MNN.COM > Earth Matters > Energy

Nuclear energy: Good or bad?

A primer to atomic power's hottest topics.
By PlentyMag.com
Tue, Mar 24 2009 at 10:46 AM EST
Read more: NUCLEAR ENERGY

Like a neutron colliding with an atom, two factors are igniting Americans, and particularly environmentalists, into reconciling a messy question: Do we or don’t we want to develop nuclear power? Eight years of the Bush administration’s heavily pro-nuclear policies with billions in government subsidies have roused the ailing nuclear industry. Simultaneously, our search for clean, greenhouse gas-free energy sources has turned urgent in the face of climate change. The mix of influences is propelling nuclear energy into the limelight for serious reconsideration. 
 
But many of the old concerns remain. Since the accident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island power plant in 1979, no applications for new nuclear power plant building permits were submitted for almost 30 years. While no one was killed or even hurt following the reactor’s partial meltdown, the public glimpsed the potential for disaster.
 
Nonetheless, the industry has persevered, claiming improved oversight and potential to improve air quality, although it has found no long-term solution for disposing of its radioactive waste. Today, 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states supply 20 percent of our electricity, making it our second largest energy source after coal.
 
Things began to heat up for the industry two weeks after President Bush took office in January 2001. He formed the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD), headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, which produced a National Energy Policy report by May of that year, recommending “the president support the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy.”
 
Following a long legal battle to force the release of NEPD documents to the public, environmental lawyers at Natural Resource Defense Council uncovered that industry lobbyists were integral in forming the president’s energy policy and his decision to launch a so-called nuclear revival. Over eight years the nuclear industry has received billions in government funds, while construction and operating license applications for 30 new reactors are in the works. Such support would likely increase if Arizona Sen. John McCain takes higher office next year. He recently said, “… the French are able to generate 80 percent of their electricity with nuclear power. There’s no reason why America shouldn’t.”
 
Meanwhile, research has mounted documenting current and potential impacts of climate change. The IPCC found the world must drastically and quickly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases expelled into the atmosphere to avoid the worst impacts of a warmer planet, which include rising oceans, more severe weather, destruction of ecosystems, and the spread of animal- and insect-borne diseases.
But there are no easy, off-the-shelf technologies currently available to enable such reductions. Research is underway, alternatives are being built, and waste-cutting efficiencies implemented, although none can yet accomplish the necessary cuts while feeding the world’s voracious and growing use of electricity ... except for maybe nuclear power.
 
In the coming week, we’ll delve into some of the arguments for and against increasing nuclear energy, but here we’ve briefly summed up some of the hot topics:
 
Emissions: Compared to other major existing energy sources, such as coal and oil, nuclear power emits almost no greenhouse gasses, or nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the primary components of air pollution.
 
Energy independence: Increasing American nuclear energy enables the country to reduce the amount of oil it imports from other parts of the world and provides reliable base-load power. However, there are limited stores of uranium isotope U-235, which is required for nuclear fission and is largely found in Canada, Australia and Niger.
 
Cost: The expense of building two advanced technology nuclear reactors was originally estimated at around $7 billion. The price tag recently rose to $14 billion and construction hasn’t even begun. Champions of wind, solar and other forms of alternative energy argue high cost and government support for nuclear are gobbling up money that could help develop less-established industries.
 
Environmental health and safety: The risk of a catastrophic reactor accident, as well as significant waste disposal problems, hangs around nuclear power’s neck like a noose. Uranium mining can also endanger the health of miners and people living near mines, as well as the environment, as radioactive ore waste has been shown to contaminate surface and groundwater.
 
Security: Underlying a nuclear chain reaction in both an energy reactor and weapon is an isotope called uranium-235. Reactor-grade uranium requires a 3-5 percent concentration of U-235, while weapon grade needs 90 percent concentration. Therefore anyone possessing U-235 and the necessary equipment can make either nuclear energy or bombs.
 
