A great topic to discuss on Earth Day is the types of energy we use, how we use them, and the pros and cons of each. Since an analysis on each of the popular energy sources (wind, solar, water, etc.) would take an entire publication of space by itself, this article will focus on the one which is perhaps the most debated — nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy takes uranium atoms and conducts nuclear fission — splitting them — to eject heat and radiation. Because of this split, neutrons from the atom’s nucleus are released and go on to collide with other uranium atoms, split them, and cause what is known as a nuclear chain reaction.
Uranium atoms can take the form of one of many types of uranium isotopes. Isotopes are atoms of an element that have the same number of protons but differ in their number of neutrons. Specifically, U-235 is the isotope variety that is used in nuclear power production. So, even though uranium is 100 times more common than silver, the U-235 isotope is harder to come by.
According to the Department of Energy, nuclear energy is the “largest source of clean power” in the United States. Since fission is used to produce nuclear energy, “The heat released […] is used to create steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity without the harmful byproducts emitted by fossil fuels.” This means that nuclear energy releases no emissions into the environment, which benefits our air quality and personal health.
Another notable benefit of nuclear energy is that its production requires a much smaller amount of land than other sources of energy. According to a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis, “Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility,” and “Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area.” When compared to alternative energy sources, the space nuclear energy plants need to operate is significantly smaller.
Alex Wellerstein, Assistant Professor and Director of Science and Technology Studies at Stevens, as well as a published author and historian of science and nuclear technology, weighed in on some of his thoughts regarding nuclear energy in an email interview with The Stute.
According to Wellerstein, “The main benefit of nuclear power is that it is a form of power we can use to dial up a lot of megawatts on demand.” He continued to speak on the positives of nuclear energy by explaining, “Nuclear power is capital intensive, but produces steady, reliable electrical energy in very large amounts with a relatively small “footprint” (the plants, though large, produce a huge amount of energy on demand). Unlike many renewables, the base load production is always high (whereas wind or solar require weather and atmospheric conditions to be good).”
As with any energy source, though, nuclear power does have its drawbacks; these challenges are important to note and take into account when considering the application of nuclear energy. Safety concerns are an issue, as nuclear accidents are something we are all too familiar with.
On April 26, 1986, an explosion occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant’s No. 4 nuclear reactor in Ukraine during a routine test at the plant, causing a total of 30 direct casualties and thousands more future fatalities due to the radiation released. On March 11, 2011, another nuclear disaster occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan due to its cooling systems failing as a result of the devastating earthquake that ripped through the region.
Environmentally, while nuclear energy does not release emissions, it does produce radioactive waste. According to a blog post from Science in the News at Harvard University, “This waste, composed of mostly unconverted uranium along with intermediate products plutonium and curium, stays radioactive for extremely long periods, too, presenting a major problem in regards to storage.” Keeping the material buried deep underground is the only way we currently know how to set aside the waste.
Cost is another challenge that discourages the use of nuclear energy, as previously noted by Wellerstein. According to Climate Nexus, “The levelized cost of nuclear power is relatively high compared to other energy sources: the minimum cost per megawatt hour to build a new nuclear plant is $112, compared to $46 for utility-scale solar, $42 for combined cycle gas, and $30 for wind.” Since nuclear energy is very costly to produce, people point to alternative, cheaper energy sources as the solution.
All of this raises an interesting question — will the United States ever switch to use nuclear energy as its primary energy source? Currently, we mostly rely on petroleum sources, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration states, “Petroleum products, such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel oil, and hydrocarbon gas liquids, have remained the largest sources of primary energy consumed in the United States since 1950.” From the perspective of Wellerstein, the financial costs and politics surrounding nuclear energy are the main barriers preventing a nationwide switch to nuclear energy.
Wellerstein added, “The two obstacles to the United States switching to majority nuclear power that I see are the high cost, which would require a level of investment that I think is hard to imagine the private sector engaging in without serious motivation, and the political controversies, which would require a lot of changing of how people see nuclear. Neither of these obstacles are technically insurmountable. But they are very large. Even if one has a more modest goal (the current share of nuclear power in the US is 20%, so getting to +50% is asking quite a lot), these challenges still loom large.”
Furthermore, Wellerstein explained his own take on nuclear energy, expressing “I do not see myself as ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ nuclear power in general. It always depends on the implementation; there are better and worse designs, better and worse places to put them, better and worse regulatory systems, and so on. I like to believe a nuanced view on this is possible, though I find that most people who have any opinion on it are either extremely committed to it, or extremely against it, and that makes it very hard to have a complex conversation about the issue. It has made the politics of it extremely difficult, and for that reason I am not especially optimistic that nuclear will play a major role in mitigating climate change.”
Having open-minded discussions and taking a “nuanced,” neutral stance on the matter can serve as a starting point for us to be unified in an effort to employ more, or less, nuclear energy in the future. Perhaps it is time we take a step back to really dig into the pros and cons of nuclear energy, without shutting down opposing beliefs on the matter and compare its characteristics to those of other prominent energy sources. It will likely serve us and our planet better in the long run.
Be First to Comment