Nuclear Energy - Is it a Good Thing?
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.
Contents
- 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
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
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
Nuclear Energy, Are you for or against it?
Is Nuclear Power a Good Thing?
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byYes, I support using nuclear power
benie joe says:
i support nuclear power it is a saft and clean power that can power many house for little money. and doesnt need coal or oil to run it. and we all know oil will run out so will coal and it will help use from using as much and slow down it from dispareing.
Posted March 13, 2009
sittonbull says:
From a national security standpoint it is a no brainer! Clearly it's our most readily available, cleanest and most economical long term option with and excellent operating and safety history! I don't favor the French on much, but give'em credit here... they got nuclear power right!
Posted February 16, 2009
An idiot says:
I dont know!maybe...
Posted January 13, 2009
M_S_Beltran says:
Right now, we should move towards it. It is the most cost efficient by far, the most eco-friendly, and produces far less waste and pollution than any other form of energy, much of which can be recycled. And it can be produced safely.
Posted January 07, 2009
marc says:
diz info iz gay ya diggz
Posted December 09, 2008
A 7TH grader says:
Nuclear Power
Is nuclear power the answer to the energy crisis facing the world today? “Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century unless we can find a way to live without fossil fuels” (Goodstein 123). Demand for energy has soared over the past years prompted by growing populations and economies. This trend is expected to keep growing for many years to come. Fossil fuels such as oil and coal account for eighty to ninety percent of the world’s energy use (Hostetter 1). What many people tend to overlook is that these fossil fuels are limited resources and eventually, alternate energy sources will have to be utilized to replace them. From an environmental viewpoint, the burning of fossil fuels has led to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that are primarily responsible for global warming. Among the alternatives to alleviate this ensuing crisis is nuclear power. In simplified terms, this process uses a radioactive material to heat water into steam, which in turn rises to the top of a chamber. The stream then turns a turbine which is converted to electricity. Below analyzes the three main arguments on this issue. The exigence that led me to this particular topic is the current political state in the Middle East. They have been fighting for power and money for many years now, not to mention the involvement from the US. The underlying reason for the fighting can be traced back to oil. Without the dependence of oil from industrialized nations and the income it generates, that region of the world would be far less powerful and coveted. Everyone should vest some amount of interest in this subject because at some point in time everyone will be effected, directly or indirectly. The groups that are particularly interested include oil companies, environmentalists, and organizations such as OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). The constraints associated with these groups are: wanting to remain the number one source of energy for monetary reasons, wanting to ensure that the earth is not adversely effected, and wanting to remain an organization with power and wealth, respectively.
First, advocates of nuclear power quickly point out that it produces few toxic emissions. For this reason, it is the best response to global warming (Hostetter 73). Nuclear power is also very efficient. Today, about fifteen to twenty percent of the world’s electricity is produced in this way. France leads the world in this area, with seventy-five percent of its energy coming from nuclear power plants. Another benefit of using nuclear power is it would reduce dependency on foreign oil. “Perhaps the most meaningful and lasting contribution Americans can make to the anti-terrorism efforts is to break the oil habit” (Hostetter 110). Also, as we reach the end of the age of fossil fuels, nuclear power may be the only alternative capable of filling in for the loss of those fuels on a global scale (Goodstein 104). As for the question about nuclear waste, technological advancements have been made in the recent years that allows for the waste to be reprocessed. This provides more energy and lessens the amount of waste. Lastly, advocates will point out that at least the waste is not being put into the atmosphere and the air we breathe.
Opponents to nuclear power will bring up incidents in history such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. In 1979, at three mile island in Pennsylvania, a nuclear power plant almost had a meltdown due to a faulty valve but no one was hurt (Hostetter 75). Then in 1986, an explosion at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine killed thousands of people and exposed millions more to unhealthy levels of radiation. The radiation caused cancer and birth defects in some cases. After these incidents the nuclear enterprise was dead (Morone and Woodhouse 87). “In 2000, not a single reactor was under construction, on order or planned in North America or Europe” (Hostetter 83). This proves that public opinion on nuclear power has not changed much since the incidents. Another reason for opposing nuclear power is waste. There is no way to quickly and effectively dispose of waste, as it has to be contained and buried for ten thousand years (Hostetter 77). It also has to be put in a location where radiation cannot seep into the ground and contaminate water supplies. Another reason that might keep people from wanting nuclear power is the threat of a terrorist attack. If a terrorist was able to get control of a nuclear power plant, he or she could endanger the lives of millions of people. Another risk of nuclear power is the possibility of adverse effects on aquatic life (Foreman 52). Lastly, opponents will point out that at the rate of energy being consumed at the time fossil fuels are expected to be depleted factored with the estimated amount of uranium 235 (nuclear reactor fuel) left in the world, nuclear power would only provide enough energy to last up to twenty five years (Goodstein 106).
