Nuclear Power: The Future of Our Energy?



by Lauren Pan


Rewind back to 1935. Enrico Fermi discovered that when a radioactive substance such as Uranium is bombarded by neutrons, it produces by-products that are not Uranium and are lighter than the original sample. Enter nuclear energy, a clean and efficient way of boiling water to make steam, which turns turbines to produce electricity. Nuclear power plants use low-enriched uranium fuel to produce electricity through a process called fission—the splitting of uranium atoms in a nuclear reactor. Uranium fuel consists of small, hard ceramic pellets that are packaged into long, vertical tubes. Bundles of this fuel are inserted into the reactor. A single uranium pellet, slightly larger than a pencil eraser, contains the same energy as a ton of coal, 3 barrels of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Each uranium fuel pellet provides up to five years of heat for power generation. And because uranium is one of the world’s most abundant metals, it can provide fuel for the world’s commercial nuclear plants for generations to come.





Active cooling towers of the Byron Nuclear Generating Station outside of Chicago.







Nuclear power offers many benefits for the environment. As of today, nuclear energy is considered as one of the most environmentally friendly source of energy as it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions during the production of electricity as compared to traditional sources like coal power plants. It has been determined that the amount of greenhouse gases have decreased by almost half because of the prevalence in the utilization of nuclear power. Additionally, nuclear energy has low operating costs. Nuclear power produces very inexpensive electricity. The cost of the uranium, which is utilized as a fuel in this process, is low. Also, even though the expense of setting up nuclear power plants is moderately high, the expense of running them is quite low low. Another primary point of interest of utilizing nuclear energy is that it is more compelling and more proficient than other energy sources. A number of nuclear energy innovations have made it a much more feasible choice than others. They have high energy density as compared to fossil fuels. The amount of fuel required by nuclear power plant is comparatively less than what is required by other power plants as energy released by nuclear fission is approximately ten million times greater than the amount of energy released by fossil fuel atom.





The Kalinin Nuclear Power Plant in Moscow, Russia.







However, with all things good come something bad. There are several significant disadvantages of nuclear energy. One of the biggest issues is environmental impact in relation to uranium. The process of mining and refining uranium hasn’t been a clean process. Actually transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants represents a pollution hazard. And once the fuel is used, it is difficult to find a way to dispose of it because it is dangerously radioactive. As a rule, a nuclear power plant creates 20 metric tons of nuclear fuel per year, and with that comes a lot of nuclear waste. The greater part of this waste transmits radiation and high temperature, implying that it will inevitably consume any compartment that holds it. It can also cause damage to living things in and around the plants. Nuclear power plants create a lot of low-level radioactive waste as transmitted parts and supplies. Over time, used nuclear fuel decays to safe radioactive levels, however this takes a countless number of years. Even low level radioactive waste takes hundreds of years to achieve adequate levels of safety.


In conclusion, there are both pros and cons to utilizing nuclear energy. Do you think the pros outweigh the cons? Why? Are there other more efficient and effective alternatives to fossil fuels besides nuclear power? What are your thoughts on nuclear energy overall?


https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-energy.php

https://nuclear.gepower.com/company-info/nuclear-power-basics

https://sites.google.com/a/ncsu.edu/nuclear-energy/history

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/nuclear-power-energy-future-or-dinosaur-death-spiral-20103

