Chavoya 1

Then Things Went Nuclear ...

Nuclear Energy is one of the most intensely debated forms of energy production in the

modern world. The cause of much of this controversy is from nuclear accidents in the past,

nuclear waste, and the destructiveness associated with the word nuclear. Many of the ideas

of Nuclear Energy today are just a legacy of the United States and Soviet Union rivalry. It is

because of this reason that people are extremely skeptical about this form of energy. In the

middle of the Cold War the Soviets had a nuclear catastrophe that put the entire european

mainland in danger, a direct result of fallout. This accident occurred in Chernobyl, Ukraine

officially killing 31 people and leaving an unknown number of people affect. In addition to this,

there is an exclusion zone in place with the radius of one thousand miles that will be

uninhabitable to humans for many centuries to come. As a result, there are now stricter safety

regulations for Nuclear Power Plants. This incident struck fears in many Soviets, Europeans,

and especially American, causing many began to question the safety of these generators. It

was soon found out that the incident was caused because of a fault in the design in the reactor

along with safety violations, both human errors. By the time of this discovery, many people

already had a negative bias with nuclear energy sewn deeply into their heads.

In today's world, much of this negative stigma with Nuclear Energy still remains. The

idea of nuclear energy was not conceived until the late 19th century. Development of the

technology mostly took place between 1895 to 1945, where the last six years were during the

second world war and major superpowers like the Germans, Soviets, British and Americans

were on a race to the development of the first fission nuclear bomb. The Americans began to

heavily invest in this technology after President Roosevelt received a letter from Albert Einstein

urging Roosevelt to build the bomb before the Germans. After the bomb was built, the war
 Chavoya 2

ended quickly and scientists were able to see the massive amounts of energy stored within

atoms. Soon after the end of the war, the United States began to use this technology for

submarine propulsion systems and the production of electricity. The Nuclear Age had begun.

Innovations were made to optimize the efficiency in many of the reactors, but a Soviet nuclear

incident ensued which radically influenced the idea of nuclear energy ever since. The

construction of new reactors slowed to a standstill along with American development of the

technology. Many of today's nuclear research is conducted in europe where there is a

substantial amount of dependance on this form of energy production. Some of the most recent

studies show that there is a possibility or eliminating nuclear waste from the process altogether.

It is believed that in order for major superpowers in the world to be able to rid themselves

of the dependance on fossil fuels and drastically reduce carbon emissions, there must be an

equally sustainable form of energy to substitute it. This means meeting the current demand for

electricity. The only form of energy that is stable enough to produce such an enormous amount

of power is nuclear energy. It is believed that Nuclear Energy is not as bad as people

instinctively propose.

Nuclear Energy is not a recent discovery. In fact, it was first discovered by British

scientist Ernest Rutherford in 1917, although theorized much earlier in 1895. Development of

this technology was incredibly slow at first, only first being used in 1945 during the second world

war. Much of the advancement in the earlier stages of development occurred during the six

years of the Second World War. A major cause for the development of such a revolutionary

scientific advancement was an equally revolutionary war, World War II. This demand for

nuclear power and development was a direct result of war, and above all fear. Many German

scientists, just like the British, were attempting to build nuclear explosives because of the

theorized amount of devastation they can inflict on another country. Many British and German
 Chavoya 3

scientists opposed the third reich. It is a common misconception that Albert Einstein was the

scientist that theorised of such a bomb. In fact, that intellectual property belongs to Otto Hahn

and Lise Meitner, two jewish German scientists that were run out of Germany by the Nazis, She

moved to Sweden and later that year she wrote a paper on nuclear fission with her nephew, Otto

Frisch, where they argued that by splitting the atom it was possible to use a few pounds of uranium

to create the explosive and destructive power of many thousands of pounds of dynamite. The main

reason that Albert Einstein receives credit for this weapon is because he was the scientist that

wrote a letter for Franklin Delano Roosevelt about the Germans who had the capabilities to

produce such a bomb. The race for the bomb had now begun.

Now that the United States was part of the war, it would collaborate with both the British

and Canadian to start the Manhattan Project. Enrico Fermi, escaping the fascist Italians, and

Albert Einstein, Escaping Nazi persecution, both fled to the United States. The Manhattan

project was approved and began in 1939 but progressed relatively slow and not much funding

was invested into the project. After a breakthrough by Enrico Fermi in 1942 when he was able

to produce the first controlled nuclear chain reaction funding for the program skyrocketed and so

did technological advancement within the project. The advancements of the project began to

worry the United States Government about the secrecy of the project. Due to this, only a

handful of scientists were aware of the existence of the Manhattan project along with President

Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, leaving their third major ally Joseph Stalin in

the dark. The project was to be kept so secretive that even Vice-President Harry Truman was

unaware of the project until the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

Summer of 1945, the 2 billion dollar (28 billion in today's money) project,The Manhattan

Project with the advancements in nuclear technology produce the very first atomic bomb. July

14, 1945 the first nuclear bomb in history is tested. Scientists were not prepared to see the full
 Chavoya 4

wrath of this weapon, nor the miles of radius of damage that it can inflict on surrounding objects.

