Since its discovery and application in World War II, nuclear fission has become a powerhouse in several areas, especially in energy and electricity production. Nuclear energy has become the one of world’s leading sources of electricity. However, for several reasons, many people argue vehemently against its use as a source of our baseload of energy. The reasons for argument are valid, however, the arguments for the case of nuclear power outweigh its disadvantages and the concerns which has swayed the public opinion for several decades.

To understand the concept of nuclear energy, one must first understand the two different processes which produce energy: ; fission and fusion. Nuclear fission occurs when slowly moving neutrons are captured by the large nuclei of isotopes such as uranium-235 and plutonium-239. These nuclei then split and then some of the excess mass is transferred into thermal energy. The energy produced by one occurrence of fission can be over 200 million times the energy of the neutron which caused the reaction (Nave). In a reactor, this thermal energy then heats water, which creates steam. The steam is used to power a turbine and thus, generates electricity.

Nuclear fusion is essentially the opposite process. Instead of using extremely dense and heavy elements like fission (i.e. uranium), fusion is the process in which light nuclei, such as hydrogen, are forced together (Nave). Theoretically, nuclear fusion has the potential to create a sustainable resource which would have no need to be renewed indefinitely. However, a practical nuclear fusion reactor has yet to be created; it has been a work in progress since the 1950’s but some of science’s great minds have not yet been able to harness nuclear fusion. Right now, this is only a concept which we must work tediously on.

Because of its use in World War II, nuclear energy is often connected with devastating bombs. As mentioned in the list of key issues in the periodical Ambio, one of the most important issues is international non-proliferation, or the limiting of the creation of arsenals of nuclear weapons by countries (Grandin 1). In simpler terms, ensuring that countries do not use their uranium supplies to create weapons.  Although uranium can be used and has been used to create weapons of mass destruction, it would be much more beneficial to society and the environment if it was used for energy, as opposed to being used to demolish areas and pollute entire cities with radioactivity.

Per WhatTheWhy1’s video, there are three “main concerns surrounding nuclear energy: safety, waste management, and total expense” (WhatTheWhy1). 

The public for the last five decades has blanketly associated the word “nuclear” with “dangerous” or “harmful”. However, contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy has proven to be safe; it is one of the safest energy sources available. It is responsible for about 17% of global electricity and is only accountable for about 90 deaths per trillion kilowatt hours (Conca). In this Forbes article, this number is compared to all the other resources including coal, which provides 50% of the world’s electricity with 100,000 deaths per trillion kilowatt hours (Conca).

Many people look at the accidents which have occurred throughout history and use those as an argument against nuclear energy. The three major incidents are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The combined immediate death totals due to radiation exposure of these three events is 4056, all at Chernobyl. While this is a relatively high number, there have been several accidents in the coal and oil industries with more casualties suffered.

**One of the most concerning issues regarding nuclear accidents is the fallout. The most devastating effects of the aforementioned accidents came to the area surrounding the plants. In April 1986, over 100,000 people had to evacuate Pripyat, Ukraine almost overnight. The area surrounding the plant is uninhabitable to humans. However, scientists believe that Pripyat and Chernobyl could become “a refuge for all kinds of animals” (Wendle). Likewise, the area surrounding the Fukushima plant after the 2011 accident had to be evacuated. However, although there is still radioactivity in the area, many of the evacuees have started to move back in to their old homes.

**These accidents are causes of concern for most people against a switch to nuclear energy. What many do not know is that nuclear is one of the safest sources of energy. The majority of nuclear accidents have occurred because of a malfunction of the equipment, a freak accident (i.e. the earthquake and tsunami which caused Fukushima) or an error by the personnel working on the reactor such as the events that occurred at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. Due to a better understanding of the subject as a whole, enhanced technology and ample advanced training for people going to work on reactors, the incidence of a nuclear accident has greatly decreased over the last few decades. Accidents are now much more rare.

