Nuclear Energy, Your Opinion?

Nuclear Energy - Is it a Good Thing?

In this time of dwindling energy supplies and growing energy needs, I will discuss the value of nuclear energy. I want to hear your thoughts!

Nuclear Energy: The Basics

Nuclear power plants use a process known as nuclear fission to produce energy for many of our homes and businesses.

Nuclear fission is the splitting of the nucleus of an atom into parts, which often produce free neutrons and other smaller nuclei. These smaller parts may eventually produce photons (in the form of gamma rays).

Fission of heavy elements (think of the Periodic Table from your physics classes) is an exothermic reaction (releases heat) which can produce large amounts of energy. This energy is released as electromagnetic radiation and as kinetic energy of the fragments (heating the bulk material where fission takes place). Further along, the energy is turned into electricity.

Nuclear Energy: The History
The Push Toward Going Nuclear
Nuclear Energy, Are you for or against it?
Dismantling a Nuclear Reactor
Chernobyl: A Nuclear Disaster
More Photos of Chernobyl
Chernobyl: 20 Years Later
Your Thoughts on the Lens?
An Eyesore or an Energy Saver?
Books About Nuclear Energy and Alternative Energy

Nuclear Energy: The History

In 1934, Enrico Fermi and his team managed to experimentally produce nuclear fission when they bombarded uranium with neutrons. His work was furthered by German scientists during the late 1930's. Many scientists recognized that if fission reactions released additional neutrons, a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction could result. One of the first scientists to recognize this was Leo Szilard.

Fermi and Szilard both emigrated to the United States where they were part of the team of scientists to develop the first man-made reactor, known as Chicago Pile-1, which achieved criticality on December 2, 1942. This work became part of the Manhattan Project, which built large reactors at the Hanford Site (formerly the town of Hanford, Washington, whom the residents were displaced). As you may recall, the Manhattan Project was the project to develop the first nuclear weapon (an atomic bomb) during World War II by the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

This development spurred other scientists in other countries to work on their own nuclear projects, which included the development of nuclear weapons.

The Push Toward Going Nuclear

The 1973 oil crisis had a significant effect on countries which had relied more heavily on oil for electric generation to invest in nuclear power. However, there has been a lot of pressure over the past 20+ years to discontinue development of nuclear power plants in the United States. The last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to go on-line was Watts Bar 1, which came on-line in Feb. 7, 1996.

Many other countries, including China, India, and Japan are continuing to develop and build nuclear power plants.

James A. Lake, who is the associate laboratory director for the nuclear program at the Idaho National Laboratory, feels there is a strong likelihood that there will be a re-emergence of building nuclear reactors.

The strong economic and safety performance of nuclear power in the United States, the growing demand for energy, and the increasing awareness of the environmental benefits of clean nuclear power form the foundation for a nuclear energy renaissance that can support U.S. energy security, economic prosperity, and environmental quality goals in the 21st century.

A Video on the Future of Nuclear Power

The Future of Nuclear Power in the US

2008 UC Berkeley Energy Symposium: Leadership at the Nexus of Science, Policy, and Business Breakout Session 3: The Future of Nuclear Power in the US More information at http://berc.berkeley.edu/symposium

powered by YouTube

Nuclear Energy, Are you for or against it?

Is Nuclear Power a Good Thing?

Fetching blurbs now... please stand by

Yes, I support using nuclear power

richard_wheeler says:

I hear one of the Giant Nuclear Plants is going to build a large Nuclear Plant in DumBai, India. Is that right? I do not know which Nuclear Giant it will be though.

Posted September 09, 2008

ElizabethJeanAllen says:

For now, yes. It is not an the best method but it would work as a temporary energy source. What I would prefer in more utilization of sun and wind power. We shouldn't be burning any fossil fuels to make electricity.

Posted August 03, 2008

crystalguy says:

Nuclear energy is safe, relatively low cost and overall environmentally friendly. Best of all, it relies on proven and available technology that can be installed within a reasonable time frame. Claiming that it takes to long too build a nuclear facility while taking the position that all nuclear energy is bad and thereby justifying endless lawsuits to create delays is hypocritical. There should be strong federal leadership to guide the development of nuclear infrastructure now, even if it is temporary in the sense that new technology might be brought on board soon.

Much of the perceived problem with transportation and storage of nuclear (and medical) radioactive waste is emotional and political in nature. The issues are not 'deal killers' when examined rationally.

Posted June 02, 2008

mosaic says:

In the past 30 years, waste management for nuclear plants have improved dramatically. Furthermore new power plants generate a lot less waste than before. As long as we pay the hefty upfront capital cost, we can get lots of long-term cheap electricity. Let's look to France and Japan. In the US, it's time to start promote nuclear engineering and nuclear jobs. We are lacking scientists and engineers to help us advance with nuclear energy.

