A Proton Walks into a Bar

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Nuclear Power

By Luca Stewart
Luca Stewart

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Nuclear Technology

Nuclear power and weaponry are fairly recent technologies. Both were

developed in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project. In 1942, Enrico Fermi and his

team built the Chicago Pile-1 under the stands of Stagg Field at the University of

Chicago. In 1945, the first atomic bomb, named Trinity, went off in New Mexico. Shortly

after that, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ever since then, people have been debating about whether

nuclear technologies are safe and whether they are worth the cost.

Nuclear power was first conceived of in 1939, when two scientists figured out that

nuclear fission could release a lot of energy. Two other scientists patented the nuclear

reactor and began to build one. Nuclear research as also started in other countries,

including Germany. In 1942, the Germans abandoned any possibility of

nuclear-powered weapons. Russia also had many scientists working on nuclear energy.

They had a nuclear program dating back to 1909 and had a few cyclotrons (particle

accelerators) in use. They, however, did not make much progress. By 1943, the

Manhattan Project became focused solely on building the atomic bomb. In June 1945,

the first atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico. In August, the U.S. dropped two

atomic bombs on Japan.

In the Soviet Union, Stalin didnt think that an atomic bomb was necessary. When

they heard about the German, British, and American atomic bomb initiatives, they
began focusing on nuclear research. When Germany was defeated, they captured

German scientists and put them to work on nuclear research. This boosted their

research program, and by 1961, they had made and tested the largest atomic bomb in

history, the Tsar Bomba. The Soviets started expanding in Europe. The Americans

decided to try to contain Soviet expansion. The United States started a massive arms

buildup. In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb. In response the Americans

developed the hydrogen bomb, even more powerful than the atomic bomb. In 1952, the

US detonated the first hydrogen device. The Americans later simplified it into a

deliverable bomb, and tested it in 1954 (the Castle Bravo test). The Soviets responded

by building their own H-bomb.

On a non-military front, countries began reorienting their research to nuclear

electricity generation. In 1953, Eisenhower signed a program into law that directed

resources to electricity-generating nuclear reactors. The British also began to build

nuclear reactors. The Soviets founded the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering,

and built reactors for energy generation. Soon, countries all over the world built different

types of nuclear reactors. Some of these countries included France, Canada, the US,

the UK, Kazakhstan, and the Soviet Union. Everyone realized they had a seemingly

unlimited, emission-free, efficient energy source at their disposal. Nuclear power was,

and is, very efficient and relatively clean1. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, one

uranium pellet produces as much energy as one ton of coal or 17,000 cubic feet of

1
World Nuclear Association
natural gas. The Atomic Age had begun. Everyone thought that the world would be run

on nuclear power.

Nuclear reactor accidents started to happen. One of the first was in Russia, in

1957, when a nuclear reactor exploded spewing contamination everywhere. It is

recorded as the third worst nuclear accident, behind Fukushima and Chernobyl. More

accidents began to occur. There was an explosion that killed three people at an Army

prototype reactor in Idaho, and partial meltdown at a reactor on Three Mile Island, in

Pennsylvania. Popularity for nuclear power dropped immensely. Since then, at least in

the United States, popularity for nuclear power has been dropping steadily2. After the

Fukushima accident in 2011, many countries pledged to phase out their nuclear

reactors. Germany shut down eight of its seventeen functioning reactors, and said

theyre going to shut the rest of them down by 2022. Italy voted to stay non-nuclear, and

Spain and Switzerland banned building new reactors. Japan and Taiwan drastically

reduced the amount of operating reactors. Since 2012, Japan has restarted 54 of its

previously shut down power plants. Many countries, including Portugal and Australia,

have no nuclear power plants and say they wont build any.

Another reason many people dont like nuclear power is that it often results in

nuclear weapons proliferation. After the end of World War II, many people called for

nuclear weapons to be banned. The US and the Soviet Union agreed to put their

nuclear programs under international control. They actually were never going to give up

their bombs. In order to catch up with the Americans, the Soviet Union started a secret

2
Gallup Polls
nuclear research program. They tested their first atomic bomb in 1949. President

Truman, in the early 1950s, approved research to build a hydrogen bomb, a

fusion-powered bomb even more powerful than the atomic bomb. The Soviets soon

began developing their own H-bomb, and the nuclear arms race had begun. By 1954,

both countries had tested their own H-bombs. With the invention of the ICBM came

another wave of nuclear weapons build-ups. The United States and the Soviet Union

became enemies, each afraid the other would attack. It was one of the greatest

standoffs in history.