A third viewpoint comes from the middle ground of the aforementioned extremes. People that fall into this category know that nuclear power will help solve the energy crisis but it is not the answer to everything. They realize that even though it is a viable solution to global warming, it still creates harmful waste. Above all, these people understand that nuclear power needs to be coupled with other forms of energy such as wind and solar power along with efficiency changes. “There is ample room to cut energy consumption, without cutting standards of living, for a long time to come” (Hostetter 60).
My personal interest in this subject stems from the recent talk in the news about global warming and the need for alternate energy sources. I would fall into the middle group on this issue. I would like to see nuclear energy be used more. I also believe it is not the long term answer and that more emphasis needs to be placed on conservation and more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Posted November 20, 2008
Jason says:
Nuclear energy provides clean baseload energy that is safe and economical. Other than nuclear, only hydro and geothermal are clean baseload sources. Hydro is and geothermal are the only other sources which can make this claim but their expansion ability has limitations. Nuclear can be virtually renewable using fast neutron reactors and thorium. The waste is minimal and our current stock of "waste" could be recycled enough to run our current fleet of plants for 30 years without mining new uranium. When the final waste products are vitrified and sealed it will be safely stored for thousands of years and pose no danger to anyone. Unlike "clean coal carbon sequestration" ideas, nuclear's fuel waste is small and solid so it only requires a robust container to do the job. If you aren't pro-nuclear then you can count yourself as pro-coal. Our options are not unlimited and the urgency of global warming is here. Nuclear is too important and delivers too much not to be considered and expanded. For more information please check out my blog at http://pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com
Posted October 19, 2008
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
No, I am against using nuclear power
crapmonkey says:
how dumb are some people... -.- We have mofo'in wind and solar power that creat ZERO WASTE. They also can not explode and kill thousands of people and affect people with radiation poisoning hundreds of miles away from the site. The only problem is, that solar cannot opperate at night, and wind power only operates with wind. But if we conbined the two... by using a giant solarpanel to power a giant fan that would spin thousands of fans by the wind force created, then our problems solved. You all heard the answer to your problem. NOW FIX IT!!!!
Posted May 28, 2009
crapmonkey says:
fuck diz shiiit ma nukkas, y'all know dis shiyts bad fo ya! Dont do it! It gon kill ya! Dont make dem bombs. Dey gon kill YA!
Posted May 28, 2009
fesiych says:
only if it's being used for weapons
Posted March 11, 2009
Tarzan says:
I think nuclear is a bad thing because it's a very strong energy that can cause a lot of inguries and it can brake nearly anything.
Posted January 31, 2009
apple says:
I say that nuclear energy is a bad thing because of these reason. First is that it can pollute the air. another reason is that it can be spilled in oceans. This can harm animals. Another is people can make nuclear weapons that can destroy many things. These were some things why nuclear energy is a bad thing.
Posted December 08, 2008
A says:
I think nuclear power is a bad thing because what if an untrusted person uses this power and desroyes the world ? You will never know.