Comments

Anonymous said…
It is amazing that a single uranium pellet, which is so small, contains the same energy as a ton of coal. It is good that there are alternatives to typical electricity. Unfortunately, as with most alternatives, there are some downfalls to nuclear energy. The mining for uranium has many harmful downsides, so even while we are hurting the environment less we are still harming it.
March 18, 2019 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said…
Another downfall of nuclear energy according to the textbook is that nuclear power plants waste water due to the fact that after heat makes steam that turns the turbines, the cooling towers are only able to condense and cool some of the water vapor into liquid water to be returned to the source while the rest is lost to the atmosphere. Nuclear power as a potential energy source does appear to be a good method for replacing fossil fuel use as long as it is utilized with a limit due to the fact that if we only rely upon nuclear power, the costs would potentially outweigh the benefits due to the fact that there remains the risks of radioactive waste accumulating coupled with the the accumulation of uranium mining waste. An alternative to minimize the damages to the environment that nuclear power poses is implementing a combination of other renewable energy sources so that we are not completely reliant on a single form or source of energy and so that the cons of each type could be minimized. For example, nuclear power could be used in conjunction along with solar energy, which is relatively expensive, and wind energy, which does possess the con of potentially harming birds, geothermal energy, and hydroelectricity, which requires dams to be built that could harm migrating fish and divert water so that the risks associated with each method would be minimized if each alternative is used on a smaller scale in proportion to the degree or the extent to which the method could harm the environment as well as the general human population.
March 18, 2019 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous said…
Based on the information you provided, I believe that the pros of nuclear energy outweighs the cost because, although it has some environmental problems, it seems the most efficient way for energy production. In the society we live in today, energy is the only thing humans need in order to function properly. If a small pellet produces a ton of coal, it is no surprise that humans would mine uranium to obtain this amount of power. It even states that, compared to all the other ways to produce energy, nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly. And if push comes to shove, the Earth will eventually run out of uranium, so we could switch to another eco friendly source if uranium depletes.
March 18, 2019 at 6:26 PM
Anonymous said…
I liked how you listed both pros and cons of nuclear energy in your post. I think it is important that people are educated of the advantages and disadvantages of each source of energy before they advocate for one. Personally, I would not support the use of nuclear energy because of the fact that it poses a danger to people, but also because extracting uranium is harmful to the environment, which means that the emissions that nuclear energy would have saved has been used up by means of obtaining it.
March 19, 2019 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said…
Although I recognize the environmental benefits of nuclear power, I believe that the cons outweigh the pros. For example, nuclear waste is increasingly becoming a serious issue as the transport of nuclear waste is a serious hazard to the environment and the public. Even more frightening, there is no solution to store nuclear waste. Therefore, we should focus on the management of nuclear waste rather than continue to abuse nuclear power plants.
March 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said…
I really like how you outlined both the pros and the cons of switching over to a new source of energy such as nuclear power, as this allows us to get a better look at environmental effects moving forward. There do seem to be quite a few benefits to using nuclear power over coal and oil, but I’m nor sure these positives outweigh the negatives in the long run. As you mentioned, pollution from toxic nuclear waste could pose a major threat to wildlife around the areas of nuclear reactors. Also, if the waste that is produced takes hundreds of years to attain a safe hazard level, it would be much outpaced but the continuing demand for production. I think that this would ultimately threaten the environment just as much as the more exhaustible fossil fuels do.
March 19, 2019 at 8:01 PM
Anonymous said…
It is really amazing how such a small amount of uranium can produce such a large amount of energy. I think that while nuclear energy provides fast and easy energy, its drawbacks outweigh its benefits. We are trying to find alternatives to coal and fossil fuels, but the waste tha nuclear energy produces is far too great to consider this as a long term source of energy.
March 20, 2019 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Before reading this I didn’t know about all the advantages and disadvantages nuclear power has on the environment. Although it has negative impacts, I think the pros outweigh the cons. All types of energy we use now has negative environmental impacts and there is limited way around that. It seems to be the most efficient energy sources we use today, and it is less harmful to the environment than other energy sources.
March 20, 2019 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power can be hugely beneficial, as a study in 2013 by NASA’s Goddard institute stated that, 1 a/b)“Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by midcentury, nuclear power” They go on to say “that by midcentury, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces.” This means much more lives can and will be saved is we fully embrace our nuclear energy plant.
March 22, 2019 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said…
Even renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, have negative consequences upon the environment. The production of solar cells and wind turbines release emissions into the air which negatively impact human and natural health. This shows us that while renewable energy sources are viable and generally healthier sources, they still have emissions and waste, the very problems we villainous fossil fuels for. Nuclear power is similar in this respect. While it has many detriments, the efficiency and relative environmental effects of nuclear energy make it a sustainable solution for energy needs in the future.
March 23, 2019 at 10:25 PM
Anonymous said…
Before reading this post, I never really though about the positive impacts of nuclear energy. It was really enlightening to see both sides of the nuclear influence on the environment. I think it is really important to a raise awareness on this because the world only knows of the negative consequences. Although there are benefits to using nuclear energy, I think the cons outweigh the pros. The emissions of uranium are very hazardous to the envionrmnet and the pollution from the nuclear wastes are very toxic and a threat to the wildlife. I think if we were to use this type of energy, it would be very hard to balance the safety, as the consequences increase exponentially.
March 24, 2019 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said…
Before reading this I wasn’t aware of all the advantages of nuclear power on the environment. It was interesting to learn about both its negative and positive impacts. However, I think that the negatives outweigh the positives. That is because it seems as though it poses a much greater threat to our health and our environment. Perhaps there are more environmentally friendly alternatives, and if so, I think we should invest in those options.