Many people say that nuclear weapons prevent major wars3. Lets say there was

a nuclear-armed state, and it was in a war with another nuclear state. One of them

decides to use nuclear weapons against the other, in order to deal a devastating blow to

the enemy. But the other state also has nuclear weapons, and fires back in retaliation,

perhaps with even more missiles. This hypothetical war demonstrates the very basis of

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), where any nuclear attack would result in

retaliation, thereby annihilating all players in a nuclear war. A lot of people such as

politicians and war strategists cite this as a reason to keep nuclear weapons around, as

they seemingly prevent wars.4

If everyone had nuclear weapons, there would be no wars, right? Actually, no.

Current nuclear deterrence doesnt work5. MAD only assumes that all players in a

nuclear war have the same nuclear weapons capabilities. If one country has more

nuclear weapons, it could potentially wipe out an opponent while suffering only relatively

3
Senate ICBM Coalition
4
Senate Republican Policy Committee
5
The Guardian
minor damages. Also, nuclear deterrence fails if one country is suicidal or psychotic,

and dont care about themselves, just the destruction of their enemies. Today, North

Korea has become a bigger and bigger threat due to their nuclear weapons tests and

their seemingly insane dictator. Some might argue that an ignorant and vengeful leader,

such as our current president, could also start a nuclear war. Another reason that MAD

deterrence could fail is just a simple diplomatic misunderstanding. This is very well

illustrated in movies like War Games and Dr. Strangelove. There is an idea called

minimum deterrence where each country keeps only enough nuclear weapons to deter

an opponent from attacking. Many countries practice minimum deterrence such as

Britain, France, and China. The United States, or course, does not. Complete nuclear

annihilation and the failure of nuclear deterrence are probably the biggest problems with

nuclear technology.

Why cant we have nuclear power without nuclear weapons? Most countries use

nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons. Two very recent cases are Iran and

North Korea. Most countries that develop nuclear power end up building nuclear

weapons. Many countries wanted to put safeguards into place after the bombings of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed into

effect in the 1970s and has done some great work. In the 1960s it was widely predicted

that there would be around 30-35 countries with nuclear weapons by the turn of the

century. In fact, there were only eight. There are currently 189 different countries are in

the NPT, and only a few main countries remain out: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North

Korea. Several countries have found their way around the NPT, though. North Korea, in
order to receive a nuclear power plant from the USSR, reluctantly agreed to join the

NPT in 1985. They delayed inspections until 1992. When they were inspected by the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), they were given instructions to allow two

extra inspections, given the fact that they had postponed the initial safeguards

agreement. Right before this was going to happen, North Korea announced their

withdrawal from the NPT. The IAEA alerted the UN Security Council, and negotiations

began. North Korea eventually agreed to halt its nuclear weapons program in exchange

for five billion dollars in energy assistance, which included two light water nuclear

reactors.

In 2002, however, North Korea ordered all IAEA inspectors out of their country,

and removed IAEA seals from their reactors. In 2003 it withdrew from the NPT and

restarted a reactor to enrich weapons-grade plutonium. This past year, North Korea has

had several nuclear tests, and has launched missiles towards the Sea of Japan. Iran

also did a similar thing. In the 1970s, Iran joined the NPT and all throughout the 1980s

and 90s claimed that they had no nuclear weapons programs. In the 1990a and

2000s it was discovered (through IAEA inspections) that they were processing highly

enriched uranium, which could be used to create weapons-grade plutonium. Since then,

the U.S. has had negotiations with Iran. Iran has agreed to stop its nuclear weapons

program in exchange for lifting sanctions on them. However, none of these incidents

were caused by the use of civil nuclear power. All of the reactors used for the making of

nuclear weapons were clandestine military operations.

 One of the more mundane problems with nuclear power is the storage of spent

nuclear fuel. Nuclear reactors produce a lot of highly radioactive waste. Currently, most

waste is stored in big pools or dry cases underground. The problem is that uranium

waste doesnt decay for anywhere from thirty to a thousand years. There are several

ideas for what to do with nuclear waste. Some of these include the reprocessing of

nuclear waste, permanent disposal in one place, and even launching waste into the Sun

or the moon6. All of these carry many problems. The reprocessing of nuclear waste is

expensive and has a higher risk of weapons proliferation (as weapons-grade plutonium

can be found in enriched uranium waste). The U.S. government has courted the second

idea, the one repository for nuclear waste, and even built a facility. Yucca Mountain was

built in Nevada, but has never been used. The people of Nevada voted against using

the facility, deeming it too unsafe. And we cant launch nuclear waste into the Sun or the

moon. Rockets have a tendency to blow up7, and you wouldnt want to have an

explosion that spreads highly radioactive fallout everywhere. Nuclear waste is a big

problem, and its a major drawback to the use of nuclear power plants.