At the moment that bomb was detonated, the world had successful enter the nuclear age. This

technology went on to end the war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. It would be

another decade before this technology would advance and understood enough to operate for

the public.

In 1954, the Soviet Union developed the world's first nuclear reactor to produce energy

for commercial use. This was a huge milestone for the development of nuclear energy. After

this event, the technology was being implemented to many other products such as submarines.

Just four years after the first nuclear reactor was built, the United States produced the first

nuclear powered submarine, another milestone in the development of this technology. The

years following were nothing but progress as many believed that nuclear energy was the way of

the future. This ideology drastically changed on April 26, 1986.

On this day, a nuclear catastrophe ensues that had and will continue to have

enormously drastic effects on the environment for hundreds of years to come, as well as the

ideology that surrounds nuclear energy. This catastrophe was nothing less than the greatest

nuclear meltdown in history located at Chernobyl in modern day Ukraine. The source of the

meltdown was due to the flawed design of the reactor along with many safety regulations being

violated which ultimately led to a powersurge followed by the explosion on the reactor. This

single event brought with it a total of 31 deaths, an exclusion zone with the radius of over a

thousand miles from the plant that is now uninhabitable for humans, and an unknown number of

lives affected. Although the disaster could have been prevented had workers simply followed

regulations, but instead refused to do so affecting the world's view on these nuclear reactors.

Many americans began to question this technology and became paranoid of their own safety.

Nuclear energy became associated with a negative bias for much of the time since the incident,
 Chavoya 5

effectively being reinforced in March 11, 2011 with the Japanese city of Fukushima experiencing

a similar incident. This incident was not due to any flaw in the reactor but instead to one of the

most powerful earthquakes japan has ever experienced in recorded history. This earthquake

along with a tsunami of great magnitude hitting the coasts made it difficult to control the burning

reactor.

Today, nuclear energy has become a very interesting and controversial means of

production. With the rising global temperatures and a potential threat to wildlife due to global

warming, many nations are finding fossil fuels to be the culprit of this extreme weather change.

While many superpowers are claiming to move away from fossil fuels, it is unlikely to occur in

the near future. Such a transition to purely renewable energy would take centuries of

engineering and production. Many scientists instead believe that Nuclear Energy would be the

perfect substitute for the demand of electricity produced by fossil fuels and other non renewable

forms of energy, ultimately making the transition to completely renewable forms of energy much

quicker and smoother. This is the where the world stands today.

To begin the analysis of nuclear energy, it is helpful to have some information about how

humans came across this information and what pushed scientists to developing the technology

in the first place. Karen Fox, an author and writer, in her book,The Chain Reaction: Pioneers of

Nuclear Science, she asserts the history of atomic science, and how humans began to

understand and harness the power of the atom. Fox illustrates this by talking about how the

subatomic particles were discovered and how radioactive elements were first used and proven

to be in fact radioactive, along with historic background information and setting, such as world

war 2, that pressured scientist to study and develop the technology for a nuclear future, and

simultaneously, nuclear weapons. The purpose of this text is to inform people of how much

power is really stored inside the atom and the multiple ways in which we may harness that
 Chavoya 6

energy, be it in a peaceful power producing way, or a violent uncontrolled chain reaction of pure

destruction wrapped in a tin can in order to fully understand the process in which the energy is

expelled from the atom and why it is so devastating. In this text, a moderately formal

relationship is kept with the audience of elementary researchers who are looking to discover

what really happens inside of an atomic bomb and how scientists and engineers were able to

design and produce such an expensive and sensitive weapon of such catastrophic magnitude.

World war 2 was of course a massive driving force of the development of this technology,

although at the time the technology was developed to end a truly devastating war. This weapon

was an uncontrolled chain reaction of the breaking down of Uranium, releasing all of the energy

that would have taken many millions of years to disperse naturally in just a fraction of a second,

My immediate thought was that this was like the hell i had always read about. I never seen

anything which resembled it before. But i thought that should there be a hell, this was it (Fox

Page 87).

