Liptak 1

Joey Liptak
Prof. Malcolm Campbell
English 1103
12 April 2016
Would More Nuclear Power Be a Meltdown?
Disaster, destruction, death; these thoughts often come to mind if nuclear accidents are
mentioned in a conversation. These phrases shed light on a dark perspective regarding nuclear
energy: nuclear power is dangerous and will only harm the world. The negative stigma attached
to nuclear energy is also associated with nuclear weapons, yet weapons have almost nothing to
do with the majority of nuclear energy around the world, apart from sharing the word nuclear.
According to an annual report composed by the World Nuclear Association (WNA), 436 nuclear
power power reactors are currently in operation in 29 different countries around the world. These
power plants generate approximately 15% of the global electricity supply, including an

Commented [FH1]: There are two powers

Commented [FH2]: Good use of the quote!!

astounding 30% in the member countries of the European Union. Multiple countries around the
world are also proposing the construction of new, modern plants in order to slow the use of coalgenerated electricity as well. However, a tremendous amount of doubt accompanies these new
plants, even though the nuclear power industry is growing so rapidly. The main concern of the
doubting public is the safety of the energy. Several major disasters have occurred over the years,
including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, and these disasters showcase the
negative effects of the industry when something goes wrong, whether the reason is human error
or natural causes. However, the notion that nuclear energy is entirely too dangerous to use
commercially around the world should be dispelled; this form of power generates efficient and

Commented [FH3]:

Liptak 2
useable energy and has little to no impact on the surrounding environment as long as it goes as

Commented [FH4]: Maybe elaborate on what kind of

plan Give a specific reason

planned. Nuclear energy is generally safe, but will only be foolproof if certain changes are made.

Whats so promising about nuclear energy?

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear power is the most efficient
energy-producing method, generating electricity around the clock at a 92% capacity factor, as
opposed to only a 47% capacity factor for natural gas methods and 61% for coal-burning. Not
only is it the most efficient in terms of energy produced, it also emits very little amounts of
greenhouse gases into the environment, proving that it is one of the cleanest forms of energy.
Although expensive to construct, power plants are typically a one-time investment instead of
remaining expensive to maintain and keep in business. Uranium, the main resource used in the
industry, is abundant and energy-rich. The process of generating electricity is practically the
same process as burning coal or using other methods; Everett Redmond, director of
nonproliferation and fuel cycle policy at NEI describes the process by stating Nuclear plants,
like plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, produce electricity by boiling water into steam.
This steam then turns turbines to produce electricity. The difference is that nuclear plants do not
burn anything. Instead, they use uranium fuel, consisting of solid ceramic pellets, to produce
electricity through a process called fission. Nuclear power plants obtain the heat needed to
produce steam through a physical process. This process, called fission, entails the splitting of
atoms of uranium in a nuclear reactor. Redmond and the NEI provide basic information about
how power plants are operated, thus proving that generating electricity from radioactive
materials is essentially the same as using water in a dam or wind on a windmill farm, but only

Commented [FH5]: The paragraph is getting a bit lengthy.

Maybe break it up into two points!

Liptak 3
with a different starting resource. The positive aspects of nuclear energy are undeniable. Who
wouldnt want a low-emission, efficient energy source for the years to come?
If its so great, why is there negativity surrounding the industry?
The statistics and facts surrounding nuclear energy show how efficient and simple it is, but there
is still a large amount of doubt surrounding the industry. This doubt stems largely from the
possibility of a nuclear accident occurring. As seen in the past in incidents such as the full-blown
meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Pripyat, Ukraine in 1986 or the equipment failures at
Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan due to an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, nuclear energy
provides plenty of risks. Even though there have been few accidents, the accidents that have
occurred have been extremely high profile due to their dangerousness. Because of the high
profile dangers, such as these accidents, nuclear energy gets a reputation for being a high risk,

Commented [FH6]: What did they do? Often times

readers dont know what happened. Talk about the effect.
How many fatalities? Survivors?

high reward system. However, many view the risk to be too great to take. Anti-nuclear forces
also believe the industry is dangerous due to the lack of proper disposal of radioactive material.
Activists on the Greenpeace site write, The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a U.S.
nuclear plant can not be dismissed. There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the
radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into
the environment, and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly
radioactive waste on site. The threat of disaster and improper waste disposal are the extremely
dangerous aspects of using nuclear energy, yet it still remains the most efficient form of
generating electricity.

What can be done to fix this?