**If all of the statistics and pieces of information were shared on nuclear energy, then public opinion of the safety of these radioactive materials would likely sway to support this cause.

**The second concern is waste management. When the heavy element is split to create energy, a radioactive shell is left behind. There are two methods of waste disposal – containment and reprocessing (WhatTheWhy1). Containment is the process of taking radioactive shells left behind from the reaction process and storing it in waste containers for a long time. This is the cheaper and more widely used method however, it only offers a short-term solution for the waste.

 **The other method, reprocessing, is when the materials used in the reaction are sent to a plant where they are treated so that they can be reused in a reactor. Due to the high cost of building such a plant, this method is not widely used. The largest benefit of reprocessing is that we can reuse our nuclear fuel sources and not just leave it in a container for years.

Cost is another important factor to consider. Switching to nuclear energy for electricity will be a costly project. Building plants requires a lot of money. The mistake people make is that they think that nuclear is an expensive source all around. However, the largest expense is building and maintaining the plant. After that, producing nuclear energy becomes relatively cheap. This high initial cost has deterred many poorer countries from attempting to build any nuclear power plants. 

Although there are many concerns involving nuclear reactors and their implementation in the future, the benefits outweigh the public’s anxieties. If managed and maintained properly, there should be no fear in operating a reactor. The United States Navy is an exemplary organization to put a spotlight on in this situation. The Navy has operated nuclear reactors since 1975; every supercarrier and submarine built since that year has had reactors onboard and they have zero incidents involving a reactor malfunction of any kind. This proves that under the right supervision, nuclear reactors are not dangerous at all.

Contrary to the belief that nuclear energy is universally harmful, it is almost the opposite. It is a zero-emission source capable of being a baseload for energy. One kilogram of Uranium-235 can produce 24 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy; compared to the same amount coal – the world’s leading energy producer – which can only generate about 8 kWh (euronuclear.org). Nuclear energy is the most efficient energy source available.

Not only is it efficient in terms of energy, but it is also an economically smart decision to switch to nuclear energy. Once a reactor plant is built, it can last between 30 and 60 years, depending on how it is maintained. The high initial cost of a plant may be a burden, but the duration makes it a worthy investment.

The energy sources which we utilize can be divided into two categories: renewable (or sustainable) sources and nonrenewable sources. When weighing the two types of sources, there is a noticeable tradeoff of pros and cons between the two.

Renewable sources are those which cannot be completely consumed within a few generations; we cannot consume them faster than they are naturally created. Some of these sources include but are not limited to the wind, the sun and the flow of a river. Renewable energy sources are often also referred to as clean because there are no emissions.

There are many issues with renewable sources; the main one being that most of them require favorable weather conditions to work. Solar panels cannot absorb sunlight on a cloudy day or at night, dams cannot create power off the flow of water during a drought and turbines cannot spin if there is no wind. Without the right weather, these sources are useless. Because of this dependency, these sources are generally not able to provide large amounts of power. Additionally, costs for collection methods of these types of energy (i.e. solar panels, dams and turbines) are often expensive to build and maintain. Given the amount of energy they produce, it is not a cost-effective method.

On the other hand, nonrenewable sources are those which we will not be able to sustain as primary sources for extended periods of time, such as coal, oil and natural gas. We have an enormous supply of these materials: in 2014, the three fuels mentioned above produced over 65 percent of the world’s energy. Thus, they can be used as a baseload supply of energy. At the rate which we are currently using coal, it would last longer than uranium if we increased the rate at which we use that. Although uranium can be reprocessed and reused in a reactor, it still would not be able to match the sheer quantity of coal we have mined.

 However, to obtain energy from these resources, we must burn them. When we burn them, they release carbon dioxide in the air which damages the atmosphere. Not only is the combustible fuel industry dangerous for the environment, but it is also dangerous for the people working in it. Many people in the industry suffer work-related deaths, heart attacks, bronchitis, and asthma. 