Posted December 08, 2008
<A HREF="http://www.gosolarpowerforhomes.com">Sam Deane</A> says:
Nuclear Power is Not Safe and it is Not Clean. Proper investment of and use of the full range alternatives would make for a sustainable cleaner better world. Governments got behind nuclear because it only takes a few scientists to run the plants and thereby (in the UK case at least) it was a way to smash the powerful miners union. So the investment was thought through on a political basis. Nuclear power requires HUGE amounts of water to make it work. It also requires masses of money to keep it safe. In Russia already we are seeing a nation that does not have the finances to maintain the safety of older nuclear naval bases, leaving submarines to leak their toxic nuclear waste into the Baltic Sea as we speak. Are you certain that your country will have enough money to keep your nuclear power plants safe 100 or 150 years from now? These days we have geothermal, ocean thermal, hydroelectric, biomass, solar and wind power to name just a few. Proper government investment in these options instead of pumping more money into the nuclear, coal and petroleum options is the only way forward. (Have you seen the scale at which your nation is giving hand outs to these industries?) Don’t forget that uranium is also running out. When the sun’s power runs out, that is when it really is game over, but I don’t suppose that will happen any time soon, God willing. So invest in the future and secure a safe clean planet for your children. You will find out more at http://www.squidoo.com/gosolarpowerforhomes
Posted November 10, 2008
gypsyman27 says:
Nuclear power is dangerous. I am an engineer with many years of experience in the design of nuclear power plants. I wrote a blog a couple of days ago (October 16, 2008) on the subject. It can be seen at techdiplomacy.blogspot.com/">http://techdiplomacy.blogspot.com and it explains in detail why we should avoid nuclear power.
Posted October 18, 2008
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
Nuclear power plant in Cattenom, France
Dismantling a Nuclear Reactor
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
A small model of the nuclear power plant
That really is a Nuclear Power Station in your back yard!
Nuclear power plants Isar 1 and Isar 2, near to Essenbach-Ohu.
Nuclear power station Isar 1 and 2 with fog.
Bruce Nuclear Power Plant
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
The most famous Nuclear Power Plant in the world
Abandoned Ferris wheel in Prypyat's central children's park.
The amusement park in the abandoned city of Pripyat.
Twenty years after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl
Chernobyl No. 1 Control Room
Chernobyl
Chernobyl: 20 Years Later
Your Thoughts on the Lens?
Treasures-By-Brenda wrote...
I do not know about the subject to comment intelligently but you have presented some great information here and your lens is blessed by an Angel.
Brenda
Posted April 16, 2009
sittonbull wrote...
At this point, it seems to me there is no other proven option to Nuclear power. From a national security standpoint, we must proceed asap to have them online and producing and hope we are not too late. It's ironic to me that we have allowed France to be the leader in this technology. If our media sources were focused on pro-active factual reporting instead of reactive sensationalism, we would have significantly larger, cleaner and more economical nuclear power online and producing and be far less dependent on foreign oil today. The media selling sizzle is in "The China Syndrome" and Chernobyl, but the facts and the history are clear and available favoring Nuclear energy vs and other source for now! Suppliment AMAP w/ Solar and wind but nuke is doable now!
Posted February 16, 2009
1Penny2 wrote...
I cover this topic extensively in my Physical Science class. They will be the ones making the decisions in the future. I want them to make informed decisions not emotional ones.
Great lens.
Bj
Posted November 28, 2008
Portable_eBay wrote...
Nuclear energy is safe as long as the people in charge are doing there job well.
Posted October 03, 2008
An Eyesore or an Energy Saver?
Books About Nuclear Energy and Alternative Energy
Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy
Avg. Customer Rating: 
Amazon Price: $19.10 (as of 07/06/2009) 
List Price: $27.95
Used Price: $3.70
Usually ships in 24 hours
Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, the Global Economy, and What It Means To You
Avg. Customer Rating: 
Amazon Price: $20.40 (as of 07/06/2009)
List Price: $27.95
Used Price: $9.65
Usually ships in 24 hours
Off The Grid Homes: Case Studies for Sunstainable Living
Avg. Customer Rating: 
Amazon Price: $14.93 (as of 07/06/2009)
List Price: $21.95
Used Price: $9.97
Usually ships in 24 hours
The Radioactive Boy Scout: The Frightening True Story of a Whiz Kid and His Homemade Nuclear Reactor
Avg. Customer Rating: 
Amazon Price: $10.94 (as of 07/06/2009)
List Price: $13.95
Used Price: $5.89
Usually ships in 24 hours
Oil and the Future of Energy: Climate Repair * Hydrogen * Nuclear Fuel * Renewable and Green Sources * Energy Efficiency
Avg. Customer Rating:
Amazon Price: $13.57 (as of 07/06/2009)
List Price: $19.95
Used Price: $2.55
Usually ships in 24 hours
by triathlontraining
Squidoo Tools and Resources
I own a smal... (more)