March 24, 2019 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said…
Fossil fuels, like gas and coal, are the biggest cause of CO2 emissions. Nuclear power generation depends on a natural resource that is abundant in many places around the world. It has low ongoing running costs, produces electricity reliably and is very low-carbon. The raw material used to create fuel for nuclear power stations is uranium, most of which comes from stable, dependable regions around the world. It’s this reliability and abundance that makes nuclear power a scalable, long-term solution to our increasing low carbon electricity demands.
March 24, 2019 at 6:35 PM
Adam Ghanem said…
Nuclear power had the potential to be the future of global energies because of their effectiveness and low co2 emissions. The lack of a way to dispose of the waste that is created by these plants holds these plants back from beings more commonly used. There is also a stigma that these plants are dangerous because of events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. I believe as time goes by, these plants will be more technologically developed to better dispose of waste and the general stigma of power plants will go away.
-Adam Ghanem
March 24, 2019 at 8:58 PM
Anonymous said…
I wasn’t aware of all of the positives of nuclear power before reading this. I’ve always thought that nuclear power isn’t the best option because of the potential safety issues, but it’s interesting to see how many positive impacts that it has. It’s great that it has low CO2 emissions and is so effective. It could potentioanlly be a relatively sustainable way of producing energy for the foreseeable future.
March 25, 2019 at 5:12 AM
Anonymous said…
I didn’t know that nuclear power had such good efficiency. The only problem with it is the disposal of nuclear waste. If nuclear waste got in the wrong hands than it may be destrastrous. If we find a good way to dispose of the waste we could live a sustainable future with nuclear energy.
March 25, 2019 at 12:07 PM
Anonymous said…
I always had a feeling that nuclear energy could be properly harvested to create a great amount of power, but I always dismissed it due to the pure danger of what such sources could result in such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, this expertly written and carefully crafted blog post really opened my eyes up to the potentials of nuclear power harvesting. I believe the uses of elements such as the aforementioned Urianium could really provide a safe source of power for people worldwide, with more research and safety precaustion measures. After all, with great power comes great responsibility.
March 25, 2019 at 12:08 PM
Anonymous said…
Since we were young, we’ve heard about all the negatives of nuclear power sources and all the damage they can do. Your post really brought out the positives of nuclear power and how it can be useful to us. However, I still believe that nuclear power does more harm than good. In today’s world, we are trying to reduce the amount of pollution we release into the armospbere and using nuclear power doesn’t health that cause. We still need to find a better energy source that has more advantages than disadvantages. Although I believe it is more negative than positive, I still think it is more efficient than fossil fuels.
March 25, 2019 at 12:10 PM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power sources have such a negative stigmatism surrounding it that I never realized just how beneficial it really is . With the outcomes these sources produce such as lower CO2 production and remaining a sustainable energy source are very positive and beneficial . While there are still some worries of safety issues, i believe that it is better overall than fossil fuels such as goal and gasoline .
March 25, 2019 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said…
I believe the pros of using nuclear energy definitely outweigh the costs of using nuclear energy. Although using nuclear energy has an effect on the environment, the benefits of using nuclear energy outweigh the effects it has on the environment. Nuclear power is to plentiful to just ignore it. I believe we should use nuclear power as the benefits outweigh the costs.
March 25, 2019 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said…
Although Nuclear power has a ton of positives and is a good alternative for the quick gains of coal and oil, it is not a permanent solution for our growing energy needs. There are many problems like nuclear waste which we are still trying to find ways to deal with. The lasting impact of abundant nuclear waste could be even worse than the negatives that coal and oil cause now. I do believe, however, that more investment in this energy could lead to safer, better solutions for energy.
March 25, 2019 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power has its pros and cons. Nuclear energy has an adverse effect on the environment, but the energy output and benefits outweigh this affect. It also proves to be an alternative to coal and oil. Unfortunately, Nuclear power generates a lot of nuclear waste, but if we can find a way to isolate this, we can look forward to a nuclear powered future.
March 25, 2019 at 12:15 PM
Mallory Odom said…
I didn't realize there were actually many positive aspects of nuclear energy. I've always written it off because I thought nuclear energy was only bad for the environment. I think there are certainly benefits of using nuclear energy, but the usage should be monitored to avoid problems like nuclear waste and to ensure it is used safely.
March 25, 2019 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said…
I never considered the positive aspects of nuclear power; usually, it’s portrayed as some horrendous disaster of technology meant to threaten our very existence. What is important, however, is ensuring that nuclear use never gets out of control through constant government regulation. The energy output from nuclear enegery can power technologies of the future and ensure that we have a constant source of energy. If we can reduce nuclear waste, this could be a route of the future.
March 25, 2019 at 7:49 PM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power has typically been portrayed in history and popular culture as something terrible, that leads to only destruction and disaster. However, this post enlightened me on the actual positive aspects of harnessing nuclear energy. If we could find a way to either reduce or control nuclear waste, we could use its energy to power technology in countless and unforseeable ways. Although nuclear energy has several benefits, it must be kept in control due to its ability to cause disaster.
March 26, 2019 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear power has been seen as something that leads to only destruction and disaster. However, this post enlightened me on the actual positive aspects of harnessing nuclear energy. If we could find a way to either reduce or control nuclear waste, we could use its energy to power technology in countless and unforseeable ways. This will further allow our us to not depend upon the sources that we know are bad such as fossil fuels. This will allow us to create a safer environment. However like all things we must proceed with caution.
March 27, 2019 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Due to previous incidents such as Chernobyl nuclear power is usually frowned upon but it has gone a long way since that time. It has become more stable and more efficient in harnessing energy. One main problem of nuclear energy is how the waste is thrown away. Due to the fact that uranium has a very long half life the vessels they put it in take up a lot of space and will do so for a long time. The increased use of nuclear energy will definitely help curb the use of fossil fuels possibly reducing greenhouse gases produced.
March 28, 2019 at 2:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Disappearance of Honey Bees Yashu Pindi