Similarly to Foxs text, Isaac Asimov, an American writer and professor of biochemistry

at Boston University, in his book, How did we find out about nuclear power? he asserts how

humans came to discover and understand and harness the power of radioactive

elements such as uranium, and convert that radioactive energy into electricity. Asimov

disperses this knowledge by first talking about what is an atom and the parts that make up the

atoms, along with the different types of atoms and how they were discovered. The main purpose

of the text is to educate people not only about how atoms and how they were discovered but

also to make people understand what goes on in a nuclear reactor, how the energy is

harnessed, and how efficient the system is in order to remove this image of danger and fear that

has tainted onto nuclear energy. The author throughout the test kept and informal relationship

with the audience of students by trying to keep the sentences concise and to the point, as well
 Chavoya 7

as simple and easy to understand, using also many visual aids. Asimov continues to explain the

fundamental principle of nuclear energy Suppose a uranium atom split and produced two

neutrons and each of the two neutrons struck a uranium atom. Two uranium atoms would split

and produce four neutrons altogether (Asimov 51). Although this process sounds like an

uncontrollable chain reaction, engineers and scientists have found ways around this problem.

This unknown knowledge of control is what gives the world most of its skepticism when it comes

to nuclear energy.

One of the largest problems with nuclear energy is the fear within the people of

accidents or extreme natural disasters. Shelton, in his brilliantly titled podcast, Nuclear Energy

he claims that people are overly concerned about nuclear energy and nuclear reactors

because people do not know what goes inside of them. He illustrates this belief by asking

his guest speaker weather he was also uncomfortable with the idea of nuclear energy before he

decided to major in the field, to which he replied yes. Shelton started this podcast with his guest

speaker to inform the listeners about the safety systems in reactors as well as what really

happens inside nuclear reactors and why accidents like chernobyl and fukushima occurred, also

explaining how the accidents weren't spontaneous disasters, in order to rid their audience of the

negative bias they may have against nuclear energy. Shelton and the guest speaker kept an

informal relationship with their audience of concerned citizens who are interested or clueless

about what goes on inside nuclear reactors. In the podcast he describes exactly how

paradoxical it can be to produce safety systems to Nuclear Reactors since you're essentially

preparing for the possibility of something seemingly impossible to occur, The problem with

creating safety systems is that you can only plan for a possible scenario. For example, the

fukushima reactors in japan were built to withstand an earthquake and built to withstand without

human intervention for a couple of days. They were not built to withstand both of those things
 Chavoya 8

together with a tsunami as well. Something like this had never happened to japan before, an

earthquake of this magnitude followed by multiple tsunamis (Hakuryuu 42:09). Safety systems

are only one of the few worries when it comes to nuclear energy.

Another major worry when it comes to anything Nuclear is that length of time for the

radioactive properties to dissipate. Jon Brown, a British journalist, in his article Radioactive milk

and the lasting threat of Chernobyl asserts the effects of this nuclear meltdown on the

neighboring countries, land, and wildlife. Brown illustrates this claim by testing milk produced

by cows that roam the contaminated area for traces of radioactivity and stating that the results

came back positive. Brown intends to remind people of the amount of devastation a nuclear

accident can cause not only to the land and the people but also to the economy and trade

systems in order to convince people that nuclear energy is more environmentally harmful and is

dangerous. Brown keeps a slightly formal relationship with his audience of skeptical readers

who do not trust or would like to learn more about nuclear energy. After over thirty years since

the Chernobyl accident, radioactive activity in the environment surrounding the plant and

exclusion zone can still be traced back to the accident, Levels of a radioactive isotope 10 times

higher than the nations food safety limits (Brown).

Besides the environmental effects of Nuclear catastrophes, there are also social

problems that come with them. Hermesauto, in his article Fukushima voluntary Evacuees to

Lose Housing Support, asserts that nuclear energy is not the safest way to produce energy

as one of the many potential dangers of nuclear energy is nuclear refugees. Hermesauto

illustrates his belief by painting nuclear power plants as a horrible way of producing energy that

are very dangerous. The authors purpose was to convince people that nuclear energy is bad

and dangerous in order to get people to oppose the idea and have a negative bias towards

nuclear energy and nuclear power plants. Hermesauto established a formal relationship with his
 Chavoya 9

audience of worried refugees and concerned researchers who want to know about the effects of

nuclear energy on the surrounding civilization when disaster strikes. Many of the civilians who

were affected were given only six years of free housing, now that their time has expired, they

must pay once again, many still struggling after the disaster, Thousands of Japanese evacuees

from Fukushima should keep getting free housing (Hermesauto).

The main drawback of Nuclear Energy is the fear of the public. Joel Helgerson, an

author of scientific base books, in his book Nuclear Accidents he asserts that throughout the

course of history, people only remember the bad that may come of nuclear reactors and

producing anything that consists of nuclear material. Helgerson illustrates this concept by

reminding people of the times that people recall the destructive force of nuclear power

much more compared to the times that it aids us by producing the cheapest form of

electricity. Helgesson supports his claims of people having a negative bias to nuclear energy in

order to help people see that nuclear energy is not as harmful as other forms of energy

production but the energy within the atom, if misused or scientists are not scrupulous with it, can

be destructive and devastating. The author establishes a formal relationship with his audience

of young scientists who are trying to understand the concept of nuclear science and the uses it

has in the modern world. It is because of the human error and human negligence that nuclear

energy has had a negative biast assiciated with it, since the massive chernobyl explaTwo

explosions ripped huge chunks from the structure around the reactor and shot radioactive

material out, starting more than thirty fires at the plant (Helgerson 55).

