1

Mohammed Babaa
51309
ENG-204
18/1/2015
Nuclear Power
Producing sustainable energy is a global concern right now. With fossil fuels being
depleted at a much faster pace than ever before and energy demands increasing, there is a need
for fast renewable energy which could meet the global demands. Nuclear energy is such a source
of energy that can meet global demands as well as providing sustainable energy at economical
rates while preserving the natural resources. However, nuclear energy is a very dangerous type of
energy as any kind of mishandling could lead to disasters and can cause more harm than good.
First of all it is important to note that every form of energy that is produced has its own
form of waste. Nuclear energy has nuclear waste which is more hazardous than any other waste
that can be produced. Nuclear waste has half-lives of 10,000s of years. No civilization has ever
lasted that long. Is it ethical to be creating a form of waste that will require careful storage for a
timeframe longer than any civilization has lasted? Also managing the waste is expensive. There
are expensive ways to dispose of long-lived radioactive waste. Sweden, for instance, has spent
$14 billion and rising to manage its radioactive waste and is now decommissioning its reactors.
(naturaledgeproject, 2013)
Nuclear waste is not something that is easily disposed of and therefore requires more
investments to dispose the wastes. If this waste is not disposed properly, it can actually take lives
and remain continuous for decades. Fossil fuels are be hazardous to the environment and the
main cause for global warming, but nuclear wastes are more life threatening if compared to the

wastes of other energy sources, but governments are using nuclear power as it is a better form of
energy production than from fossil fuels, because the waste of nuclear energy cannot be seen by
naked eyes like the smoke of burning coal.
The thing is that governments do not mention the harmful effects of nuclear energy
production. The governments along with investors seek high profits from such tradeoffs as the
need from the industries for energy is exceeding production. The demand for sustainable energy
is provoking governments and businesses to eye the option of nuclear energy due to its
profitability.
The authorities do not mention its disadvantages most of the time for special reasons.
And one of its possible reasons is the fact that the authorities dont want to lose the huge income
that can be generated from it as a huge source of electricity and energy for businesses and
growing industries in the different parts of the globe nowadays. (healthresearchfunding, 2014)
Businessmen and governments argue that security is present at nuclear facilities and the
design of nuclear plants is able to sustain the risks of natural disasters. High risks are always
present in its negative impacts to human beings and nature. It is true that nuclear power plants
have high standards for security. However, 100 percent security is still not enough to prevent the
dangerous accidents that may destroy its protective features for the people and environment.
Radiation is one of its most harmful effects to people and nature. Therefore, once the radiation
reaches the facilities and nature, its damage is hard or even impossible to recover.
(healthresearchfunding, 2014)
Nuclear plants are very difficult to build and need a specific type of construction and
space to be built in. Nuclear plants cannot be constructed easily. Its main source of nuclear

energy is uranium. Uranium is a very limited resource in this world. (healthresearchfunding,

2014) Uranium is a natural resource as well and is much more expensive to harvest with only
limited amount of it available in the environment.
Nuclear energy requires large plants to be built that produce energy through a scientific
process known as nuclear fission. These plants are built with strong exteriors to withstand natural
disasters like storms, and also because the nuclear fission process is quite strong in itself. The
plants are specially designed and made with the strongest materials like concrete and metal pipes
to support the overall production process. The workers at such plants are required to wear special
clothes to protect them from any radiation. A notable incident was the nuclear plant incident that
occurred in Japan not too long ago due to a tsunami. Japan was hit by massive earthquake and
tsunami, resulting in thousands of tragic deaths, as well as a nuclear disaster in Fukushima
(Lucas, 2012). Japan is still not fully recovered from the incident as the radiation spill was much
more than what could be contained. The natural disaster took thousands of lives but the nuclear
plant was a disaster of its own, and will continue to inflict its harm for decades to come. The
inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear
technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. (Lucas, 2012)
Nuclear plant facilities are tested for their safety. However, the tests fail to assess the full
risks of nuclear power, ignoring crucial factors such as fires, human failures, degradation of
essential infrastructure or the impact of an airplane crash (Lucas, 2012). One example of such
failure was The Chernobyl accident which caused its own destruction due to a simple failure in
design. The results of the destruction of Chernobyl were: one person died straight away and a
second suffered from injuries and passed away in the hospital. Moreover, thirty causalities vary
between operators and firemen within three months and more people died after that. Reports