Image
 The Disappearance of Honey Bees Besides making honey and stinging people, honey bees also provide a vital service to agriculture- pollination. Approximately 80& of crops in the US would suffer without the help of honey bees. Honey bees provide us with a colorful, varied, and nutritious diet. Along with pollinating crops for food, they also pollinate wildflower species that make our countryside beautiful. One of the most amazing foods, in my opinion, is honey. Honey is a very healthy alternative to sugar. I personally use honey rather than sugar in daily things like coffee and in baking. However, in the United States, beekeepers have seen the lifespan of bees decrease by more than half over the past decade. Scientists have linked this decrease to parasites, pesticides, and habitat loss. Recent evidence suggests that human activity such as land development, electromagnetic pollution, and the use of neonicotinoid pesticides is making it har for honey bees to reproduc...
Read more

Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere

Image
Vyom Gupta Removing CO2 From the Atmosphere The entrapment of greenhouse gases plays a big part in global warming and Carbon Dioxide as at the forefront of this problem. As the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, the more we expedite the global warming process. In order to delay  the effects of carbon dioxide, we need to find temporary solutions to decrease the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere. In the meantime, the first solution is (used by Climeowrks and Global Thermostat) using direct air capture devices and having them pull out CO2 from the air by sucking in lots of air and then through a series of chemical reactions remove the CO2 and re-releasing the air. Because CO2 is only found in one of 2,500 molecules, large volumes are going to be needed to efficiently remove the carbon. The main idea an is industrial cooling tower containing a liquid hydroxide solution which will capture CO₂ and convert it into carbonate. The carb...
Read more

Are GMO Crops Good or Bad for the Environment?

Image
Saaketh Koka Genetically Modified Organisms, commonly known as GMOs, have long been a topic of debate in the scientific community. Humans have been modifying crops for centuries. Native Americans selectively bread maize crops in order to get desirable characteristics out of them. Nowadays, scientists target specific sequences in an organism's DNA and change it to their needs. Many scientists debate whether GMOs help or harm the environment. GM crops harm the environment by decreasing the genetic variation which, in turn, decreases the biodiversity. Although GM crops harm biodiversity, non-GM crops require excessive use of pesticides which harm the environment a lot more. GMOs can be seen as a traditional crop replacement because they harm the environment a lot less than traditionally grown crops. Traditional crops require lots of pesticides to properly grow. These pesticides can runoff into streams and rivers and eventually make their way to l...
Read more