The nuclear power industry is constantly bombarded with complaints about how dangerous and

Commented [FH7]: Cannot

Liptak 4
ineffective it is, even though statistics prove it has the least plant-related deaths and highest
efficiency rating of all forms of alternative energy. So how can the negative stigma be
eliminated? New reforms are necessary for the industry, not only to provide security and ensure
the prevention of another major accident, but also to convince the public that nuclear energy is
safe and reliable. Karl Grandin, Peter Jagers, and Sven Kullander argue for the production of a
new generation of generators to be used in plants. Without functioning fourth generation
reactors, nuclear fission energy will not be sustainable, but with such reactor designs in operation
it will be a viable option for a long time. Fusion energy has the potential of becoming a longterm environmental friendly and material-efficient energy option. However, concerted scientific
research and technology development on an international scale is required for fusion to become a
cost-effective energy option in this century (30). By using fusion, the splitting of atomic atoms,
instead of fission, there would be even more energy produced by small amounts of radioactive
material, and the efficiency would be greatly increased. If nuclear energy organizations want to
improve their image and increase their production, these new generators must be researched and
implemented in the coming years.
Safety protocols must also be redeveloped and pushed into the public more in order to
convince the opposing members of society. Safety is the main concern of the general population
because the disasters can have long-term effects on the environment as well as short-term effects;
the areas close to the Fukushima and Chernobyl incidents are still deemed too radioactive to live
near to this day. The implementation of new safety protocols would encourage the reform of the
plants that are susceptible to disaster and also reinforce the positive aspects of the entire industry.
Even though the WNA releases an annual report about the safety of nuclear power, more steps
must be taken in order to further shed light on how beneficial nuclear energy can be. The

Commented [FH8]: Sentence structure. I was a little

unsure of what you were trying to get across. The sentence
structure is just a little confusing!

Liptak 5
incident at Fukushima was terrible because many lives were lost and thousands of people were
affected, but the disaster also encouraged the reform of safety issues. Plants will no longer be
built in areas susceptible to natural disasters because of this incident, as the Fukushima Daiichi
plant was built in a low area surrounded by the ocean. Also, at Fukushima, the power supply and
cooling mechanisms were disabled; this accident emphasized the necessity of new failsafe
mechanisms in order to provide security if another event like this were to happen. After this
incident, the WNA and NEI both created new security measures to ensure that plants would be
protected in the event of a loss of power.
New ways of obtaining energy from nuclear isotopes would also prove beneficial to the
nuclear power movement. For example, elements other than uranium have the potential to be
used. Uranium is not sustainable, and if it remains the only element used in power plants, the
earth will eventually be depleted of it. David Warmflash of Discover Magazine argues for the
use of thorium instead of uranium because it would be more effective in shutting down the
fission process if something goes wrong, thus stopping disaster before it even happens. He
writes, The uranium process continues in a chain reaction and can be controlled or stopped only
by inserting rods of neutron-absorbing material into the reactor core. But these control rods
arent foolproof: their operation can be affected during a reactor malfunction. This is the reason
that a conventional fission reactor has the potential to start heating out of control and cause an
accident. A thorium fuel cycle, by contrast, can be immediately shut down by turning off the
supply of neutrons (2). In order to implement new failsafe operations, thorium should be used
because it is much easier to control should something go wrong. Thorium is also much more
abundant than uranium in the environment, and it is easier to obtain, which would provide more
material to start the nuclear fission process.

Commented [FH9]: Have they tried testing thorium yet??

If so, did they believe it to work

Liptak 6
Accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi show the negative effects that
accompany nuclear energy, but engineers and power plant operators have all learned from these
mistakes and accidents; new safety measures have been introduced and new reactor mechanisms
have been proposed to reduce the risk of another incident happening. However, if the industry
wants to remain safe, reliable, and trustworthy, even more steps must be taken. New fusion
generators must be created in the near future, or the outdated fission technique may prove to be
too dangerous to use. Creating fusion generators would not only allow more safety when
producing energy, but this would also provide more efficient energy and reduce radioactive
waste, which is extremely harmful to the environment.
In Conclusion Is Nuclear Power Safe and Reliable?
Nuclear power is not a foolproof industry; as of right now, power plants are not designed
to be completely safe. There is always a small possibility of a nuclear incident in every plant,
thus proving it is not a completely safe process. However, it is one of the few forms of
alternative energy that can be modified in order to provide the complete security and safety that
is desired by the public. If new Generation IV reactors are created to utilize nuclear fusion, even
more new security measures are devised, and new methods of using nuclear materials are
engineered, this industry can become the most efficient, safe, and reliable form of alternative
energy. Going nuclear already has its benefits: little greenhouse gas emission, high efficiency,
energy-rich materials. However, in order for this to be seriously considered as a major alternative
energy source, new tactics must be employed. Overall, the nuclear industry has the most
potential for saving the world from the black hole of dangerous emissions and depleting natural
resources, but only if certain steps are taken.

Commented [FH10]: Joey! I think you have such a great

start towards your final draft. You gave a very well and
organized paper that is clear for the reader to understand
and read. I didnt find many grammar errors, I asked a
couple of inquiry questions that may help you expand your
paper for more specific ideas. Overall I think you did such
an awesome job!!

Liptak 7
Works Cited
Fukushima Accident. World Nuclear Association. WNA, 2 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.
Grandin, Karl, Peter Jagers, and Sven Kullander. Nuclear Energy. AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment 39.1 (2010): 26-30. Web. 6 Mar. 2016.
How Nuclear Reactors Work. Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI, n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.
Nuclear Energy. Greenpeace. Greenpeace, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
Nuclear Energy in America. Nuclear Energy Institute. NEI, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2016.
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. World Nuclear Association. WNA, 12 Aug. 2015. Web. 3
Mar. 2016.
Warmflash, David. Thorium Power is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy. Discover Magazine.
16 Jan. 2015. 56-60. Web. 2 March 2016.