Schmitt 1

Jenna Schmitt

ENG 1201

Cassel

2 May 2021

Nuclear Energy

As of 2020, forty percent of the U.S.’s energy source was fueled from natural gas. It provided us

with approximately one-thousand six-hundred and seventeen kilowatts of energy an hour. And though

natural gas produces less carbon dioxide emission compared to coal, it is still a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are

infamous for their pollutants that get trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere that some believe cause global

warming. Nuclear energy, however, does not produce such pollutants, it provides the U.S. with 55% of its

carbon free energy, making it the cleanest and most practical source of low-carbon emission energy.

Figure 1: Image showing a visual representation of the fission of atoms (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

There are three distinct ways of generating nuclear energy; fission, fusion, and radioactive decay.

While fission involves the splitting of atoms, fusion involves the combining of atoms. Radioactive decay,

on the other hand, occurs when the atoms break down naturally over time and releases heat energy. All

three of these processes involve a special reactor in order to harvest the energy the atoms produce. Most

of the energy produced, however, is from the fission of atoms, Uranium in particular. Uranium is the atom
 Schmitt 2

of choice because it is the Earth’s heaviest naturally occurring element with ninety-two protons. When the

atoms of this element separate, they give off large amounts of energy that heats the water in the reactor to

a very high temperature, which creates steam. The steam spins these turbines that are attached to a power

generation system. The kinetic energy produced from the spinning turbines is then stored and distributed

via a power grid (Proctor).

Nuclear energy is the U.S.'s prime source of carbon-free emission energy. It produces

considerably more power than hydroelectricity, its leading competitor. With this in mind, nuclear energy

could very well be the solution to climate change the people have been looking for. Because fossil fuels

emit greenhouse gases that get trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, many believe they are the root of

climate change. Climate change is the long-term effect on the weather patterns of the Earth. So, because

the population uses so much of these fossil fuels, they are emitting more and more harmful radiations to

the Earth that cause it to undergo different global and regional climate patterns. Nuclear energy, however,

does not pose such a threat to the environment. It emits no greenhouse gases and produces more energy

than fossil fuels with less raw materials, making nuclear energy a cleaner, more efficient, alternative to

fossil fuels.

Figure 2 Bar graph of the amount of energy produced by nuclear energy and its competing energy sources

Wind, solar, and hydroelectricity are also clean alternatives to fossil fuels, however, they do not

compare with nuclear energy. Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Max Schulz,

states that “Those 64 planned nuclear reactors would have been capable of generating more than 500
 Schmitt 3

billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually…” (Schulz). It was also mentioned that for solar power to

generate as much energy as a single, commercial nuclear reactor, it would need about 11,000 acres of

solar panels. As for wind power, it would take about 60,000 acres of wind turbines that are fifty stories

high to match that of a nuclear reactor. With that in mind, it is clear that nuclear energy is the better

alternative to carbon-free energy. To add on, wind, solar, and hydroelectricity may be renewable

resources, they are not around the clock resources like nuclear energy. Wind power is never a guaranteed

power considering there must be wind in order to generate power. Solar power is also not a guaranteed

power. For solar power to work, the sun would have to beam down onto the solar panels, but the sun is

only out half of the day, assuming it is not cloudy. Nuclear energy occurs a consistent twenty-four hours a

day, and even though Uranium is not a renewable resource, as stated previously, it takes a very small

amount to produce mass amounts of electricity; it provides more bang for its buck.

Even though nuclear energy does not harm the environment the way fossil fuels do, it often

carries a negative connotation because of the nuclear disasters that have taken place in the past. The

accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, for example, was ranked the number one worst nuclear

accident in the world. The power plant had twice exploded, resulting in the deaths of thirty men, ruined

vegetation, radioactive debris, and more, scattered about (Wellerstein). The cleanup of said disaster took

mass amounts of workers over six months to cover the area with a protective concrete layer. Historian of

science and assistant professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology is New Jersey, Alex Wellerstein,

points out that “For many people in the West, Chernobyl has served as a kind of referendum on nuclear

power. Those who oppose it see disaster as the ultimate embodiment of industrial folly” (Wellerstein).

What Wellerstein is implying is that those who oppose nuclear power, will only see the disaster that

comes with it, but those who propose the idea of nuclear power, on the other hand, see it as an

encouragement for better and safer reactors. And though some of it seems like a red flag for nuclear

energy, it is not so black and white. The events at Chernobyl took place in 1986, which was over three

decades ago. Technology continues to improve everyday and the accidents that have once happened in the

past are far less likely to occur in the present.

Another negative connotation nuclear energy receives is its use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear

weapons are made from the by-product of nuclear fuel, plutonium. Plutonium is a specific radioactive

chemical that requires a special repository buried deep underground. Its short-ranged alpha-particle

emission can cause cancer and/or other life-threatening conditions if exposed to it (“Nuclear Energy”).

This characteristic is what makes it the perfect candidate for nuclear weapons. The confusion between

nuclear weapons and nuclear energy can be misleading, however. Nuclear energy is generated by the

fission of atoms, but nuclear weapons on the other hand, are created by the fusion of atoms. The

technology and physics of the two are not the same. In addition, Ted Nordhaus, the co-founder and

executive director of The Breakthrough Institute, ensures that “Nuclear energy, by contrast, has been

tightly regulated from the beginning, originally by the Atomic Energy Commission and then by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (Nordhaus). This is a reassurance that nuclear energy provides clean

and safe energy. There are jobs dedicated to ensuring that civilian nuclear energy plants are disposing of

their waste efficiently, effectively, and at no harm to the public.

