Bridging this gap is necessary
to better not only the United States but the world. Nuclear power can, and
should, be our primary source of global energy.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that Americas need

for electricity alone will increase almost thirty percent between 2012 and
2040. (EIA 2016) Currently, 65% of climate pollution comes from energy
generation and use. It has been estimated that the worlds oil deposits,
currently accounting for about 40% of the United States energy, will be
depleted by 2052.

Background

After World War II, the Atomic Energy Commission was formed to explore
peaceful opportunities for nuclear resources. This was proven to be more
than complicated since the war in Japan was ended by the same means.
Atomic weaponry played a large role in securing a victory over Japan. This
was the beginning of nuclear distrust and misrepresentation.

Presently, nearly 70 years after the fact, there are 104 reactors bridling the
very same force of nuclear power, meeting nearly twenty percent of the
United States commercial energy needs and 11 percent of the worlds. Soon
after the war, the US Navy paved the way for nuclear electricity with the
countrys first commercial generation of nuclear power at the Shippingport
Atomic Power Station. This was part of Dwight Eisenhowers Atoms for Peace
program, where he gave an address urging for the peaceful use of nuclear
energy before the United Nations General Assembly. (Theaker 2010) This
speech marked one of the earliest pleas to curb the global nuclear arms
race, which was then seen as inevitable. It also inspired the creation of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in 1956.

Shippingport dependably provided atomic energy to the Pittsburg area for

nearly 30 years. In the 1980s forty-six nuclear reactors were commissioned
in the United States. By 1989, after Shippingports decommission, 109
reactors were producing about 19 percent of the nations electricity. Nuclear

5 | Page
energy was the second largest power source in the US, with coal still in the
lead.

After the 1980s the construction of new nuclear plants slowed to a halt. The
reactor meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the 80s raised
concern in regards to the safety of nuclear power. It has been reported that a
combination of personnel error, design deficiencies, and component failures
caused the Three Mile Island accident. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
conducted detailed studies of the accident's radiological consequences, as
did the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Several independent groups also conducted studies. (NUREG-
0558) The findings were that the radiation dose received by people in the
surrounding area was one-sixth the dose received when being administered a
chest x-ray.

In the months following the accident, public fear and opposition grew
abundantly. Nuclear powers poor media coverage also aided in public
distrust and fear. Even though the possible adverse effects of the Three Mile
Island incident were never proven to be directly correlated to the accident,
the public held tight to its opposition.

As of November 2016, per the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),

the US has 99 Nuclear units, producing a measly 19.5 percent of the United
States clean energy. (IAEA 2016) The World Nuclear Association reports
there are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31
countries, and 60 more under construction currently. 55 countries operated
about 245 research reactors, and 180 nuclear reactors power about 140
ships and submarines.

Discussion

We need energy for heat, cooking, seeing, communicating, running

technological equipment, and on a larger spectrum, bettering our growing
economy. By 2040 the population is estimated to grow over 22%, from our
current 7.4 billion to a whopping 9 billion. Global energy consumption will be
supercharged. Fossil fuels currently quench our thirst for affordable, free-
flowing energy, but soon our reserves will dry up, and the world is not
prepared for what comes next. We blindly rely on fossil fuels as our primary
energy source though they are harmful to the environment and surprisingly
inefficient. Most of the energy present in fuel, up to 65%, is wasted as heat
rather than turned into useable energy. With our rapidly growing population
comes a rapidly growing need for a new source of clean, dependable energy.
Nuclear power is the answer.

6 | Page
Carbon Footprint of Nuclear Power vs. other Low Carbon Energy
Sources

A carbon footprint is the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses
that are emitted over the full life cycle of a product, from the extraction of
raw materials through to decommissioning. Webster describes it as the
amount of greenhouse gasses and specifically carbon dioxide emitted by
something (as a person's activities or a product's manufacture and transport)
during a given period. (Webster 2017)

Stewart Brand, a long standing nuclear power advocate, describes radiation

as a great evil in basically a design problem Since the horror stories of the
80s, nuclear power plant operations have greatly improved. Safety
standards are higher than ever, and public fear has pressed for tighter
regulations of operations, making nuclear safer than ever. Though people
hold steadfast to their fear and distrust of atomic material, one fact is
unwavering: nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions. It is the
environmentally friendly powerhouse we seek, yet are so fearful of. Nuclear
provides a clean base load electricity that produces waste just a size of a
coke can compared to a coal-fired plant that belches out 16,000 tons/year of
CO2 emission for the same power supply. It needs to be made safer so that
each state, each province can run its own modular and thorium power plants
that can be carried on trucks, require no refueling and can be run for 60
years and then be buried in their own grave. (Brand 2010)

It has been stated many times, that the process of turning uranium into
energy, fission, creates no carbon dioxide. People argue that the mining of
uranium is an environmentally costly endeavor and should be taken into
account when considering CO2 output. Below, in Table 1, is a table of carbon
dioxide emissions, including the emissions from miscellaneous waste
materials as a by-product of the process of mining material.