informed that 237 were attacked by acute radiation syndrome (ARS) and 134 cases were actually
true. As a result, 28 people died because of ARS within months of the incident. Furthermore,
nineteen passed away between 1987 and 2004 (World Nuclear Association, 2014) . The amount
of deaths piled up after a relatively small incident and much larger figures are expected from the
incident in Japan. There are many other incidents at nuclear plants that exist with devastating
impacts on the society. The harms inflicted by the nuclear plants outweigh the amount of good
they bring.
Since September 11, 2009, the world has been plagued with attacks from different
terrorists on different countries. The whole world has turned into a form of war zone, and nuclear
facilities pose a threat to the countries that have nuclear reactors providing energy to them. The
main two parts of nuclear power plants are the nuclear reactors and the
spent cooling pools. If an airplane attacks the reactors and makes it collide, it
can lead to an enormous explosion (Physicians for Social Responsability, 2006). These
kinds of threats possess an extreme amount of danger on the society. If terrorist begin targeting
nuclear plants the outcome of such attacks would be devastating, more than what was
experienced on 9/11.
The harms that exist from nuclear energy production are immense. The decades of impact
on countries who have already suffered to nuclear energy should provide enough support to the
argument that it is not the safe way to go for sustainable energy production.
The demand for alternate sources of power is ever increasing. More industries are being
built and population is on the rise in many growing countries. Countries in Asia and Middle East
are already forecasting shortages in supply of power to the industries. The impact of shortage of

power will be huge to the economies and will result in losses for countries and a probably rise in
the cost of power. This makes the need for alternate sources of energy to be provided quickly.
Nuclear energy provides its benefits, as it would be a cheap source readily available to
supply power to large cities and countries. The cost to build and operate nuclear facilities might
be higher than other facilities producing energy through fossil fuels, but the problem is not the
cost that is associated with nuclear energy but the risks that nuclear plants bring to the
environment.
Nuclear wastes have no easy way of being disposed of; the current comments of
specialists and governments are based on existing nuclear facilities which are not as many if
every country in the world moves towards producing energy through nuclear plants. According
to Gillman (2008) the soultion that goverments agreed to get rid of nuclear wastes is to incrase
the depth of the excavation so they can keep the radtion of the wastes far away from people.
Howeever, he points out that if the radation reach the people it can incraese the rate of people
who are suffring Cancer by twenty times. And he assures that by showing a study that in Japan
the number of Cancer cases has increased after the leak of radiation because of the crack of
nuclear plant. And her are some of the statistacis from PSR (2014) Each year, enormous
quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric
tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste in
the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has
accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent
repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the
U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca
Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate.

Natural disasters have provided us with enough knowledge and experience to see that
nuclear plants might have provided good energy sources to countries like Japan, but in the end
when disaster struck the country came under extreme turmoil. Japan focused more on containing
the nuclear plant than to be able to provide for its people in need. Natural disasters are not an
uncommon thing, although statistics of natural disasters and their occurrence have not been
discussed in this research, it is still evident that they do occur quite often. Countries such as
Pakistan and India who have seen the worst floods in the past 5 years might not be able to
withstand a nuclear tragedy due to a natural disaster.
The risk factors associated with terrorists who can steal nuclear resources to build bombs
overcome the rest of the problems. The world currently sees bomb threats and terrorist attacks on
a regular basis. The ability to build a nuclear bomb is not something out of approach once
nuclear plants are made. Governments have already acknowledged that the possibility of
terrorists targeting nuclear plants exists and therefore increased security on the nuclear plants in
countries such as America. However, the security is not enough and there is still the possibility of
such an attack occurring that could prove devastating for the masses.
On the other hand, the supporters assert that nuclear power will secure
the future of our civilization. Davis (2011) insists that the usage of nuclear
power will become a must because nuclear power accomplishes the global
standards of continuous and green energy. Moreover, he claims that the cost
of producing nuclear energy is stable and the cost has been reduced in
comparing to the cost before fifty years. Furthermore, he guarantees that

nuclear power has increased the production of the countries that depend on
nuclear energy to supply electricity because they use the money in industry
instead of supplying electricity.
The reasons to change from fossil fuels to nuclear energy are not just based on economic energy
and to preserve the fossil fuels. Concerns about climate change and air pollution, as well as
growing demand for electricity, led many governments to reconsider their hate towards nuclear
power, which emits little carbon dioxide and had built up an impressive safety and reliability
record (Moniz, 2011). These considerations have led to many governments studying how nuclear
energy can be utilized and made as a reliable source of energy. Although U.S. uses coal to
generate 52% of their electricity. Most of the carbon emissions in the U.S. come from the burned
coal that generates electricity and can reach 90% of the emissions. Using nuclear power will
reduce this number and prevent the increasing of the global warming that is a result of the carbon
dioxide emissions. (MIT, 2014).
Although arguments from governments and other power production facilities insist that
nuclear energy is the future. According to World Nuclear Association (2014) Nuclear power is
cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to
low-cost fossil fuels. This leads to high considerations given to the production of nuclear plants.
Scientists also argue that nuclear waste is generated in a miniscule volume and, unlike the wastes
from fossil plants and other industries; it has always been safely and fully contained, has never
been released into the environment, and has never caused any harm. (Hopf, 2013) However
nuclear power has not been brought into large scale use yet as compared to the other forms of
energy productions.