Along with nuclear accidents and weapons, some believe nuclear energy is too costly for its

inefficiency. This allocation, however, is false. Nuclear energy, in fact, compares very nicely with that of

natural gas, coal, and other fossil fuels. It is stated that “…a single nuclear power plant using only a small

quantity of uranium can produce enough electricity to power a one thousand megawatt station, which is

roughly equivalent to the amount of electricity needed by between four hundred thousand and nine

hundred thousand US households for one year” (“Nuclear Energy”). To sum this up, nuclear energy

provides an amazing fuel to power ratio, the cost of nuclear energy cannot be put down for its cost

because its benefits outweigh the cost tremendously.

Nuclear energy may come with some baggage, but fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas fall

prey to their baggage as well. The difference, however, is that nuclear energy does not produce any

greenhouse gases or emit carbon into the atmosphere, which many believe is the main source of global

warming and climate change. Nuclear energy gets a bad rap due to its unpleasant history, but as

technology has advanced tremendously in the past few decades, so has nuclear. Many of the

misconceptions, like the associations of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, are just that,
 Schmitt 5

misconceptions. These misconceptions lead people into believing that nuclear energy is worse for the

environment than it actually is. Though nuclear energy does not emit carbon or greenhouse gases, it does

produce the by-product Plutonium. On the plus side, this element can be disposed of into deep

repositories where it causes no harm to the population; there are even jobs dedicated to ensuring the waste

products of nuclear energy is disposed of properly. Furthermore, nuclear energy surpasses wind, solar,

and hydroelectricity tremendously. As stated previously, it takes a very small amount of Uranium to

produce mass amounts of energy, much more energy than wind, solar, and hydro. In conclusion, Nuclear

energy is the best alternative to fossil fuel for the future because of its fuel to power ratio and its non-

carbon emission properties.

Works Cited

Basu, Dipak, and Victoria Miroshnik. The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy: Prospects and

Retrospect. , 2019. Internet resource.

Delano, James Whitlow, et al. "Eerie Reminders Of Nuclear Disaster Haunt Fukushima." New York

Times, 11 Mar. 2021, p. A15(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A654530795/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=a27d533e. Accessed

15 Mar. 2021.

National Geographic Society. “Nuclear Energy.” National Geographic Society, 9 Oct. 2012,

www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/nuclear-

energy/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20produces%20electricity%20that,began%20powering%2

0itself%20in%201951.

"Nuclear Energy." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999227/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=4294f37a.

Accessed 15 Mar. 2021.

“Nuclear Explained.” Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 17 April 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/. Accessed 29 March 2021.

Ohta, Hiroshi. “The Analysis of Japan’s Energy and Climate Policy from the Aspect of Anticipatory

Governance.” Energies (19961073), vol. 13, no. 19, Oct. 2020, p. 5153. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.3390/en13195153.

Proctor, Darrell, et al. “Power Generation News and Jobs in Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Renewables.” POWER

Magazine, www.powermag.com/the-power-interview-keeping-nuclear-power-viable/.

Roberts, Patrick, et al. "US ROLE IN GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY MARKET." Issues in Science

and Technology, vol. 36, no. 3, 2020, p. 11+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A626205630/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=70f7ca82. Accessed

15 Mar. 2021.
 Schmitt 7

Sarewitz, Daniel. "Necessary but not Sufficient?" Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 36, no. 2,

2020, p. 17+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A615490516/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=6d086a89.

Accessed 15 Mar. 2021.

Schulz, Max. "Only Nuclear Can Provide All the Green Energy We Need." Nuclear Energy, edited

by Debra A. Miller, Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010706219/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=c01dcbf6.

Accessed 1 Mar. 2021. Originally published as "Three Mile Island's Three-Decade Mark: It's

Time to End the Nuclear Industry's 30-Year Sentence," City Journal, 26 Mar. 2009.

Stamoulis, Costantinos, and Mirofora Pilakouta. “Nuclear Energy - Radioactive Waste.” E-Journal of

Science & Technology, vol. 15, no. 3, July 2020, pp. 17–29. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=iih&AN=147746761&site=eds-live.

Wellerstein, Alex. "The Battles of Chernobyl." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale,

2021. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/DJOLKC806206498/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=3e621727.

Accessed 17 Mar. 2021. Originally published as "The Battles of Chernobyl," The New Yorker, 26

Apr. 2016.

“What Is Nuclear Energy?” Films On Demand, Films Media Group, 2013,

fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=19259&xtid=155097. Accessed 1 Mar. 2021.

Williams, Arthur R. "Nuclear Power Is the Best Way to Address Climate Change." The Environment,

edited by Lynn M. Zott, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010132401/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=3c38e4c0.
 Schmitt 8

Yao, Xing, et al. "Inequalities by energy sources: An assessment of environmental quality." PLoS ONE,

vol. 15, no. 3, 2020, p. e0230503. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A618077698/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=94762b71.

Accessed 15 Mar. 2021.