There is a solution however. There is an alternative to uranium power plants. The

Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor uses thorium instead of uranium. Thorium has many

benefits. It is almost three times as abundant as uranium, and there is enough buried on

U.S. soil to power the country for the next thousand years.8 Another benefit is that the

waste from thorium reactors cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons. Thorium also

produces much less waste, about two orders of magnitude less than uranium, which

6
NuclearFiles.org
7
SpaceX, NASA
8
Thorium Energy Alliance
greatly lessens the need for massive long-term storage. Thorium waste also decays

much faster than uranium. Thorium alo does not require an enrichment process, and

thorium mining is safer than uranium mining. It is also estimated that one ton of thorium

is equivalent to 200 tons of uranium.9 The only reason that thorium reactors arent

widely used is that there are conflicting studies about whether thorium is cheaper or

more efficient than uranium. It also needs to be tested before it goes into commercial

production, and the testing is very expensive. But with some extra government funding,

something like another Manhattan Project, we could have extremely efficient energy

that is pretty cheap.

Even if there is no extra funding for the research of a thorium reactor, uranium

reactors are a great technology. They are extremely safe, safer even than hydroelectric

power. In 2002, the International Energy Agency did a study where they evaluated

compared deaths per unit of power generated of different kinds of energy generation.

This study included deaths caused by emissions or radiation. Nuclear power came out

best, and coal was the worst. Coal plants even release up to one hundred times the

amount of radiation that nuclear plants do10. It is estimated that for every one death from

nuclear there are 4,000 from coal. Particles from coal kill 13,200 people a year in the

United States alone, whereas the US nuclear power program has not killed anyone.

Even one of the biggest nuclear accidents in history, Chernobyl, will only kill 9,000

people because of cancer, the UN, estimates. There was an accident in 1975 in China,

where a hydroelectric dam flooded and killed 230,000 people. In total, nuclear energy

9
CERN
10
Scientific American
has killed less than one hydroelectric accident. Nuclear energy is also emission-free. It

does not emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, and emits no air pollution. The use of

nuclear power plants in 2015 prevented the emission of 564 million metric tons of

carbon dioxide.11 The construction of the plant, mining, and fuel processing also

produce less carbon dioxide than even solar. Nuclear plants, at 13 tons of carbon

dioxide, produce the least carbon dioxide in construction and processing than any other

fuel (solar produces 53 tons).12 Nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest energy

sources, and is better than many of its alternatives.

Uranium power is the best power source. One kilogram of uranium can produce

as much fuel as 3 million kilograms of coal or 2 million kilograms of oil13. Uranium is also

incredibly abundant. Mines currently produce 60,000 tons a year. Also, nuclear power

costs way less than other energy sources. The cost of fuel is cheaper, and it costs less

to build a nuclear power plant than, say, a coal plant. A typical nuclear plant produces

power for over 700,000 homes while only using about 20 metric tons of fuel14. Nuclear

waste is actually not more hazardous or hard to manage than other industrial wastes.15

And, unlike other wastes, like chemicals, nuclear waste gets safer over time. In the 35

OECD countries, around 300 million tons of toxic waste is produced each year, but

nuclear power only produces 81,000 cubic meters of waste. There are many safe ways

to store nuclear waste, through burial in steel and concrete containers deep

underground. These containers are resistant to radiation leaks for up to 10,000 years.

11
Nuclear Energy Institute
12
Nuclear Energy Institute
13
European Nuclear Society
14
Nuclear Energy Institute
15
World Nuclear Association
The World Nuclear Association evaluated the nuclear fuel management program and

found that it is economically viable, will not present a burden on future generations, has

a sustainable impact level, and protects human health and the environment.

Nuclear weapons proliferation is also pretty rare and heavily regulated. Most

countries have denounced nuclear weapons, and have made no concerted effort to

develop them. There are only a few countries with nuclear weapons. The Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

have curbed nuclear proliferation using heavy regulations and inspections. The IAEA,

using the resources the UN provides, can track all nuclear material shipments in and out

of any nuclear facility. They perform rigorous inspections, analyzing and sampling all

nuclear materials in such facilities. They also, with the cooperation of countries that are

part of the NPT, can surveill and put people on the ground at nuclear plants. All

countries must accept IAEA inspections. The countries that dont agree are threatened

with diplomatic and economic sanctions.