Posted May 25, 2008

CherylK says:

Well, there's not just one type of nuclear power.

For the sake of argument, I'm in favor of Norway's plan to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor. Because as stated in the article "Green nuclear Power" listed below, "thorium is incapable of producing the runaway chain reaction which in a uranium-fuelled reactor can cause a catastrophic meltdown." Also, the by-products cannot be used to produce weapons-grade material.

Also, Patrick Moore's article in the Washington Post addresses many of the questions and myths associated with conventional nuclear power. You must read the entire article before critiquing.

That being said, I still have reservations. Much more research is needed but I'm personally keeping an open mind.

Posted May 18, 2008

No, I am against using nuclear power

Stazjia says:

I can see why nuclear energy is tempting but nuclear waste is a terrible legacy for our grandchildren and later generations. It's OK for politicians, top scientists and those with a financial interest to advocate nuclear power stations but these will never be built near the homes of any of these well-off, powerful people.

I think the time lag between making the decision and getting energy also makes it a poor choice. With the time and money invested into building and getting a nuclear power station online, many other forms of renewable energy could have been researched further and brought on line.

Posted August 19, 2008

Naomi-K says:

Nuclear power is a very powerful form of energy, but I don't think in it's current form it should be used as a power source.

Why? well, it's pretty wasteful, many sideffects, and it's really slow to implement. I mean, it takes about 10 years to get a power plant up and running. And with that time and money, there are more flexible faster ways to generate energy.
Good lens though! Thanks for detailed and balanced view of nuclear power.

Posted May 27, 2008

victoria_neely says:

It's an attractive option for many reasons, but I'm not really for nuclear power. Although the waste it produces is supposed to be minimal, it's still dangerous stuff that has to be sealed away for thousands of years.

Posted May 21, 2008

WebGazelle says:

There are many other clean alternatives. I also don't appreciate them choosing my backyard for a nuclear waste dumping site.

Posted May 20, 2008

David_Stuart says:

Boo to nuclear energy. There are now wonderful clean and safe alternatives to providing this planets baseline power, Geo thermal,wind,solar and wave action. The technology is here now !!

Posted May 14, 2008

gurneywagon says:

As has already been pointed out there are many alternatives. I believe more moola should go into solar energy implementation. Nuclear energy is destructive no matter where power plants are built.

Posted May 13, 2008

kelpman says:

The fact of the matter is there is energy waiting to be tapped all around us. There are places where it is always sunny (deserts), always windy (mountains and coastal regions), and where there is always flowing water (rivers) where we could build generators of various sorts. In addition to being significantly lower risk vis-à-vis nuclear power, when dealing with renewable energy you do not have to acquire or dispose of the fuel. It is simply there for the taking.

Posted May 13, 2008

chemrat says:

No. Nuclear power plants provide the building blocks of bombs and terrorism, and nuclear waste is a terrible problem. No State or city in the US wants nuclear waste shipped through its back yard, even if they want to use nuclear power. Since everywhere i someone's back yard, all we do is push the waste on people who can't fight back (not to mention pushing uranium mining on Indian Reservations that don't approve of it). And don't forget about the terrible heating problems caused by nuclear power plants- heating streams to unnatural levels, etc.

Posted May 13, 2008

triathlontraining says:

As much as I think it's important to get away from fossil fuels, I'm not convinced that nuclear energy is still the best alternative. I'd like to see more focus on alternative energy (other than nuclear).

Posted May 13, 2008

1 of 1 page

Nuclear power plant in Cattenom, France

Dismantling a Nuclear Reactor

From Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Nuclear power plants are licensed by the NRC for 40 years. After that, they can ask to renew their license, or they can shut down the plant and decommission it. Decommissioning means shutting down the plant and taking steps to reduce the level of radiation so that the land can be used for other things.

NRC has very strict rules for shutting down a plant. The NRC requires plants to finish the process within 60 years of closing.

Since it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still operating to pay for the future shutdown costs.

Nuclear power plants can be decommissioned using three methods:

1. Dismantling -- Parts of the reactor are removed or decontaminated soon after the plant closes and the land can be used.
2. Safe Storage -- The nuclear plant is monitored and radiation is allowed to decay; afterward, it is taken down.
3. Entombment -- Radioactive components are sealed off with concrete and steel, allowing radiation to "decay" until the land can be used for other purposes.

Sites Supporting the Use of Nuclear Energy

The Renaissance of Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power renewal promises to energize electricity generation worldwide and help address concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, despite remaining challenges. In the long term, nuclear energy could become safer and more economical, proliferation resistant, and sustainable.
Going Nuclear: In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen...
The greening of nuclear power - The Denver Post: A Denver Post opinion article supporting nuclear energy use.
Green nuclear power coming to Norway: Safer, cleaner nuclear power is a step closer to reality after Norway's state-owned energy company, Statkraft, this week announced plans to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor.