Much like the past argument, many people focus on the negative accidents rather than

the positive effects of nuclear energy. Matt Doeden, an author and researcher, in his book

Green Energy: Crucial Gains or Economic Strains? he asserts that nuclear energy has many

benefits to it but has become a strictly feared form of energy production because of its
 Chavoya 10

disastrous accidents in the past. Doeden illustrates this belief by talking about the major

nuclear accidents that have risen due to nuclear reactors and explaining what really happened

and how things got out of control, proving to people that these were human errors, not errors

produced by the technology itself. Doeden provided this information to people in order to

change peoples views on nuclear energy and have it become reclassifies as a positive, safe,

and green form of energy production and not as a bomb that can run out of control at any given

moment. Doeden establishes a formal relationship with his audience of researchers who are

interested in the pros and cons of energy production by nuclear means. Again chernobyl was

the driving force behind this negative bias in peoples thoughts about nuclear energy, On April

25, 1986, plans were underway to test the cooling system of reactor number 4 at Chernobyl.

The test began early in the morning on April 26. But a series of errors by plant officials led to the

reactor's core with no cooling at all. An uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction started inside the

uncooled reactor. (Such a reaction is like the detonation of a nuclear weapon) (Doeden 49). It

is because of this biast that many think of nuclear reactors as ticking time bombs, almost as if

they were nuclear weapons that can explode in any given second, I think that the

environmental movement made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons.

It's clear to me that no technology will do more than nuclear or reduce our use of fossil fuels

(Moore 50).

Recently, there has been overwhelming evidence to suggest that nuclear power plants

are actually safer than people think. Farmington, Craig Werth, a journalist for the victor post, in

his news article,Nuclear energy work is safer than one might think, he suggests that nuclear

power plants are not at all as dangerous and as environmentally harmful as one may

think. Farmington further develops his claims by asking for the concerns of the people and

workers of nuclear power plants and provides answers from designers of nuclear reactors,
 Chavoya 11

nuclear safety systems, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor, along with other credible organizations.

The purpose of this news article is to remove this bad vibe that people have developed over the

years due to nuclear accidents and the effects of radiation in order to explain how in this modern

world it is nearly impossible to have a nuclear fallout, a meltdown, or anything of that sort.

Farmington throughout the text keeps an informal relationship to his audience of sceptical

civilians and worried workers by attempting to prove to them that there is nothing to fear in

modern reactors. Many Americans still question the reliability and physical well being of

communities, and Farmington answers that question directly in his news article, Are nuclear

energy facilities safe? Yes. The industry's first commitment is to operate nuclear energy facilities

safely. After more than a half-century of commercial nuclear energy production in the U.S. -

more than 3,500 reactor years of operation ... no radiation-related health effects linked to their

operation (Farmington).

In addition to further support this believe, National Geographic has produced a

documentary on nuclear energy. In the documentary "Unlocking Power of the Atom at Tarapur

Nuclear Power Plant", produced by National Geographic, there is a claim that nuclear energy

is extremely complicated, extremely safe, and extremely environmentally friendly. They

illustrate this belief by visiting a power plant in Tarapur India, where the most sophisticated

nuclear reactor in india is and spoke to many of the workers and representatives of the plant.

National Geographic shows exactly what happens inside records, the technology used, safety

procedures, and maintenance work on their documentary in order to convince its audience that

nuclear energy is a lot safer and much economical than one might expect. A formal relationship

is kept with its broad audience of science enthusiasts that would like to know what happens

inside of a nuclear reactor. In the documentary the narrator states exactly how little radiation

leakage there is from the reactor core, You get more radiation from eating a banana, than you
 Chavoya 12

do working in the control center of a nuclear power plant (Narrator 20:56). In addition, he also

goes on to state that there are environmental benefits of nuclear energy, Probably one of the

biggest advantages of nuclear energy is that there is no emissions of greenhouse gasses, and

the surroundings are kept green (Narrator 32:09).

