Nuclear Power Considerations (a continuation)
Photo by Lukáš Lehotský on Unsplash
Prelude: In another article, I’ve previously spoken about the consequences of solar energy and wind turbines, and feel as though I’d thrown out the potential of nuclear energy as a potential alternative resource of energy without properly explaining why that could be the case, hence my intentions here.
Nuclear power in general has a bad rep. Just from the initial word “nuclear” alone, images may pop up in the average person’s mind of devastation, death, of mushroom clouds ten miles high and the catastrophic meltdowns of reactor sites such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Nevertheless, what does nuclear energy actually have to offer to the world besides its catastrophic news headlines and potential pollutants? Does Nuclear energy have a place to grow in the future, and furthermore, how does it even work?
Nuclear energy began in the 1930’s when scientists first developed a way for neutrons to split atoms, with the first fully functional nuclear reactor being built in the year 1942 by Nobel award-winning scientist Enrico Fermi. The reactor was built under the University of Chicago Stagg’s football stadium. (Argonne National Laboratory) It worked by splitting atoms with neutrons to create energy, and then using graphite control rods to thereby neutralize the reaction. Today, the largest nuclear reactor in the world stands as the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan with an electricity capability of 7,965 megawatts. (Power technology.com) It takes up an area of about 4.2 square kilometers and, although it is currently inoperative, fiscal plans to restart the plant are expected to resume in 2022 to 2023.
Although this is all to say that despite the long journey to get here, nuclear power doesn’t seem to be as successful as it could be. Despite making up a whopping 50% of the United States’ carbon free electricity, nuclear reactors only make up about 20% of the nation's total energy. (Andrew Blum, Time magazine) According to an article published by Yale university written by Richard Rhodes, Nuclear energy also, contrary to what many might initially believe, produces less radiation into the earth’s atmosphere than any other energy source. Nuclear energy has an exceedingly high efficiency rate, according to an article written by Matthew Wald, with newer modernized plants planning to have an efficiency rate of over 90% of the year and a lifespan of over sixty years. This is in comparison to the older U.S. nuclear plants that had efficiency rates of around 60% and a lifespan of assumed 40 years. In addition to this, nuclear energy also takes up a comparatively small amount of space. For every 1.3 square miles of land dedicated for nuclear reactor construction, nuclear power plants are able to produce about 1000 megawatts. If we take a look at nuclear energy’s fellow compatriots, solar energy takes up 75 times that much land, and commercially viable wind farms take up 360 times that amount of land. (Nuclear Energy Institute) So, why is the world so hesitant to implement such an efficient solution to the energy crisis?
The answer to that question has likely already sprung to mind. Firstly, the catastrophe of nuclear reactor accidents. Pennsylvania, Fukushima Japan, and Chernobyl have all been unfortunate victims to this reality of nuclear meltdowns. Nevertheless, it is important to note that industrial failures like the ones seen at Chernobyl are not in fact the worst that can occur in energy production facilities. For all Chernobyl evacuees, the median amount of radiation received was actually about the same as a medical grade CT scan. This may seem as though I am attempting to minimize the devastation of those 50 individuals who died at the Chernobyl plant, and it is terrible, but compare this to just two other production facility failures such as a pesticide plant disaster in India that killed 3800 people instantly, as well as a hydroelectric dam disaster in China where 26,000 people drowned as a result of a typhoon causing the dam to fail. All this is to say that the death rate per year (according to a Yale statistic) as a result of accidents is 9 times lower than liquified gas generators and 47 times lower than at hydroelectric stations. With improved safety regulations and policies put into place to ensure the safety of workers, I have reason to believe that this could be drastically reduced as well as considered as one of our, ironically enough, safest options for carbon-free energy.
Then what should we say about the nuclear waste, the image we have in our heads of these seemingly toxic facilities dumping spewage of barrel upon barrels of toxic waste into our oceans. That must obviously be what nuclear reactors do, right? Contrary to such an image, nuclear waste is not even a liquid, and instead is contained in concrete casks within facilities. 90% of this waste can actually be recycled for further nuclear production, while the remaining 10% could safely deradiate within those casks within an extended period of time, posing no actual threat to the environment, or at the very least, a mitigated one. (Rhodes, Richard)
With all of this information kept in mind, it feels as though it's easy to say that Nuclear energy may be the perfect solution. It is not. Of course, with every method of creating energy for human consumption, there is going to be its downsides. Nuclear energy does create waste, after all, and that waste is going to need land set aside to accommodate that waste. But with reasonable policy and safe implementation, such as what’s been seen in Carlsbad, New Mexico, we could be on our way to being able to store a reasonable amount of waste for the human population for the next few millennia. Nuclear energy is not perfect, but it is one of the best options we have, and with further technological advancement, nuclear generators could be further advanced to be seen even in vehicle transport or even within the confines of the home. (Blum, Andrew)
With the advent of serious climate change in the world, it is time for us to start thinking more seriously about low pollutant energy resources, and although solar and wind turbines are great alternatives to coal, it is going to be hard to imagine that future without the help of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not like how it is portrayed in the Simpsons, and it is time for environmentalists to realize that.
Works Cited
Wald, Matthew L. “Can Nuclear Power Compete? (Cover Story).” Scientific American Earth 3.0, vol. 18, no. 5, Dec2008 Special Edition 2008, pp. 26–33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/scientificamericanearth1208-26.
Blum, Andrew. “The Promise of Nuclear.” TIME Magazine, vol. 199, no. 1/2, Jan. 2022, pp. 44–50. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.cuesta.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=154527372&site=ehost-live
Nunez, Christina. “What Is Nuclear Energy and Is It a Viable Resource?” Environment, National Geographic, 3 May 2021, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-energy.
Nuclear Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory. “Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory.” Early Exploration - Reactors Designed/Built by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne National Library, https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/early-reactors.shtml.
“Top Ten Nuclear Power Plants by Capacity.” Top Ten Nuclear Power Plants by Capacity, Power_Technology.Com, 28 July 2020, https://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-largest-nuclear-power-plants-world/.
“The Ultimate Fast Facts Guide to Nuclear Energy.” The Ultimate Fast Facts Guide to Nuclear Energy, Www.energy.gov, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf.
Rhodes, Richard, et al. “Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution.” Yale E360, Yale University, https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate.
“Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint.” Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI, 9 July 2015, https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants.