In the middle of the two categories mentioned above are radioactive materials. Although these resources are finite and there is very little when compared to the amount of coal available in the world, they are nonrenewable. However, uranium and plutonium – the main elements used in the production of nuclear energy – are like renewable sources because they release zero emissions. In fact, in the nuclear cycle, the only time any carbon dioxide is emitted is in the process of transporting the uranium pellets from the mine to the power station. These emissions are not caused by the uranium, but by the vehicles transporting it. They are clean nonrenewable sources. 

Additionally, unlike the other clean sources, they are not reliant on conditions such as weather. Nuclear reactors can provide energy under any circumstance – given that everything in the reactor is working as it should. According to the World Nuclear Association, one reactor can last between one and two years with the same uranium pellets. For that amount of time, they do not need to refuel (world-nuclear.org).

Nuclear energy can have a devastating impact on the environment if there is an accident. An important part of the argument of this topic is comparing it to the other sources we use to provide energy and electricity. The world’s primary fuel source right now is coal. It is abundant and is therefore capable of producing years’ worth of energy. However, the problem with coal – along with oil, petroleum and natural gas – is that it is a nonrenewable resource is only a finite amount available. Although Earth naturally produces these resources, it does so at a rate slower than the rate which we consume it. Therefore, we will eventually run out of it. We need to find a new energy source before that happens. Nuclear is also nonrenewable but we have not used much of the available supply of uranium and plutonium. The nuclear elements, as mentioned before can also be reused if they are reprocessed. 

Per statistics from the International Energy Associations (IEA), as of 2014, 40.8% of our electricity generation comes from coal while it is responsible for 45.9% of the emissions (IEA 24). In the same report, while nuclear energy only gives us 10% of global electricity, it does not directly contribute to any emissions which harm our atmosphere. The only time when there are any carbon emissions in the nuclear cycle is in the fuel used in the vehicles transporting the raw radioactive elements (WhatTheWhy1).

One issue that is not mentioned often with uranium is that with the amount of uranium our generators use, the uranium cycle – the earth’s process of creating uranium – is not sustainable (Grandin 2). According to Grandin, Jagers and Kullander, the rate which we would consume uranium if the demand for energy by fission increased would be unsustainable for a long period of time. We would instead run out of our limited uranium supply extremely quickly. This is probably the most crucial factor hindering the world’s adoption of nuclear energy. 

Environmental protection and preservation has become a key international focus in the last 20 years. In 2015, the United Nations created a list of sustainable goals which national leaders wish to achieve by 2030. Of the 17 goals on the list, three of the goals are directly linked to clean energy and environmental change impacted by the means we use to acquire energy (un.org). 

Since the discovery of global warming and the link that greenhouse gases are the leading of cause of the problem, there has been little done to prevent the catastrophic events which may soon be visible to the naked eye. Until we begin using a baseload energy source with no CO2 emissions, we will move closer to what many believe is already inevitable.

Currently, nuclear energy is the seemingly obvious choice for the source of energy we should use to accomplish these goals. Although it has its cons, it has a plethora of benefits which outweighs those cons including zero emissions, it is the most efficient material in terms of energy produced by mass and its relative safety. In fact, nuclear energy seems like such a good idea that it is currently being used by the United States Navy to power many of its ships. All 12 active aircraft carriers and many active submarines are powered by onboard reactors.

Uranium, if used with nefarious intentions, is destructive and volatile. It is capable of leveling two Japanese cities and murdering upwards of 200,000 people. It can bring fear to millions as two nations threaten each other for decades and tensions rise. It can be used as propaganda as a dictator builds his own arsenal of nuclear ordnance. But, if used correctly, it can bring hope for the future. It can inspire generations to think and to act; to initiate change for a cause they believe in. Because it cannot last, nuclear energy may be a temporary treatment as future generations discover the panacea for many of our environmental issues in the form of an efficient, sustainable source of energy with no emissions.

 