Sites Against the Use of Nuclear Energy

The Case Against Nuclear Power: Promoting a sustainable energy future
Anti-nuclear Arguments: The waste problem hasn't been solved.
Opinion: Germany Follows Own Non-Nuclear Energy Path: If Germany can prove that fighting climate change doesn't necessarily require nuclear power, other nations will follow. But if Germany fails, a nuclear renaissance may result, says DW's Jens Thurau.
Nuclear power process contributes to CO2 pollution: USA TODAY's editorial on nuclear power repeats the common misperception that nuclear power doesn't contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Modular Pebble Bed Reactor: What's Wrong With the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor?

The pebble bed reactor is being touted as nearly "accident proof." It is being hailed as the savior of the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island Alert opposes this reactor design because of its inherent dangerous safety defects.

Nuclear Plants in the US

List of Current Nuclear Power Plants in the Unites States

This is not a complete list yet

Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania
Bellefonte, Alabama
Calvert Cliffs, Maryland
FitzPatrick, New York
Bear Creek, New York
Hope Creek, New Jersey
Indian Point, New York
Limerick, Pennsylvania
Millstone, Connecticut
Nine Mile Point, New York
Oyster Creek, New Jersey
Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania
Pilgrim, Massachusetts
Salem, New Jersey
Seabrook, New Hampshire
Susquehanna, Pennsylvania
Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania
Vermont Yankee, Vermont
Browns Ferry, Alabama
Brunswick, North Carolina
Catawba, South Carolina
Crystal River 3, Florida
McGuire, North Carolina
North Anna, Virginia
Oconee, South Carolina
Virgil C. Summer, South Carolina
Sequoyah, Tennessee
Turkey Point, Florida (hit by Hurricane Andrew)
Watts Bar, Tennessee
Byron, Illinois
Braidwood, Illinois
Clinton, Illinois
Davis-Besse, Ohio
Duane Arnold, Iowa
Enrico Fermi, Michigan
Monticello, Minnesota
Perry, Ohio
Prairie Island, Minnesota
Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas
Callaway, Missouri
Diablo Canyon, California
Grand Gulf, Mississippi
Palo Verde, Arizona
River Bend, Louisiana
South Texas, Texas
Wolf Creek, Kansas

Three Mile Island

More Images

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear power plant "Kernkraftwerk Emsland" by flokru

A small model of the nuclear power plant

Cosy Cottage - comes with own Nuclear Power Station by Peter you've lost the news

That really is a Nuclear Power Station in your back yard!

Nuclear power plants Isar 1 and Isar 2 by Aerial Photography

Nuclear power plants Isar 1 and Isar 2, near to Essenbach-Ohu.

Nuclear power station by Aerial Photography

Nuclear power station Isar 1 and 2 with fog.

Bruce Nuclear Power Plant

Powered by Flickr

Chernobyl: A Nuclear Disaster

The Chernobyl disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was the worst nuclear power plant accident in world history. This accident resulted in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following the destruction of reactor number four.

The 2005 report by the Chernobyl Forum, which is led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.

Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits to the public, the majority of affected areas are once again considered safe for settlement and economic development.

More Photos of Chernobyl

Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant by Ken and Nyetta

The most famous Nuclear Power Plant in the world

Ghost Ferris Wheel at Chornobyl by Ken and Nyetta

Abandoned Ferris wheel in Prypyat's central children's park.

20 years after the Chernobyl disaster by Marc Morte

The amusement park in the abandoned city of Pripyat.

Rassokha, near Chernobyl by blinkofaneye

Twenty years after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl

Chernobyl No. 1 Control Room

Chernobyl

Powered by Flickr

Chernobyl: 20 Years Later

Powered by Flickr

Your Thoughts on the Lens?

Portable_eBay

Nuclear energy is safe as long as the people in charge are doing there job well.

Posted October 03, 2008

CherylK

Just checking on your updates and I must say I love the clotheslines collage! How on earth did you do that?? Keep up the good work!

Posted September 08, 2008

ElizabethJeanAllen

I have wanted to read this lens since you built it but my computer kept bumping me off. When we cover the unit on nuclear power in my physical science class, differing viewpoints surface. That's fine as long as they understand why they feel the way they do. I want the kids to make informed decisions not base it just on fear or on need.
Great lens
Lizzy

Posted August 03, 2008

Wordilydoc

Love the lens nice presentation. I still don't think we have the capacity to safely use the technology China nearly had a problem the other day after the earthquake where one of their waste storage area nearly broke open. It's real risky.

Posted June 27, 2008

Panos21

Great lens, 5 stars.
I've heard a story that Chernobyl disaster happened because of the cold war. Many characteristics were "top secrets" and even the operators didn't know them. And control rods were made by graphite a flammable material because they wanted to maximize the production of plutonium...

Posted June 01, 2008