While nuclear energy isn't exactly a renewable source of energy, it is often referenced as

a renewable form of energy because of the great abundance of uranium in the world. Claude

Degueldre, an environmental scientist, in his paper Uranium as a renewable for nuclear

energy, claims that Uranium is a nearly renewable material, in terms of extraction from the

environment. Degueldre develops his claim by citing the multiple ways that Uranium can be

extracted from land, also including ocean and water sources, which amount for two thirds of the

surface area of the world and is an average twelve thousand feet deep. This paper has people

realize the abundance of Uranium in the world, that may last up to thousands of years in order

to convince people that Uranium and nuclear energy is a renewable and sustainable source of

energy that will be essential for the transition away from fossil fuels in the future. Degueldre

establishes a slightly formal relationship with his audience of researchers who are interested in

the amount of Uranium in the world and how sustainable of a material, making the paper easy to

read and getting directly to the point, providing many examples. Today, Uranium is still

extracted from mines and found in ores, but it can also be found in the ocean, which is one of

the reasons why it is often classified as renewable, This work shows that the Uranium

extraction with parsimony from sea water could be carried in a renewable way if its

concentration remains quasi constant" (Degueldre 1).

Many scientists that begin to analyze the data from nuclear power and fossil fuels often

find that the most beneficial form of energy is nuclear. Iwata, Hiroki, a japanese environmental

scientist, in him and his teams scholarly journal, Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets
 Chavoya 13

curve for CO2 in France: The role of nuclear energy, they assert that there is more good

than bad for the environment in switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. The author

developed his thesis by talking about his team's study on a controlled environment and seeing

the simulated effects of a nuclear plant on a larger scale compared to the effects of a fossil

fueled plant. The author and his teams purpose was to inform the rest of the world of a potential

nuclear powered future as opposed to the future of a fossil fuels in order to change peoples

minds about nuclear energy and the possible effects to the environment on a large scale. The

team establishes a very formal relationship with the scientific community and other scientists

that are debating whether or not there is any environmental benefits to using nuclear reactors

versus the current form of power generation, which is burning fossil fuels and emitting tons of

carbon into the atmosphere. One of the many benefits of using nuclear energy is the reduction

of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, Specifically, the uni-directional

causality relationship running from nuclear energy to CO2 emissions

statistically provides

evidence on the important role of nuclear energy in reducing CO2 emissions. (Iwata, Hiroki 1).

While many believe that the difference won't be detectable for many years to come,

recent studies claim otherwise. Jungho Baek, an environmental researcher, in his paper Do

nuclear and renewable energy improve the environment? he asserts that while the short and

long term effects of nuclear energy and CO2 emissions are different, in both the short

and long term, nuclear energy is beneficial. Beak illustrates this claim by producing a study

of his own and having his results be peer reviewed. Baek does this provides this study and

information in order to have people acknowledge the rising need and environmental demand for

a transition to nuclear means of energy production. Baek keeps an extremely formal relationship

with his audience of scientists and researchers who are also performing studies or researching

information about nuclear energy. In this article it was claimed that the effects of nuclear energy
 Chavoya 14

can be noticed very quickly, We find that nuclear energy consumption indeed reduces CO2

emissions in both the short- and long-run, while renewable energy consumption does only in the

short-run (Baek 1).

Many years ago, before president Trump decided to be a candidate for the 2017 election

cycle, he was known to be in support of nuclear energy causing for price of Uranium today to

fluctuate. Paul R. La Monicam, a digital correspondent at CNNMoney, in his article Uranium

stocks are booming, thanks to Trump asserts that the change in stock of Uranium is due to

President Trumps ample support over nuclear energy. La Monicam illustrates this belief by

citing the stock changes in the biggest Uranium mining companies across the world and the

effects and changes that are being made to the value of their products as we get close and

closer to Donald Trumps inauguration. La Monicams lets people know that nuclear energy

might become a new focus for the United Statess energy production, ultimately varying the cost

of the electricity provided in order to meets the energy demand of its population and

simultaneously move away from fossil fuels. They establish a conversational relationship with

the audience of political enthusiasts who are interested in the ways that Donald Trump will

change power producing policies and the way the United States produces this power. One of

the main causes for this change in stock value is based on comments made by President Trump

many years ago, Several big Uranium mining stocks, is up nearly 40% since Election Day" (La

Monicam).

Out of all the studies about nuclear energy, there was only one that seemed to be

negative. David Abson in his journal Energy transitions and national development indicators: A

global review of nuclear energy production he asserts the idea that although nuclear energy

is said to have the potential to rid us of dependence on fossil fuels, countries that own

and use nuclear energy actually have higher rates of carbon emission than those who
 Chavoya 15

don't. Abson illustrates this belief by using a study that was conducted, looking at the rates of

carbon emissions and energy consumption. Abson attempts to have people realize that

although this technology seems to not have many negative effects, the energy produced by

these generators aren't as helpful as they are made seem in today's world in order to get people

to see that nuclear energy alone cannot end carbon emissions, it will also take effort from the

public to truly lower carbon emissions. The author establishes a formal relationship with its

audience of scholars who are interested in the truth about nuclear energy. While this does

sound like something negative related to nuclear energy, it is actually the contrary because

most countries with the capabilities of producing nuclear energy already depend on fossil fuels,

Nuclear countries (incl. phase out) used most energy per capita and resources (Abson 1).