Table 1. CO2 Emissions from U.S. Electric Power

7 | Page
Still, with every aspect taken into consideration, as you can see in figure 1,
nuclear power (grouped under the other category) accounts for under one
percent of carbon emissions in the United States. Nuclear energy has the
lowest impact on the environment of any energy source, even less than solar.
Not only does it emit no air pollution and isolate its waste completely from
the environment, but it requires a relatively small amount of land to do so,
unlike other clean sources of energy, such as biofuel. Nuclear fission today
represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the
demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a
modern economy. If given a chance, nuclear energy would play a vital role in
providing clean energy for sustainable economic development worldwide.

Capacity Factors

Capacity Factor is defined as the ratio of actual energy generated by any

energy producing system or unit, to the hypothetical maximum possible. It
tells us how much energy is being made compared to how much energy is
possible to be made. Nuclear power far exceeds other power sources on this
front.

Uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil
or coal. With a complete combustion or fission, approximately 8-kilowatt
hours (kWh) of heat can be generated from 1 kilogram of coal, approximately
12 kWh from 1 kilogram of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg
of uranium-235. (Grnlinghaus 2017) In layman's terms: an 8.5g pellet of
uranium can provide as much energy as burning one ton of coal. Below in
Figure 1 is a table of the capacity factors for Utility Scale Generators not
primarily using fossil fuels, from January 2013- December 2016.

Figure 1. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale

Generators

8 | Page
We can see here that nuclear capacity far exceeds others at a 92% capacity
factor. This is much more efficient than other types of low carbon emission
energy: hydroelectric at 36%, wind at 33%, and solar at 29%. Nuclear fission
is a reliable, efficient means of generating power.

Nuclear Power and The Media

Unfortunately, the future of nuclear energy does depend heavily on media

coverage. Most will never find themselves in short supply of reasons to be
suspicious of nuclear energy, but if ever we forget the media is sure to
provide us with more. The sensationalism prevalent in news outlets have
provided an influx of horror stories involving spills, leaks, and minor
incidents. These are often portrayed as catastrophic near-misses. It's even
been stated that many nuclear professionals have been taught to avoid
interactions with the media because they believe that almost anything that
they say will be misinterpreted. The long-term consequence of
sensationalistic reporting is more than just a general wariness and suspicion
of nuclear energy. The consequence is the future of our world, and its ever-
growing demand for energy.

Lehigh University scholar, Sharon Friedman, reviewed media coverage of

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Her findings describe the
coverage of the incident as "abysmally inadequate". (Friedman 2011)
Friedman referred to the journalist who reported on the accident as
"incidentals" rather than the optimal highly educated specialist who had
experience in nuclear operations. The issue with media is more than just
unfamiliarity. Friedman goes on to explain more issues with the media. She

9 | Page
believes some reports were brief and inadequate due to the time constraints
of TV news broadcast. Some misinterpreted what a meltdown entails, giving
no reference to the different degrees of meltdowns. Media only highlights the
obstacles that nuclear energy production would have to overcome for it to
become a global power producer, instead of reporting the benefits it could
provide today.

Public ignorance of general industrial standards of performance means that

trivial incidents can acquire high profile in media, providing yet another case
for the opposition of nuclear operations. It is evident that the reactor
meltdowns at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima raised concern in
regards to the safety of nuclear power, but the medias disclosure of said
incidents added fuel to the hypothetical fire. Many believe that nuclear
power is fundamentally unsafe.

Bridging the Perception Gap

The nuclear industry has made remarkable achievements in regards to the

Safety and Security of nuclear power plant operations. These achievements
are overshadowed by public fear and misinterpretation. People fear the
dangers of radiation leaks, the risk of uranium being weaponized, and the
complications of storing nuclear waste. None of the previously stated reasons
for fear have any scientific backing. The publics fears do not match the
facts.

