Sheffield 1

Emily Sheffield

Campbell

UWRT 1104

28 March 2019

Boom! From Nuclear Bombs to Nuclear Energy

When I was little, all my parents would talk about was nuclear energy. How fantastic it

was, the new research on nuclear fusion, and how much it impacts the environment in good

ways. My dad is a historian of the history of science, specifically during the WWII era so he

knows quite a bit about the dropping of the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August

6​th​ and 9​th​ of 1945 and the process of making one. Even though he was well equipped with

knowledge of the dangers of nuclear power due to its destruction of cities and people, he was all

for nuclear energy. This confused me as a kid, but now I understand the difference. But the

question I always wanted to ask about nuclear energy was “What was all the hype about nuclear

energy?” In school, I was taught the dangers of radioactive materials, never the benefits.

Considering the current state of the world due to climate change caused by greenhouse gases and

the misuse of non-renewable energy, is nuclear power energy the best solution for the planet

right now (Climate)?

According to ​The World Nuclear Association​, the earliest discovery of uranium was

found in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist. For the next 106 years, there were many

chemists who played around with radiation, but it wasn’t until Wilhelm Rontgen discovered in

1895 that by passing an electric current through an evacuated glass tube that you could ionize

(converting a substance into an ion by removing an electron) radiation. This amplification of

 Sheffield 2

ionizing radioactive materials led to many more discoveries including Henri Becquerel's. He

demonstrated how a pitchblende, a form of the mineral uraninite, can cause a photographic plate

to darken due to the emission of beta radiation and alpha particles. Beta particles are fast-moving

electrons emitted when a radioactive substance decays and alpha particles are helium particles

emitted by radioactive decay. All of the experiments, post-Klaproth discovery, led to the naming

of the process: “radioactivity”. Many of the population of the world is familiar with the name

Marie Curie. She developed the term “radioactivity” and did many experiments showing the

positive effects it can have in the world. But were they really positive? The discovery of

radioactivity led to the making of the first nuclear bomb but at the same time has proven a

fascinating subject in the world of chemistry.

According to History, a website which entails information about a large pool of world

history, the discovery of nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 by three German chemists. From

this discovery, they realized the power that it can induce which eventually introduced the ideas

for nuclear technologies (specifically warfare of WWII). Due to America being in fear of having

a bomb dropped on their country they developed a secret project called The Manhattan Project

which a team of chemists tried to develop a functional atomic bomb. The only reason that

America started the project was out of fear, not curiosity or simple advancements in chemistry.

The country was counting on them to develop this so that they could use as a weapon before

Germany or Japan did. The symbol used to represent has a specific connotation that comes with

it. If you see the radioactive symbol plastered on buildings or on signs then you automatically

develop a fear of the area because we associate that sign with the destruction the atomic bomb

created. The atomic bomb and the fear that it introduced into the world has left a lasting impact
 Sheffield 3

on many people’s lives. How can we change this fear and the connotation it brings? We, as a

society, can do that by using nuclear energy to ​help​ the world, not destroy it (History.com).

Although there were many experiments dealing with non-atomic bomb-related ordeals, much of

the research on nuclear fission and nuclear power was between 1939-1945, before and during

WWII (Nuclear). In these six years, the process of nuclear fission was rapidly developed.

According to ​Lumen: Boundless Chemistry​, nuclear fission is the process where the nucleus of

an atom is split into two or more smaller pieces and when this occurs, it creates a large amount of

energy due to a chain reaction. This process is used in nuclear energy reactors all around the

world. The World Nuclear Association states that the US is the largest provider of nuclear

power, producing more than 30% of the nuclear generation of electricity. This shows that the

United States is a large supporter of nuclear energy and although other countries have the assets

to build nuclear power plants there are many things that are getting in the way.

Support for nuclear energy is important in the world today because it needs to be shown

that although the dangers of nuclear energy are well determined, it is shown that nuclear energy

can be helpful as a temporary fix while other renewable options are being defined. There have

been many incidents of nuclear energy and the impacts it can make on humanity such as the

dropping of the nuclear bomb and the event at Chernobyl. Chernobyl was an event that happened

in Ukraine on April 26​th​, 1986. There were several factors that caused the explosion. One is that

the reactor did not have an updated security and two: it had a low level of automation. With the

stoppage of the cooling water to the reactor core and the overheating of it, resulted in the

destruction of the reactor core itself. The fire department did not know of the specificity of the

where (and how) and the fire started so they poured water on it, making it worse. This resulted in
 Sheffield 4

a cloud of radioactive material that spread out destroying the environment near and far.