Nuclear energy when compared to other forms of energy production, is the safest form of

energy with the least amount of deaths related to it. Viet Phuong, a journalist, in his recent

article "The Fate of Nuclear Power in Vietnam" he asserts that the vietnamese country are

extremely resilient to invest on nuclear power. Phuong illustrates this by taking into account

the many drawbacks that have gotten in the way of the construction on these reactors and the

fear from the people who do not fully understand the technology. Phuong writes this article and

describes the situation in vietnam very clearly in order to make people see that there is more

damage done to the people and the land by resorting to conventional forms of power

production. The author keeps a slightly formal relationship with his audience of vietnamese

citizens and other researches who are interested in the potential benefits that can be drawn

from the production of nuclear energy. Maintenance in other generators can be extremely

dangerous and have cost more lives that nuclear maintenance, On the other side, those in

favor of nuclear power can argue that it relieves a troubled energy mix, in which hydropower,
 Chavoya 16

still responsible for almost half of installed capacity, has gradually lost its charm due to

numerous deadly accidents (Viet Phuong).

Nuclear power plants are already the safest form of energy production, and recently,

more and more state of the art reactors are being produced, especially in China. , a

chinese journalist, in his news article, Goals Set for Nuclear Energy Development in 5 Years,

he asserts that China will be using more Nuclear Reactors to contribute to the energy

demand in the country as opposed to other forms of energy generation, such as fossil

fuels. developes his claim by stating that China is trying to move away from carbon

emitting sources of energy, and will be using nuclear reactors during their transition. The

purpose of this article was to encourage other developed nations into moving to temporary

nuclear energy plants in order to lower carbon emissions and aid the fight against global

warming while advances in solar and wind energy get the us closer to a world of entirely

renewable sources of energy. They intend to attract other developed nations who are trying to

move away from fossil fuels by stating that there will be new and more innovative reactors used

that produce less nuclear waste than the traditional old reactors and are much more efficient

with their fuel. These reactors provide a greater efficiency and a greater output of energy that

are also safer than its predecessors, The country will also launch some independent innovation

projects, including smart small-and-medium sized reactors, commercial fast reactors and

600,000 kW high temperature gas-cooled reactors ( 1).

One of the greatest disadvantages that come with nuclear energy is nuclear waste.

Galperin, an author and researcher, in her book Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Waste, asserts the

advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. Galperin illustrates this concept by

wringing exactly how nuclear waste was used before scientists discovered the dangers of

working with it further, and how these materials began to be used and treated as time went on.
 Chavoya 17

This text gets people to understand that as time goes on, the dangers of nuclear waste and

nuclear energy decrease significantly in order to make this renewable source of energy much

more reliable and safer for the environment, while still providing a plethora of power for the

people. Galperin establishes a slightly formal relationship with its audience of concerned

researchers that would like to know what the future may look like for nuclear energy and nuclear

waste. Ever since nuclear energy has been produced there has been the question of how to

properly dispose nuclear waste, When nuclear power plants were first constructed, it seemed

that the waste disposal problem would be easily solved by reprocessing and recycling spent

fuel. But reprocessing has proven to be a high-risk activity itself-one that generates plutonium, a

highly radioactive element, and other radioactive waste materials" (Galperin 21).

Although for many years it was thought that the only way to dispose of nuclear waste

was to allow the elements to dispose of their radioactive properties, new studies disagree.

Bowman, C. D., a nuclear scientist, in him and his teams new journal,Nuclear energy

generation and waste transmutation using an accelerator-driven intense thermal neutron

source, are stating that nuclear waste can be transmuted and used in other forms of

energy production, therefore, making nuclear energy less harmful to the environment

and much more practical. The team develop their claim by explaining what the study did and

how the waste material can be transmuted ultimately eliminating nuclear waste on a geological

timescale. The purpose of this article was to educate people about nuclear waste and how

technology and our reliance on energy production must shift away from fossil fuels in order to

prevent ay further damage to the environment by emitting less and less greenhouse gasses into

our atmosphere. The team establish a formal relationship with their audience of scientists,

researchers, and political leaders that may be wanting to decrease their dependence on fossil

fuels and are searching for the safest alternative. While nuclear energy would not be rid of
 Chavoya 18

completely with the new methods described, it will make them extremely short lived, No control

rods are required. The successful implementation of this new method for energy generation and

waste transmutation would eliminate the need for nuclear waste storage on a geologic time

scale (Bowman, C. D. 1).