In the book "How Risky Is It, Really?", author David Ropeik dissects this issue.
He provides an in-depth look of our perception of risk and the hidden factors
that make us unnecessarily afraid of relatively small threats. He introduces
the important concept of the perception gap and defines it as the
potentially dangerous distance between our fears and the facts. He then
explains that we need to recognize this gap if we want to reduce it and make
healthier choices for ourselves, our family, and society.

We need to close the perception gap. This can be done by making policy
decisions based on facts instead of fears. Fear drives us to make decisions
that feel good, but would increase the overall risk to the population. For
example, voting no on nuclear feels good, but in the long run the outcome
would lead to more death and health risk from burning fossil fuels, and
climate risk from greenhouse gas emissions.

Findings

Currently there are over 440 commercial power reactors operating in 31

countries and there are about 60 more reactors under construction today.

10 | P a g e
They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable
baseload power, with absolutely no carbon dioxide emissions. They produce
energy at a 92% efficiency rate, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The public does not know how important reliable electricity is until it is no
longer available to them. We use electricity for nearly every aspect of our
life, and our primary source of energy is coal, with only a 63% capacity rate.
Imagine the benefits of using nuclear with its 92% efficiency, and zero
carbon dioxide emissions. As the world population grows, so does our
demand for a clean, reliable source of energy. Nuclear power, the
controversial energy giant feared by many and understood by few, is the
solution.

Recommendations

The nuclear industry often finds itself in a defensive position during

communications. This is where the need for advocating arises. Without public
approval, funding the future of nuclear energy will fall flat. No one will see
the need for nuclear till it is too late. With critics determined, now more than
ever, to build and hold public opposition to the nuclear field, aggressively
communicating the positive news surrounding nuclear energy is critical to its
future.

Regulating the media and minimizing the slander they report to the public
would also be beneficial. Inevitably, media controls the growth of nuclear
operations more than should be allowed. As a law enacted in 1735, I believe
freedom of the press needs to be re-evaluated and reestablished as
something suitable to modern day times and issues. Electing more
scientifically educated officials into office would also benefit the nuclear
agenda.

Conclusion

The stigma surrounding nuclear power needs to be removed to further

research allowing for it to become our global source of power. We need to
bridge the perception gap, and educate the masses of the facts surrounding
nuclear operations. Nuclear power can reliably generate a clean source of
energy at 92% capacity with zero greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power
plants are closely regulated and safety standards are higher now than ever.
We cannot allow our fears to hold us back from what the future of nuclear
power has to offer.

11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
 Works Cited

Brand, Stewart. Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. Viking

Publishing. Jan 12, 2010

Buck, Alice L. A History of the Atomic Energy Commission. Washington

(D.C.): U.S.
Department of Energy, 1983. Print.

Central Intelligence Agency. "The World Factbook: WORLD." Central Intelligence

Agency. Central
Intelligence Agency, 12 Jan. 2017. Web. 05 Mar. 2017.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

Carbon Footprint. (n.d.) In Merriam-Websters collegiate dictionary. Retrieved

from
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carbonfootprint

Friedman, Sharon M. "Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An

Analysis of
Traditional and New Media Coverage of Nuclear Accidents and
Radiation." Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 5, Sept. 2011, pp. 55-65.
EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1177/0096340211421587.

Grnlinghaus, Marion A. "Fuel Comparison." European Nuclear Society. Web.

26 Feb. 2017.
www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Power Reactors in the

World 2016 Edition Reference Data Series No. 2, IAEA, Vienna (2016).

"Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station," NUREG-0558

Theaker, Martin. "Being Nuclear on a Budget: Churchill, Britain and "Atoms

for Peace,"
1953-1955." Diplomacy & Statecraft 27.4 (2016): 639-60. ProQuest.
Web. 26

U.S. ENERGY INFO ADMINISTRATION, U.S. Dept of Energy Annual Energy

Outlook 2014 With Projections to 2040, at MT-16 (2014)
www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf

13 | P a g e
Appendix A: Fog Index

14 | P a g e
 Appendix B: Author Biography

Engineer extraordinaire, Bridgett Moore, currently studies at Edmonds Community

College where she majors in material science engineering. Financial difficulties are
currently holding her back from her goal of becoming a Nuclear Engineer, but she
knows that with will power, and blessings from her holiness science anything is
possible.

15 | P a g e
 Glossary
o Capacity Factor- the ratio of actual energy generated by any energy
producing system or unit, to the hypothetical maximum possible.
o CO2- Carbon Dioxide
o EIA- Energy Information Administration
o kWh- Kilowatt hours
o Perception Gap- the potentially dangerous distance between our fears and
the facts

16 | P a g e