Impact on natural resources: The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that to keep cool, a typical 1,000 megawatt reactor requires about 476,500 gallons of water per minute be pumped through its system, a number that could nearly triple in some of the new, larger facilities. In some systems, the warmed water returned to its source — lake, river, ocean — contains low-level radioactivity. Also aquatic life circulated through the cooling system can be killed.
 
Story by Victoria Schlesinger. This article originally appeared in Plenty in May 2008. It was republished on MNN in March 2009.
 
Copyright Environ Press 2008


CLOSE link:

Comments(8)

Sort by:
Posted By Nasi - Mon, Dec 28 2009 at 6:50 PM EST

GO Renewable energy!

Renewable energy is the way to go! How long is the resources for nuclear energy going to last? 100 to 200 years maybe. Thats not a long time. Solar and wind energy will always be there.
GO Renewable energy

Posted By John - Thu, Dec 10 2009 at 8:04 PM EST

Nuclar Energy is bad

Nuclear Energy is bad we could all get killed from it from 1 mistake

Posted By ST. JIMMY!!! - Mon, Nov 30 2009 at 12:10 PM EST

WHO CARES

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER SO I DON'T SEE WHY THIS ONE ADD ON OF THE MILLION CAUSES OF DEATH IS SUCH AN ISSUE!!! LIVE IT UP BECAUSE LIFE = DEATH BECAUSE LIFE ISN'T LACK OF DEATH, ITS SIMPLY THE IDEA OF SLOWING DOWN THE PACE OF DEATH. WE ARE ALL READY DYING! WE STARTED DYING WHEN WE WERE BORN! SO ENJOY LIFE AND DIE AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!! AS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY WHO CARES THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT IT SUCKS THE MONEY OUTTA MY POCKET LIKE JIZZ FROM A DICK!!!

Posted By John - Thu, Dec 10 2009 at 8:05 PM EST

Realy

realy dude????????????

Posted By I LOVE nuclear energy - Thu, Jun 04 2009 at 9:21 PM EST

Nuclear Energy is the Way to Go!!!!

Nuclear energy is a very reliable source of energy. When was the last time the nuclear power stopped working? I can't remeber either. Nuclear power is often related with weapons and nuclear power plants were thought to explode like a nuclear bomb. But physics prove that nuclear power plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb. It is said that radiation leaks can cause cancer, and other diseases, but nuclear medicine can lead to the treatment of cancer and other diseases. It only takes a small.... More

Posted By bob - Tue, May 05 2009 at 10:23 AM EST

Nuclear energy is bad

Nuclear energy is horrible because we haave to store it and then it can leak out and get into our ground water and then we are drinking radio active material. Wind solar and other foarms are way better. Also nuclear cost so much money and is so dangerous.

Posted By Anonymous - Tue, Apr 14 2009 at 8:15 PM EST

Facts on Nuclear

Emissions: on a per electric energy unit basis nuclear power releases the lowest amount of greenhouse gases (EVEN LESS THAN SOLAR AND WIND POWER)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/...

Cost: Although the cost of nuclear power plants is

Posted By Anonymous - Thu, Apr 02 2009 at 3:52 PM EST

I suppose nuclear energy will

I suppose nuclear energy will be one of those never ending disputes from both sides. The positives of nuclear energy in its ability to produce clean energy versus the negatives of reprocessing and long-term storage.

Not being anything near a nuclear expert, couldn't the reactors be constructed sub-surface to reduce any risks with a malfunctions? There are reasons I can think of that may not make that proposal realistic although I've never seen any information to reflect the potential either.... More

Add your comment

You can't fool Mother Nature
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

ADVERTISEMENT

FROM OUR SPONSOR

Learning Power® EarthCents® Energy Efficiency Tips
Watts Up Save Money, Save Energy

SHEA'S RECENT POSTS

POLITICS, ENERGY, AND OUR EARTH'S RESOURCES
+ add this to my site

MNN ORIGINALS

Not sure which green way is best? Get answers from our experts.

Is your dog the Green Dog of the Year? Nominate your dog today.

Government data you need to know, in a way you can understand.

Check out eco-photos of the week, top 10 lists and more.

Learn more about everything from acid rain to wildlife.