Many often find it difficult to realize that nuclear energy seems to have more benefits

than defects in its production of energy. In an interview with Justin Wat, a nuclear and

mechanical engineer professor at Penn State College, he asserted that nuclear energy

actually has more benefits than people might expect. He illustrates this claim by clearly

stating that there are very few obstacles in the way of nuclear energy in order to perfect the

production of nuclear energy by eliminating nuclear waste. He kept a very professional

relationship with his interviewer that is interested in the future and the real usefulness and

feasibility of a mass production of nuclear energy in the world. In the interview he also suggests

that nuclear energy is actually safer than some of the techniques of energy production we are

using today, the greater threat to humans of the two byproducts is that of natural gas, as it

contaminates water to a point beyond what we can purify with the most modern technologies.

The biggest problem with the byproducts of nuclear energy is storage. It is difficult to properly

contain this radioactive matter in a form that can last for thousands of years. As technology

advances we are coming closer to forms of neutralizing the radioactivity and properly treating

this radioactive byproduct (Wat).

In an interview i conducted, i was curious to see how

my colleagues felt about nuclear energy, since in many of the

sources i used it was claimed that many feared the

technology. In my survey, i asked Do you think nuclear

power plants are safe?, as seen on the pie chart to the right,
 Chavoya 19

and the result was overwhelmingly no. My results supported the claims of many sources that i

used in my research. In my survey i also realized how a vast majority of the participants did not

know much about the subject at all. As stated multiple times in the findings and in sources i

have cited, there is repeated evidence to suggest that there is no emission of any greenhouse

gas of any nuclear reactor, therefore, nuclear energy cannot participate in the effects of global

warming. Despite this, many of the participants

in my survey agreed that nuclear power plants

contribute to global warming. As seen on the

figure to the left, over 70% of participants came

to the conclusion that nuclear energy does in

fact contribute to global warming.

Of all the sources, there were two arguments

that were used the most when attempting to

prove nuclear energy as likely negative form of energy production. These two arguments were

accidents, such as those of chernobyl and fukushima, and waste. There were other studies that

go to suggest that many countries that use nuclear energy are surprisingly bigger emitters of

greenhouse gasses than countries without nuclear reactors. Although this sounds like an

argument that opposes nuclear energy, there is actually a very simple and logical explanation

for this. This is only true because most developed countries that emit tons of greenhouse

gasses into the atmospheres are the same countries that are attempting to stray away from

fossil fuels.

In addition to this minor argument, an argument that is even more disturbing is those that

suggest that nuclear reactors are just bombs ready to explode. Nuclear reactors actually have

multiple systems in order to keep them under control. For example, in the reactor cores a
 Chavoya 20

moderator, usually water, is used in order to slow down particles such as neutrons. This fluid is

extremely important because it regulates the amount of energy produced as well as the speed

at which fission occurs. Another example of this control is the control rods made from neutron

absorbing Boron. These control rods are meant to aid the moderator fluid control the amount of

fission that occurs by allowing neutrons to be absorbed by the Boron in the rods, also slowing

the production of electricity. These two controls along with other emergency shut off systems

and incredibly strict regulations in plants makes it extremely difficult for a nuclear meltdown to

occur. In the case of chernobyl, during maintenance of fourth reactor core, regulations were not

followed. This eventually led to having an active reactor core without any cooling or a

moderator. This lack of regulation along with a poorly designed reactor is what caused the

meltdown, purely human error. As for the Fukushima meltdown, it was caused by the

simultaneous action of a tsunami and an earthquake. Although the nuclear reactor had multiple

safety systems that would prevent a meltdown from occurring, it was the simultaneous effects of

these two disasters that doomed the reactor. As stated in my findings, it is difficult to attempt to

prevent the unknown and at times the seemingly impossible as stated in Sheltons podcast The

problem with creating safety systems is that you can only plan for a possible scenario. For

example, the fukushima reactors in japan were built to withstand an earthquake and built to

stand without human intervention for a couple of days. They were not built to withstand both of

those things together with a tsunami as well. Something like this had never happened to japan

before, an earthquake of this magnitude followed by multiple tsunamis (Hakuryuu 42:09).

In the entirety of the research, there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that nuclear

energy is the best form of energy production. In a world where record breaking temperatures

are reached every summer, it is absolutely imperative that the major superpowers of the world

move away from forms of energy that emit greenhouse gasses. One of the major benefits that
 Chavoya 21

comes with nuclear energy is the lack in emissions of greenhouse gasses. Nuclear energy

does not cause global warming, and is one of the only forms of energy that is scalable. Another

form of energy production that produces massive amounts of electricity is hydropower, but this

form of energy is not scalable because of the constraints that come with such a generator, such

as a river or lake. When compared with other forms of energy that do not emit greenhouse

gasses, nuclear energy produces the cheapest form of electricity. The average cost per kilowatt

hour of nuclear energy is about two cents. When compared to solar, which costs six times

more, an average cost of twelve cents per kilowatt hour, the difference can be surprising. This

difference is especially revealing when you consider that it would take about forty five square

miles of solar panels to produce as much electricity as a single nuclear power plant. Another

reason why nuclear energy is the great form of energy production is because it is actually safer

than any other form of energy production, including solar. The death toll for a nuclear reactor is

about 0.04 deaths per terawatt hour, while for solar it is closer to 0.44 deaths per terawatt hour.

