Breneman 1

Emily Breneman

UWRT

Connie Douglas

22 March 2017

Nuclear Energy: To Be or Not To Be

In a world surrounded by social media and the constant criticism of the public eye,

environmental affairs face heavily opinionated review from a variety of organizations and

associations. One of these such arguments revolves around the greatly discussed alternative

energy nuclear. With a dark past and an unclear future, many critics and scholars have taken to

reviewing nuclear energies current state of affairs and where it may lead America in years to

come. With so many opposing voices however, it is clear that the political economy has had quite

an impact on nuclear energy. The question becomes how much so?

Beginning in the summer of 1945, the power of nuclear energy penetrated the public eye

and began tarnishing the technologies record. Nuclear energy was used to fuel an atomic bomb

and later end a war. Today however, twenty percent of the United States power is distributed by

nuclear means (Scientific American.) Instead of being used as a source of negativity nuclear

technology was refined with peaceful intentions in mind and nuclear fission was born in 1951

(World Nuclear Association). In the process of nuclear fission, uranium molecules are submerged

in water which induces fission and produces heat. This heat is turned into pressurized steam

which turns a turbine powering generator and energy is created. While this creates a great deal

more energy than the traditional coal and hydroelectricity, radioactive waste and radiation are
 Breneman 2

also created (Rich and Warhol). The creation of radiation and waste material is where and why

arguments begin to surface amongst environmentalist, corporations and researchers.

As stated by Leo Burnett, Good advertising does not just circulate information. It

penetrates the public mind with desires and belief. This methodology is particularly popular

amongst environmentalist who wish the public to discredit nuclear energy. You would think that

an environmentalist should support an energy that does not produce greenhouse gases, yet this is

not always the case. The public and environmentalist who spread their argument against nuclear

energy all mention the same major key points, as they are quite large and understandably

argumentative. The first point being nuclear energies turbulent past.

Beginning in 1957, nuclear plants began to accrue a lengthy list of disasters ranging from

transportation incidents to equipment failure and even human error. These all exposed potential

health and safety risks to local populations (Rich and Warhol). The United States first scare

occurred on March 28, 1979, when the Three Mile Island reactor had a partial meltdown.

Although no adverse reactions occurred, this left a mark on the nations public. Next came

Chernobyl. On April 26, 1986, in Ukraine, radiation was sent high into the atmosphere following

a test run and Chernobyl did not have hard containment walls like most reactors. Fukushima too

suffered damage at the hands of an earthquake and tsunami. These are all major disasters,

potential or otherwise, that the public has witnessed and they are all used as examples by

environmentalist and the public to voice their opinion on nuclear energy. This argument is

particularly strong as well. Following Fukushima's disaster, public support for nuclear energy

dropped from seventy one percent to fifty percent (Clemmit).

The potential for health and safety risks is also a key point used to argue why nuclear

energy should not be present in our future. Possible radiation poisoning and cancer from
 Breneman 3

meltdowns to local and even not-so-local areas is an obvious risk. However disposal of

radioactive waste also leaves the potential for health concerns and the public is certainly not keen

on having waste stored relatively close to them (Rich and Warhol). In 1987, Congress designated

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to be nuclear wastes permanent repository. Public outcry and strong

statements of opposition terminated the project during Obamas presidency although Obama was

a strong advocate of nuclear energy (Nordhaus). Safety concerns also became evident and

became a strong center for opposition against nuclear energy following the terrorist attacks on

September 1st, 2001. Nuclear facilities could be potential targets for terrorist attacks and cause

great amounts of damage. (Dupea and Morley).

Another voice present within the argument pertaining to nuclear energy belongs to those

of corporations and environmentalist as well. These individuals believe nuclear energy is our

future and the propagation of nuclear facilities is necessary. A majority of this viewpoints

arguments centers directly around counter arguing environmentalist and the public that is

opposed to nuclear energy. While it is clear that nuclear energy certainly benefits our health and

climate, public worries regarding safety ultimately trump any other discussions.

