George Engel

Chemistry

4/7/14
Nuclear Power Good or Bad?

What is nuclear power you ask? Simply put, it is energy generated by a nuclear reactor. A
nuclear reactor uses the process of nuclear fission to heat water and create steam; this steam then
goes into a turbine and powers a generator. Now unlike other sources of power, like power plants
that require certain recourses such as coal natural gas or oil, nuclear power plants simply use
enriched uranium cells, which last a VERY long time. As well as being easy to obtain. Now,
there are two different kinds of nuclear reactors, a boiler water reactor, and pressurized water
reactor. In a boiler, fuel cells are submerged in water, and the heat given off by the process of
nuclear fission turns the water to steam. This steam goes into a turbine which is hooked up to a
generator, and BAM, you got power. Of course the steam is cycled back through, so its simply
cooled and reused. Now, pressurized reactors are kind of different. For a start, in a pressurized
reactor, the water is under an immense amount of pressure, so even when it is extremely hot, it
will not boil. Now you have a steam system that uses a bunch of little pipes to blast a turbine
with steam, generating a bunch more energy. Naturally, there are many safety procedures in
place. Such as the little rods inserted in the nuclear fuel bundle; which are able to absorb access
atomic particles to prevent overheating. Basically how these do this, is when a uranium particle
under goes fission and separates into two more stable particles, and releases extra bits (neutrons)
here and there, it picks up those excess neutrons so they dont cause trouble, by oh say, creating a
massive chain reaction and trying to cause a bunch of uranium atoms to rapidly undergo fusion at
once. The energy cast off in the form of heat from all those reactions happening would probably

explode. In doing this, they act as a brilliant safety measure by slowing down the reactions that
take place so the heat produced is more manageable. At the same time, it also lengthens out the
life span of the fuel cell. Now, why you might be asking, are nuclear reactors really all that
different from other methods in normal power plants? For starters, this isnt a little coal fire
under a boiling pot buddy, to put things in perspective a little better, a single kilogram of
uranium-235 has more than enough energy to equal that of an explosion of 20,000 Tons of
dynamite. But dont worry, they only explode if a chain reaction manages to occur, like in a
nuclear bomb. Of course most people only think of a nuclear reactor as a threat, or of nuclear
waste being dumped into the ocean when they think of nuclear power, and so they often prefer to
keep using the recourse intensive power plants weve been using for ages. They simply think of
it as typically unsafe or unclean energy because they simply dont understand how it truly works.
Realistically, it works in quiet a similar fashion to these other methods of producing energy, but
instead of creating harmful waste as that of burning coal or oils, it is utilizing the heat given off
from the hydrogen bonds when the over sized uranium molecule undergoes fission. Thus the
only waste really left over would be stable particles. Also not to mention, given just how much
power it gives and how long it lasts for the amount used, there for beats solar power as well, as it
is to slow and expensive. It is easily maintained as long as it is handled correctly. It could easily
be considered sustainable energy source. A sustainable energy source of course being a reliable
source of energy that is easily renewable (Coal, and fossil oils are knocked out here), provides an
adequate amount of power (solar can be knocked out here, as well as arguably hydroelectric
wind), and over all gives a good amount of energy for the cost of the materials used. (which
definitely knocks out solar.) I say nuclear power can be considered all of these because of the
amount of energy it produces at such an alarming rate for such little samples of uranium and

plutonium. Which arent to horribly difficult to obtain. As far as being clean energy wise, nuclear
power is one of the cleanest, as it doesnt release any harmful components into the atmosphere.
We are left over with nuclear waste material, as most people who fear the use of nuclear power
often argue, however, even if it were to somehow leek out and contaminate the area a tiny bit, it
is proven by the research obtained by the Nagasaki bombs data that anything below 150 rem is
considered non lethal, as they have no health effects. And there really havent been many nuclear
contaminations caused by nuclear power plants. If there is a spill or mix up, it is generally below
the harmful levels, and/or cleaned up. It has also helped contribute to lower the fossil fuel use
and emissions of pollutants into the air and water caused by other methods of obtaining power. In
terms of safety for workers? Ha, the records for safety with nuclear energy has cost far fewer
lifes than that of any other power generation process so far. There have of course been a total of
3 big accidents involving nuclear power plants; Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, And Fukushima.
The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a few simple safety experiments in which the plant was
under unfavorable cooling conditions and they were attempting to operate the plant outside its
normal functionalities. In English, they tried to use it for something it wasnt really built for. This
resulted in a horrific explosion devastating the surrounding areas and spreading radioactivity
about 200 times that of the Hiroshima bombing. The side effects of the radiation resulted in
many variations of medical complications, and over 32,000 deaths. This catastrophe was caused
by pure human error, they didnt necessarily think through what they were doing when
experimenting with safety procedures, and werent very quick to clean up their mess. On the
other hand, we have the disaster at Fukushima. Rather than being an incompetent mistake, this
nuclear reactor meltdown was caused by a nature disaster, as a large earthquake caused a large
tsunami which cut off power to the reactors coolers. The lack of coolant for the reactors caused

them to overheat and have a meltdown. This time however, it wasnt one, but four different
cores. However, They were much quicker when it came to evacuating the people to get them
away from potential harmful radiation, and cooled off the cores as quickly as possible with
recycled water from a new treatment plant. They managed to clean it all up and have 3 of the 4
cores stable again, and prevent a nuclear contamination issue by providing proper clean up for
the mess. These guys did it right, and prevented any damage as best they could. There where
actually no deaths at all from any kind of radiation, however, in the governments precautions
taken in the evacuation, 1000 people died.
Now, as far as nuclear power plants go in America, we have approximately 100 nuclear
reactors, with about 5 more on the way. 35 of which are boiling water reactors, and 65
pressurized water reactors. There are about 31 of the 50 states with nuclear reactors in them; the
majority of the states with these reactors are however over in the east. The east coast has a
substantially larger quantity of nuclear power plants than the western and middle of the country.
Personally, I dont see why we dont have more over on the west coast. We have a few in
California, but thats pretty much it. Oh, and notice how much better the east coast is doing
generally in comparison to the west coast. How gas and such is so much cheaper over there.
Could this be a result of having more sources of nuclear power? Possibly? Probably. Over all, it
doesnt seem wise to shoot down a good clean source of power such as this. We should be taking
advantage of this productive clean energy source. What is there to really be afraid of as long as
we follow basic safety measurements and arent foolishly reckless as the Russians where with
Chernobyl?