Although the incident was not well regulated and very poorly handled, it has shown that we can

use the bad models of technology as a way to improve the technologies of future nuclear reactors

(Chernobyl). In many European countries, for example, Finland, people are putting in place

nuclear reactors. These reactors are being built in rural areas and Pekka Peura, a professor at The

University of Vaasa and author of ​Regional Impacts of Sustainable Energy in Western Finland,​

analyzed the economic and employment impact of renewable self-sufficient energy. His findings

were that if rural communities were to implement a self-sufficient renewable energy source, it

would potentially play an important role in improving regional economies. The drawback is the

number of jobs that people would be losing in the established fossil-fuel economy and also the

cost the country would endure due to the making of new powerplants and all of the money used

to hire people. It would fiscally but a setback on the economy of Finland but also would be a

positive thing environmentally. Although fossil fuels are a source of energy that needs to be

eradicated and replaced with better options, there are still going to be drawbacks in trying to

replace all energy sources with nuclear power plants due to the already established fossil-fuel

economy. According to NASA, the environment needs an upgrade in energy. The misuse of

fossil fuels has deteriorated the ozone layer due to greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide and other

infrared radiation). Because of this, researchers have been working on different forms of energy

to reform the ozone layer and many of these researchers are in favor of nuclear energy. While the

Earth is struggling to regrow and heal, we should be supporting forms of energy that will help

fiscally and environmentally. This argument, although simple in practice, is hard to agree on in

retrospect. In a TED Talk Debate, Mark Z. Jacobson and Stewart Brand debated nuclear energy,
 Sheffield 5

the main question being: “Do We Need Nuclear Energy?”. On one end, Brand debated how

nuclear energy is very clean and how it has been proven many times that nuclear reactors spread

almost no radiation. He compared the amount of radiation you would encounter a human eating

one banana per year. This is something I didn’t know and impressed me and although I agree

with Brand, I was thinking “We can still do better.” Jacobson, however, had a different approach

to how energy should be handled, which caught my attention. His philosophy was simply in

favor of other renewable energy sources over nuclear power and how the carbon footprint is

much smaller in a wind power field than it is when building a nuclear reactor. This made sense to

me because you can use a wind-power field for more than one thing. He also explained that the

time taken to build one nuclear reactor can be up to six years. Even though non-renewable

energy providers such as wind or solar power is what the Earth needs to survive, nuclear energy

might be something to put in place until we can effectively develop more reliable wind and solar

power. In my opinion, both sides won and could definitely find an agreement to work together to

help the planet. Due to climate change and the crisis for energy in the world right now, six years

might be too long of a process that could negatively impact the environment. Although I do think

nuclear energy is a source that could do positive things for the economy and environment, is it

what we, as a planet, need right now? We do not need more and bigger carbon footprints

(Climate) but instead a sufficient and durable form of energy that will last.

A common misconception of nuclear energy is that it ​is​ renewable. Although it is clean

energy, it is not renewable due to the materials needed to conduct the process of fission. “The

element used is Uranium-235,” says National Geographic, “and even though uranium can be

found in rocks all over the world, this specific type is non-renewable.” You might be thinking,
 Sheffield 6

why do they have to use a specific type? I asked that as well, but the process of nuclear fission

requires an unstable nucleus of an atom to then be split into more stable counterparts. U-235 is

one of the specific types of uranium that is unstable and due to the difficulty of harvesting this

material, it is not guaranteed that this energy source will last another hundred years

(Non-renewable).

Why are we putting so much effort, money, and time into an energy source that is not

renewable? The planet needs sustainable, affordable, and clean energy that will combat the effect

of the ozone layer deteriorating and the rising temperature of the earth (Climate). We need to

replenish the strength of the ozone layer so that the earth can heal and maintain reasonable

temperatures. This is important because if we were to use energy that was clean and renewable, it

would have a positive impact on the environment because we are not emitting greenhouse gases

into the air.

Wind and solar power are good examples of renewable energy because they do not emit

toxins and have a relatively low carbon footprint. There are negatives of wind and solar power

though, including the scenarios of “Not always a sunny and windy day” says Stewart Brand in

his TED Talks debate about nuclear energy. In his rebuttal, Brand explained that although solar

and wind power are not out of the question entirely, nuclear energy is a process that can be and is

being refined. He used an example of how in the UK, they had a two-week period where their

wind power was not producing enough energy and had no choice but to buy nuclear energy from

France to keep things running. He used this example to show how although there is a stigma

around nuclear energy “not being useful”, it is the temporary hero that we need at the end of the

day to solve the energy crisis we are going through.

 Sheffield 7

Although nuclear energy is seen as a “hero” in the eyes of many Americans, some see

nuclear energy as being a hazard. According to the ANS Center for Nuclear Science, the

transportation of radioactive waste is a difficult process and requires a sturdy container that can

shield from radioactivity. In the TED Talk debate about nuclear energy, there were many

comments made by the audience, one is how we can’t know if the containers will be safe and

reliable all the time. The type of container used is called a cask and when transporting materials

the cask includes neutron-absorbing materials to act as a safeguard against the unlikely event of a

nuclear chain reaction. The casks usually feature several inches of lead and depleted uranium

(non-radioactive) between the inner and outer structures to provide gamma ray shielding. Even

though the casks have been constantly refined and redeveloped to help against a catastrophic

event, people of the world still see it as a hazard (Transporting). This concerns me because due

to the constant revision of nuclear energy and by using nuclear waste to power nuclear reactors it

is an example of human minds developing a constant source of energy that will prove itself

useful in the years to come (Brand).

