Hussain 1

Ali Hussain

Reading and Writing

Andy Otaqui

October 24, 2013

The Future of Nuclear Energy

Over the years climate change has increasingly become an issue

the world faces due to carbon emissions from burning of fossil fuels

and transportation as well as deforestation and use of chemical

fertilizers on croplands. Alternative energy sources such as solar, wind

and nuclear power have been suggested as solutions but are too

expensive and not effective enough to be considered viable solution s.

The idea of nuclear energy is a route that can be taken but it would be

not be favorable as the negatives outweigh the positives. The aim of

this essay is to address the pros and cons of nuclear energy including

environmental effects, alternative energy sources, costs, safety and

come to a conclusion that it is not an answer to the worlds energy and

environmental problems.

When nuclear energy and the environment are put together the

thought of zero carbon emissions comes to mind and it seems like a

feasible solution since there is nothing burnt to produce energy. Along

with this there is no smoke that comes out of the reactors, just pure

steam. (Joanna Burgess) Nuclear energy also aids land and habitat

preservation to an extent since they require less space to operate

 Hussain 2

unlike other energy sources. (The Benefits of Nuclear Energy) However

on the downside, nuclear reactors require uranium to operate which is

highly radioactive and transporting this uranium is a liability since it is

not biodegradable. (Joanna Burgess) It is said that when nuclear plants

produce energy there are no carbon emissions, which is true but that

does not mean it will reduce them. The complete process of producing

energy from uranium does however create equal amounts of carbon

emissions as a coal plant. (Examiner.com) On top of this, nuclear power

contaminates water supplies and harms ecosystems because the

reactors are built so closely to bodies of water. The water released from

the nuclear reactors has a lot of heat and it is found that there has

been a reduction in populations of fish in certain regions of the United

States. (Misam Jaffer) So even though nuclear plants are said to

produce no carbon emissions and take up minimal land space, the

negatives such as radioactivity, health risks, and habitat disruption

make the world lean away from it.

The costs of running and maintaining nuclear plants are found to

be relatively low compared with the other alternative energy sources

such and wind and solar power. Nuclear power efficiency is measured

in kilowatts and produces more energy than solar and wind power for a

cheaper price. At the moment nuclear energy makes up about fourteen

percent of the worlds electricity and as more plants are built,

 Hussain 3

construction costs will decrease making it more popular. (Nuclear

Power Today) Along with the construction of these nuclear plants, many

jobs will be created which will benefit the economy. (Joanna Burgess)

The running costs might be cheap but on the other hand, the

construction costs are gigantic. Building or restarting nuclear plants

costs billions of dollars. Not only building but also maintaining nuclear

plants is a massive responsibility since you have many workers,

civilians and wildlife around to take into consideration. Qualified and

experienced workers are required to run the plant and they come at a

cost. In addition, disposal of the radioactive waste is also very

expensive costing around three hundred to five hundred million dollars

because it has to be stored in complex radiation containment centers

so the public is not affected in any way. (Costs: Fuel, Operation, Waste

Disposal & Life Cycle) Other extra costs include purchasing of uranium,

conversion, enrichment, fabrication services, storage and shipment

costs. These extra costs add up to show that nuclear energy is not

more efficient than solar or wind energy, deducing that the costs do

overshadow the benefits. (Nuclear Energy: Pros and Cons)

One of the prime issues that has to be dealt with when focusing

on nuclear energy is radiation, health and waste disposal. Nuclear

plants are contained in concrete structures four feet thick and built to

withstand natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes and

 Hussain 4

earthquakes. The nuclear waste from plants is placed deep

underground at specific sites such as Yucca Mountain. (NRC) Studies by

the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission found no significant increase in

cancer rates among adults and children in the 107 countries near

nuclear facilities. (Joanna Burgess) On the other hand though, two

thousand metric tons of nuclear waste is produced annually in the

United States and is highly radioactive and stays like that for

thousands of years. Exposure to this radioactive waste can cause

health problems related to skin and even cancer. (ThinkQuest) An

example of this exposure can be traced back to the Chernobyl disaster

in Ukraine, which was caused by a poorly designed reactor and under

qualified personnel. In the following weeks twenty-eight people died

from radiation poisoning and to this day there is still radiation present.

(Chernobyl) The Energy Justice Network has also added that the cancer

death rates were ten times the average in counties within fifty miles of

nuclear reactors. (Energy Justice Network) Despite the fact that studies

have shown that nuclear plants are not the cause of cancer and that

there are several possible disposal sites of nuclear waste, the risk that

nuclear energy poses such as nuclear meltdowns and health concerns,

over powers the potential benefits it has.

The obstacles nuclear energy faces include environmental

effects, alternative energy sources, costs and safety. By going through

 Hussain 5

each factor and discussing the pros and cons it is found that nuclear

energy is not a solution to the worlds energy and climate problems. To

conclude, the benefits of nuclear energy are not substantial enough for

governments and multi-national companies to invest money in.

 Hussain 6

Works Cited

1. 7 Reasons Why Nuclear Power Is Bad for the Environment and

the Nation."Examiner.com. N.p., 11 Dec. 2009. Web. 20 Oct.

2013.

2. Burgess, Joanna. "10 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power." Discovery

Channel. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

3. "Chernobyl Fuel Transfer Milestone." Chernobyl. N.p., June 2013.

Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

4. "Costs: Fuel, Operation, Waste Disposal & Life Cycle." Nuclear

Energy Institute -. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

5. "Environment: Emissions Prevented." Nuclear Energy Institute.

N.p., 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.

6. "Fact Sheet on Safety and Security Improvements at Nuclear

Plants." NRC. N.p., 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

7. Jaffer, Misam. "Impact of Nuclear Power Plants." Impact of

Nuclear Power Plants. N.p., 26 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 Oct.

2013.

8. "Nuclear." Energy Justice Network. N.p., 2008. Web. 23 Oct.

2013.

9. "Nuclear Energy: Pros and Cons." Triple Pundit RSS. N.p., 23 Feb.

2009. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.

 Hussain 7

10. "Nuclear Power in the World Today." Nuclear Power Today.

N.p., 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

11. "The Benefits of Nuclear Energy." An Energy Resource for

the Community Science Action Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct.

2013.

12. "The Effects of Radiation on Humans." ThinkQuest. Oracle

Foundation, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

Overall comments

English language excellent in terms of accuracy of grammar and

vocabulary. A few style issues and verbose phrasing at times.

Good and generally logical attempt at outline and paragraph structure.

I think the idea of alternatives (meaning anything not nuclear

including fossil fuels, renewables etc) needs to run through all your

comparisons by issue.

Criticality quite weak with many strong and obviously refutable claims

made with weak, biased or no referencing. In many ways a some

hedging at times and better quality sources might be enough.

References poorly cited. errors and ommisions in bibliography,

although your method (I dont recognize it at all) does look consistent.

Hussain 8