The IAEA was founded by the UN, and supports developing peaceful nuclear

energy uses, and they have been pretty successful. Currently, all the states with nuclear

weapons, excepting Israel, North Korea, and Russia are under IAEA safeguards.

Russia however, is planning to make many of their nuclear facilities subject to IAEA

safeguards in the near future. Also, of the countries in the NPT, civil nuclear power has

never led to nuclear weapons.16 The uranium used for electricity generation is not

enriched enough to be weapons-grade. The allowance of an import of uranium without

16
World Nuclear Association
enough regulation is what led countries such as Iran and North Korea to develop

nuclear weapons. In 1993, through the Additional Protocol, the IAEA was given more

information and surveillance regarding nuclear development and trade; greater rights of

access; and automatic visa renewal for IAEA inspectors. Currently there are 129 states

that have the Additional Protocol in full force. The only countries who have not signed

the Additional Protocol are Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea17. Ceasing the use of civil

nuclear power and trade would only make regulation harder and increase the risk of

weapons proliferation.

The use of nuclear power plants is a very good idea. Nuclear power is way more

efficient than any other type of electricity generation method. It is up to 3 million times

more efficient than other types of electricity generation, and is the safest. Its waste is

less toxic than other types of industrial waste, and it is practically emission-free. It has

some risks, such as weapons proliferation, but that is heavily regulated by international

organizations and treaties. And, with some more investment, many of these current

problems could be solved, using technology such as thorium reactors. Nuclear power is

far better than any other power source. It is extremely clean and has had far less

disastrous accidents that its alternatives, mainly coal and gas. More countries should

embrace nuclear power as a replacement for coal, oil, and gas. This would drastically

reduce carbon emissions and pollution, and provide a much more efficient source of

electricity. The use and research of nuclear power can improve the drastic energy

situation we are in today.

17
IAEA
 Bibliography

"Radioactive Waste Management." World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear

Association, Apr. 2017. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/ra

dioactive-waste-management.aspx>.

Author: Marion Brnglinghaus, ENS, European Nuclear Society. "Fuel Comparison."

Fuel Comparison. European Nuclear Society, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm>.

"Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation." Nuclear Proliferation Safeguards -

World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferatio

n/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx#Undeclared>.

"Protecting the Environment." Protecting the Environment - Nuclear Energy Institute.

Nuclear Energy Institute, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Protecting-the-Environment>.

"Fact Sheets." Quick Facts: Nuclear Energy in America - Nuclear Energy Institute.

Nuclear Energy Institute, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Quick-Fact

s-Nuclear-Energy-In-America>.

"The Nuclear Renaissance." The Nuclear Renaissance - World Nuclear Association.

World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/the-n

uclear-renaissance.aspx>.

Kanter, James. "Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling?" The New York Times. The New

York Times, 29 May 2009. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

 <https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/is-the-nuclear-renaissance-fizzling/?_r=1

>.

"Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies." Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies - World

Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferatio

n/appendices/nuclear-proliferation-case-studies.aspx>.

"Timeline of Iran's Nuclear Activities." Timeline of Iran's Nuclear Activities | The Iran

Primer. United States Institute of Peace, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/timeline-irans-nuclear-activities>.

Letter, Open. "Nuclear Progress, but Dangers Ahead | Open Letter." The Guardian.

Guardian News and Media, 14 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/14/nuclear-prolifera

tion-washington-summit>.

Gallup, Inc. "For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy." Gallup.com.

Gallup, 18 Mar. 2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx>.

" The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." Nobelprize.org. Nobel

Prize Organization, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html>.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/waste/moon_wast

e_repository.htm

Post, Willem. "Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes." The

Energy Collective. The Energy Collective, 10 Dec. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-comp

ared-other-causes>.
 "The Mixed Fate of Nuclear Power After Chernobyl Meltdown." Time. Time, n.d. Web.

05 Apr. 2017.

<http://time.com/4307796/chernobyl-anniversary-nuclear-energy-industry/>.

"Fossil Fuels Are Far Deadlier than Nuclear Power." New Scientist. New Scientist, n.d.

Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-th

an-nuclear-power/>.

Hvistendahl, Mara. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste." Scientific

American. Scientific American, 13 Dec. 2007. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear

-waste/>.

Hansen, James, and Pushker Kharecha. "Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than

Nuclear Power." NASA. NASA, 04 Nov. 2015. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-p

ower/>.

"World Nuclear Association." Information Library - World Nuclear Association. World

Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

<http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library.aspx>.