The refining of nuclear power has been a strenuous process. From the discovery of

uranium in 1789 to creating nuclear weapons in the 1940s to protests of the use of them in the

1980s, and the acceptance of it as a source of energy. To put it in simple terms, it has come a

long way. I have seen many different sides to the argument, have explored what it truly means to

be “renewable”, and if nuclear energy is the best solution. From this data I have gathered, I have

seen that nuclear power has many hazards due to the Uranium mines and the dangers of

transporting toxic waste and unstable materials. As well as many events where the use of nuclear
 Sheffield 8

energy was not handled properly and resulted in an even bigger fear of what nuclear energy can

do.

When it is all said and done, I can concur that nuclear energy’s positive effects outweigh

the negative. The process of building energy plants can take up to 6 years, in the meantime we

must use renewable energy sources such as wind and solar to balance the wait time (Brand). A

phrase you could use is “you win some, you lose some”. Wind and solar power are renewable

and clean but not always reliable. Nuclear energy, while not renewable, is clean of toxins

emitting into the air and reliable. We should carve a pathway for a better future for nuclear

energy, not try to subdue it. The symbol of nuclear energy has a bad connotation but through

investigation of recent events of nuclear energy, I think that the symbol can be used a way to

intrigue, not to question out of fear.

We cannot make a significant change to Earth without setting a consistent set of bricks

down and furthering research all over the world to continually make bigger and better changes to

nuclear energy. Nuclear energy has prevailed through a lot of history because of all the things it

can do. Although it has had a past most would question is has grown from it and become helpful

in the course of refinement of clean energy. I now understand the “hype” of nuclear energy and it

is because nuclear power has come from a background of destructive power and through that has

prevailed to become a source of energy that could help the planet. Although Mark Jacobson in

his TED Talk debate explains how nuclear energy is “not the best thing we could do”, it has

become one of the most interesting and refined topics of the last 20 years and is still being

explored today. The planet is losing its grip on its health and researchers have proven that even

though the process of nuclear energy has come a long way from when it was discovered in 1789.
 Sheffield 9

It has been well-refined and researched for so many years and has proved a helpful material

when we need a hero at the end of the day. What the planet needs are sources of energy that are

refined, well-studied, clean, and most of all reliable. Nuclear energy fits all of these categories

and who knows, maybe if we carve the pathway even more it can one-day makeup for the

destruction it has caused and moves the planet in the right direction. The nuclear bomb may have

done damage and humankind has made mistakes with the energy we use, but what it has become

afterward is what’s important. One day, when we can perfect energy and fully heal the ozone

layer, we can rely only on non-renewable energy. But until then, we must use what has been the

most researched.
 Sheffield 10

Work Cited

Brand, Stewart., Jacobson, Mark Z., “Does The World Need Nuclear Energy?” TED, 20 Nov.,

2014, fod.infobase.com/p_ViewVideo.aspx?xtid=48524, accessed 1 Feb 2019.

“Chernobyl History & Present Radiation Risk.” ​Marketinger​,

www.chernobylwel.com/chernobyl-history​, accessed 20 Apr 2019.

“Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” ​NASA​, NASA, climate.nasa.gov/, accessed 16 Mar

2019.

History.com. “Atomic Bomb History.” ​History.com​, A&E Television Networks, 6 Sept. 2017,

www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/atomic-bomb-history#section_1​, accessed 20 Apr

2019.

Ho, Shirley S., et al. “‘I Can Live with Nuclear Energy If…’: Exploring Public Perceptions of

Nuclear Energy in Singapore.” ​Energy Policy​, vol. 120, Elsevier Ltd, Sept. 2018, pp.

436–47, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.060 accessed 2 Mar 2019.

“Non-Renewable Energy.” ​National Geographic Society​, National Geographic, 1 Feb. 2013,

www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/ accessed 1 Feb 2019.

“Nuclear Power in the USA.” ​World Nuclear Association,​ Mar. 2019,

www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-p

Wer.aspx, accessed 1 Feb, 2019.

Parsons, John, et al. “A Fresh Look at Nuclear Energy.” ​Science,​ vol. 363, no. 6423, The

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jan. 2019, pp. 105–105,

doi:10.1126/science.aaw5304, accessed 1 Feb 2019.

Peura, Pekka, et al. “Regional Impacts of Sustainable Energy in Western Finland.”​Journal of

 Sheffield 11

Cleaner Production,​ vol. 187, Elsevier Ltd, June 2018, pp. 85–97,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.194 accessed Feb 12th, 2019.

Serp, Jerôme, et al. “Assessment of the Anticipated Environmental Footprint of Future Nuclear

Energy Systems. Evidence of the Beneficial Effect of Extensive Recycling.” ​Energies,​

vol. 10, no. 9, MDPI AG, Jan. 2017, p. , doi:10.3390/en10091445, accessed 11 Feb 2019.

“Transporting Nuclear Waste.” ​ANS,​

nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/technology/nuclear-waste, accessed 20 Apr 2019.