While many superpowers of the world are attempting to cut carbon emissions, one of the best

ways is to transition to entirely renewable forms of energy, but this is easier said than done.

Nuclear waste is also a hotly disputed topic but will soon become obsolete due to emerging

technologies.

Nuclear energy is extremely vital to the future because nuclear energy would crucial for

making up that difference that will come when more and more coal or gas generators are put to

rest. Without the help of nuclear reactors, the leap to fully renewable energy would be

dramatically longer and have dire, potentially irreversible, effects on the environment. With the

rising popularity in electric cars, it is safe to say this is only one of many other technologies that

will become electric. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and CTO of SpaceX, has said many times that

everything, with the exception of rockets, will become electric. This is a bold statement but one
 Chavoya 22

that we can see happening before our very eyes today. In this rapidly changing period of

technology, with a transition to more renewable forms of energy on the horizon, a quickly

growing population, and rapidly rising global temperatures, it is imperative that more energy is

produced while at the same time less tons of harmful greenhouse gasses are pumped into the

atmosphere. One of the most prominent forms of energy that can supply such a high demand

of electricity for many millennia to come is Nuclear Energy.

 Chavoya 23

Works Cited

Abson, David J. "Energy Transitions and National Development Indicators: A Global Review of
Nuclear Energy Production." Energy Transitions and National Development Indicators: A Global
Review of Nuclear Energy Production. Elsevier, 2017. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.

Asimov, Isaac, and David Wool. How Did We Find out about Nuclear Power? New York: Walker,
1976. Print.

Baek, Jungho. "Do Nuclear and Renewable Energy Improve the Environment? Empirical
Evidence from the United States." Do Nuclear and Renewable Energy Improve the
Environment? Empirical Evidence from the United States. Elsevier, July 2016. Web. 20 Jan.
2017.

Bowman, C. D. "Nuclear Energy Generation and Waste Transmutation Using an

Accelerator-driven Intense Thermal Neutron Source." Nuclear Energy Generation and Waste
Transmutation Using an Accelerator-driven Intense Thermal Neutron Source - ScienceDirect.
Elsevier, 15 Aug. 1992. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

Brown, Jon. "Radioactive Milk and the Lasting Threat of Chernobyl." The Independent.
Independent Digital News and Media, 18 Jan. 2017. Web. 21 Jan. 2017.

Degueldre, Claude. "Uranium as a Renewable for Nuclear Energy" Uranium as a Renewable for
Nuclear Energy. Elsevier, Jan. 2017. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

Doeden, Matt. Green Energy: Crucial Gains or Economic Strains? Minneapolis: Twenty-First
Century, 2010. Print.

Farmington, Craig Werth. "Letter: Nuclear Energy Work Is Safer than One Might Think."Victor
Post. Victor Post, 09 Jan. 2017. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

Fox, Karen C. The Chain Reaction: Pioneers of Nuclear Science. New York: Franklin Watts,
1998. Print.

Galperin, Anne. Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Waste. New York: Chelsea House, 1992. Print.

Global X Uranium ETF (URA). "Uranium Stocks Are Booming, Thanks to Trump"CNNMoney.
Cable News Network, 20 Jan. 2017. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

Helgerson, Joel. Nuclear Accidents. New York: F. Watts, 1988. Print.

Hermesauto. "Fukushima 'voluntary' Evacuees to Lose Housing Support." The Straits Times.
N.p., 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.
 Chavoya 24

Iwata, Hiroki. "Empirical Study on the Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 in France: The
Role of Nuclear Energy." Empirical Study on the Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 in
France: The Role of Nuclear Energy. Elsevier, Aug. 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

Nguyen, Viet Phuong. "The Fate of Nuclear Power in Vietnam" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
N.p., 05 Dec. 2016. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

Shelton, Jeff. "Nuclear Energy Episode 39." The Engineering Commons Podcast. Jeff Shelton, 3
Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.

"Unlocking Power of the Atom at Tarapur Nuclear Power Plant." YouTube. YouTube, 16 Dec.
2015. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.

. "Goals Set for Nuclear Energy Development in next Five Years." G oals Set for Nuclear
Energy Development in next Five Years - USA - Chinadaily.com.cn. N.p., 18 Jan. 2017. Web.
24 Jan. 2017.