Nuclear power is a source of energy that is available readily, but there are so many
problems associated with mass producing nuclear plants around the world that if countries
choose to build nuclear plants in their cities, there would be no returning if disaster strikes. The
dangers of nuclear plants are real and anything from human errors to natural disasters could
cause irreversible damage that would last for decades without any solutions.
There are other forms of energy that exist, solar energy and Wind Turbines are two rather
safe means to produce energy. The problem with these two forms of energy production is that
even they are not as sustainable as nuclear energy. Solar energy requires the sun and therefore
harnessing solar energy would require massive amounts of solar panels during the day to keep
enough energy for the night, and Wind turbines need wind and that is not something that is
controllable. These two methods are simple examples of existing techniques to produce
sustainable energy. There are methods that can be studied and perfected to help meet all demands
and yet keep the hazards away from society. Nuclear energy is sustainable but considering the
amount of harm it brings to society is it really ideal?
In conclusion, this research was able to present that the harmful effects of nuclear energy
production are much larger than the benefits that could be gained by such energy. The society
needs to be educated on the effects of nuclear plants in a country and how they would affect the
society in general. Nuclear waste and radiation due to any form of accident could lead to
disasters that would take decades to clean up or even contain. Examples of Japan and other
countries in history provide devastating outcomes of disasters that took place on such energy
plants.
The research provided some insight into how nuclear plants might be a source of
sustainable energy which is the need of the hour, but it is a dangerous choice. Natural disasters

have been a major cause of danger to nuclear plants, and these disasters cannot be controlled or
forecasted. No matter how strong a nuclear plant is built, there is still room for error which could
in the case of nuclear plants, have devastating results.
The bottom line is that energy is an in demand utility that is needed by consumers as well
as industries to function. Governments need to study other sources of energy first before heading
in the direction of nuclear energy.

10

References:
Caroline Lucas, R. H.-B. (2012, February 17). Why we must phase out nuclear
power. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/17/phase-outnuclear-power
healthresearchfunding. (2014, April 27). Pros and cons of nuclear power
plants. Retrieved November 22, 2014, from healthresearchfunding.org:
http://healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-nuclear-power-plants/
Hopf, J. (2013, June 12). The bigger picture: Nuclear energy vs. fossil fuels.
Retrieved November 20, 2014, from
http://theenergycollective.com/ansorg/236461/environmental-impactevaluations-seeing-bigger-nuclear-vs-fossil-picture
MIT. (2014, January 1). The Future of Nuclear Power. Retrieved November 20,
2014, from MIT: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Moniz, E. (2011, December). Why we Still Need Nuclear Power. Retrieved
November 23, 2014, from Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136544/ernest-moniz/why-westill-need-nuclear-power
naturaledgeproject. (2013, March 1). The Great Sustainability Debates Nuclear Energy. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from
naturaledgeproject.net:
http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/thegreatsustainabilitydebatesnuclearpower.aspx
Physicians for Social Responsability. (2006). Nuclear Power and the Terrorist
Threat. Washington: PSR. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from PSR:
http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/assets/pdfs/nuclear-power-and-theterrorist-threat.pdf
PSR. (2014, January 4). Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About
Nuclear Power. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from Physicians for

11

Social Responsability: http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-powerfactsheet.html

World Nuclear Association. (2014, November). Chernobyl Accident 1986.
Retrieved November 18, 2014, from World-Nuclear.org:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-ofPlants/Chernobyl-Accident/
World Nuclear Association. (2014). The Economics of Nuclear Power.
Retrieved November 22, 2014, from World-Nuclear.org:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-ofNuclear-Power/
Davis, D. (2011, October 3). The necessary good that is nuclear power. Oil & Gas Journal,
109(17), C7-C9. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.aus.edu/docview/898982405
Gillman, S. (2008, January 11). Waste stays active issue in nuclear bid. Planning(1751), 1.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.aus.edu/docview/229874441