The largest argument corporations particularly have therefore regard nuclear facilities

safety regulations and overall improvement. Although these facilities have amazing safety

records the fact that a few major catastrophes have occurred obscures this knowledge.

Corporations want the public to understand how safe facilities can truly be once more strict

regulations are enforced and advanced technologies are applied. Recently proposed designs used

Gen III+ models which are substantially safer compared to todays reactors which have been in

use for decades (Scientific American).

 Breneman 4

Environmentalist however, focus on making it clear that nuclear energy is an amazing

alternate energy compared to solar energy and wind energy and its lack of acceptance puts clean

energy at risk as well as our environment. Nuclear energy provides for more than sixty percent of

the nations zero-emissions energy although it only accounts for twenty percent of our overall

energy generation. In 2016, ten nuclear facilities (or a tenth of the nations units) closed

prematurely due to lack of public acceptance and funding. For scale, ten units represents sixty-

nine million megawatt-hours of zero-emission generation which is three times the amount of

energy generated by solar panels built in the United States over the past fifteen years. These

shutdowns have costs for the environment as CO emissions will increase dramatically (Barron).

The third major voice present in this argument are researchers, usually environmental

writers, that seek to educate the nation on the pros and cons of nuclear energy and how the

United States stands today regarding this technology. Researchers chose to not stand on either

side of the argument and inform rather than debate. Therefore this voice is the embodiment of the

public, the corporations and the environmentalist, whether they support nuclear energy or not.

The researchers too pose the question regarding whether nuclear energy will be present

in our future. Nuclear energies presence in our future is determined on a number of factors and

great amounts of information. The most notable feature within the work accumulated,

specifically those unbiased, is that the writers tend to focus on arguments made by critics and

the public. While this may not be specifically stated, a large portion of the writing includes

critics say or the public followed by a statement directly addressing their statements. This is

because the public, and critics who influence the public, dominate the argument on nuclear

energy. The researchers focus on correcting allegations made by these voices or confirming their

validity. They seek to educate and expand the voices knowledge (Clemmit).
 Breneman 5

With environmental awareness rising and nuclear energy on the decline, the future of this

technology is uncertain. Nuclear energy is a particularly strong energy generator and other

alternative sources cannot compare by quantitative means. Yet the potential health and safety

concerns have forced nuclear energy under the eye of the public and the strong and unwavering

opinion from the public has made it difficult for those advocating nuclear energy to increase

public popularity. In Americas current state, the public has a great deal of power over political

affairs which nuclear energy has become. Environmentalist and corporations will continue to

fight for either side of the war on nuclear while researchers will seek to properly educate

America on the technology. The political economy of nuclear energy has certainly impacted this

technology, it remains to be seen how this affects our future.

Works Cited

Barrn, Kathleen. "Acknowledging Role of Nuclear Power in Meeting Climate Goals."

Environmental Forum, vol. 33, no. 5, Sep/Oct2016, p. 17. EBSCOhost,

 Breneman 6

librarylink.uncc.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=pwh&AN=117834522&site=pov-live.

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Nuclear Power." CQ Researcher 10 June 2011: 505-28. Web. 7 Feb. 2017.

Dupea, Robert, and David C. Morley. "Counterpoint: Nuclear Power Is Not Worth The Risk."

Points Of View: Nuclear Power (2016): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web.

20 Feb. 2017.

Editors, The. "Coming Clean about Nuclear Power." Scientific American. Scientific American,

12 May 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coming-clean-about-nuclear-power/>.

Nordhaus, Robert, et al. "Nuclear Power at the Crossroads." Environmental Forum, vol. 30, no.

2, Mar/Apr2013, p. 34. EBSCOhost, librarylink.uncc.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=pwh&AN=86189603&site=pov-live.

Nuclear Power in the World Today. Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association, World

Nuclear Association, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-

future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx. Accessed 23 Mar. 2017.

Rich, Alex K., and Tom Warhol. "Nuclear Power: An Overview." Points Of View: Nuclear Power

(2016): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.