Beyond Nuclear Power: The Benefits of Phasing Out Nuclear Energy

A scientific revolution commenced when the world harnessed the fission power of uranium isotopes for nuclear weapons. One of the most important, yet polarizing, consequences of nuclear technology was the emergence of nuclear power. While nuclear energy is heralded for its extraordinary power generating capabilities, a variety of negative repercussions have impacted the further expansion of this technology.  In today’s world, countries should work to phase out nuclear power plants and look to other clean energy sources to drive society. Nuclear energy plants need to shut down due to the negative environmental and financial impacts of accidents, hazardous nuclear waste and to mitigate nuclear weapons proliferation.

One major argument for phasing out nuclear power plants is the detrimental economic and environmental impact following a nuclear meltdown.  If nuclear power plants are not properly built or inspected, the potential for a catastrophic accident is high.  Both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents are important case studies that demonstrate the irreversible effects of a nuclear meltdown.  As a result of the Chernobyl accident there were “approximately 200,000 persons permanently evacuated from their homes” and “radioactive contamination of an area of about 3,000 km2” (von Hippel, 2010).  This irreversible damage uprooted entire communities and decimated important natural resources, flora and fauna.  The financial implications were devastating as well. Both the Belarusian and Ukrainian governments lost billions of dollars due to the collateral damage of the meltdown.

Proponents of building more nuclear power plants argue that increased safety and improved technology will prevent nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl from occurring.  However, this is not the case, as the infrastructure of nuclear power plants will always be susceptible to disasters.  The Fukushima disaster in Japan demonstrates the vulnerability of nuclear power plants.  An earthquake and its resulting tsunami triggered the meltdown, causing extensive environmental damage and financial losses in the area.  Nuclear power plants such as Fukushima can be operating perfectly, but a natural disaster or technological malfunction can cause catastrophic failure.  Meltdowns not only have the aforementioned immediate environmental and financial impacts, but costly human health repercussions continue for decades after the initial collapse. Belarusian and Ukrainian citizens near Chernobyl are part of a growing thyroid cancer epidemic in the region and citizens still suffer from a variety of health complications stemming from the radioactive exposure (von Hippel, 2010).  By shutting down nuclear power plants, the world can make sure these environmental, financial and health repercussions from nuclear accidents are never seen again.

Increased nuclear weapons proliferation is another major reason to phase out nuclear power.  Building more nuclear power plants results in an increased demand for uranium and plutonium, the same radioactive elements that are used to create atomic weapons.   Today, we live in a dangerous geopolitical climate and tensions between nuclear powers, such as Russia and the United States, continue to rise.  One political misstep could lead to untold destruction in multiple countries.  Adding more uranium and plutonium to the market for the purpose of peaceful nuclear power, has the repercussion of those materials ending up as fuel for dangerous nuclear weapons.  Increased nuclear fuel on the market will only continue to drive the dangerous arms races that many nuclear countries are engaged in, further elevating the threat of nuclear war.  With the past tragedies of the atomic bomb and the current catastrophic potential of nuclear war today, producing more radioactive uranium or plutonium is a risk the world cannot afford to take.

The argument that building nuclear power plants is separate from increased weapons proliferation is very flawed.  The Atoms for Peace program was established to provide resources so countries could learn how to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes such as powering their societies.  However, the Atoms for Peace program ended up furthering nuclear weapons proliferation instead of bolstering nuclear power.  For example, India used the Atoms for Peace program as a guise to establish their own nuclear weapons program (von Hippel, 2010).  The addition of another nuclear power under dishonest circumstances only furthered tensions and controversy between established powers. Atoms for Peace also “fueled regional rivalries and became the bane of the international community” (Mian and Glaser, 2008).  Suddenly, nuclear-capable countries had educated other countries on nuclear power, and some of those previously non-nuclear countries used this good faith knowledge to build a nuclear arsenal.  New nuclear countries such as India, Iran and Israel now possessed nuclear power in unstable regions, elevating already tense situations and creating an additional divide between nuclear-capable and non-nuclear countries. Nuclear power will always have the negative consequence of increasing weapons proliferation.  Even if the original intention is benevolent, such as Atoms for Peace, nuclear power cannot be separated from nuclear weapons. Overall, the safest course of action is to phase out nuclear power plants.

The creation of hazardous waste from nuclear power is another reason to discontinue building new power plants.  The process of nuclear fission creates a toxic by-product that cannot be simply tossed away into a landfill.  If nuclear waste comes into contact with the earth, it can permeate into plants and drinking water with detrimental consequences.  Toxic waste can seep into invaluable freshwater aquifers or ravage entire yields of crops.  This could have consequences that reverberate all across the globe. Countries already face problems of resource scarcity and incorrect disposal of toxic waste could potentially amplify these problems. There have been many efforts to safely dispose of nuclear waste such as placing it into containers and burying them underground in concrete chambers, but no matter what method is chosen, the toxic by-products of nuclear fission will remain a problem for generations to come.  

One potential solution that has been brought up to address nuclear waste is spent fuel processing.  Proponents of this method explain that through reprocessing, the amount of radioactive waste requiring long-term storage is dramatically lower.  While this is true, there are multiple reasons that reprocessing is an unsustainable process and that we should phase out nuclear power instead.  First, reprocessing is expensive and a reprocessing plant in the United States would cost over 25 billion dollars.  Not only is reprocessing extremely costly, it furthers the previously discussed dangers of nuclear proliferation as well. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford established a policy of refraining from reprocessing to prevent further nuclear arms proliferation (Ferguson, 2011).   Reprocessing methods reclaim plutonium, which allows more plutonium to remain on the market and therefore increase the chance that this element is used for nuclear weapons. Overall, reprocessing should not be implemented, so the best solution to mitigate future nuclear waste problems would be to cease building nuclear power plants.  

Despite the inherent controversy around nuclear energy, it has one vital benefit to society.  Nuclear energy is an extremely powerful and low carbon intensive energy source.  Used in a peaceful way, a nuclear power plant can supply a substantial amount of energy to a country with minimal carbon emissions.  As climate change continues to decimate Earth’s natural resources, lowering carbon emissions is a crucial component to mitigating the effects of global warming.  To reduce carbon emissions, countries must lower their dependence on both coal and natural gas as energy sources.  Nuclear energy not only produces minimal greenhouse gas emissions, but also can supply the large quantities of energy that will be needed to power the world.  Global warming is a devastating worldwide problem and nuclear energy can potentially serve as part of the solution.

While nuclear energy is a low carbon intensive energy source, there are better ways for the world to satisfy its energy demands while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions.  Renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind turbines and hydroelectric dams are more sustainable energy solutions then nuclear power.  First, clean energy not only produces zero carbon emissions similar to nuclear power, but also does not produce any waste, in stark contrast with the dangerous nuclear fuel waste.  Wind, solar and hydroelectric power all do not contain any materials that lead to dangerous weapons proliferation, a clear advantage over nuclear power.  Finally, nuclear power has been on the decline for years and renewable energy sources are rapidly expanding.  The World Nuclear Industry Report summarized that “the number of nuclear power units under construction is declining for the fourth year in a row” and currently “there are 37 reactor constructions behind schedule” (Schneider and Froggart, 2017).  For nuclear power to be part of the solution to global warming more reactors need to be built and nuclear needs to generate a higher percentage of total world power.  More nuclear reactors require extremely costly financial measures.  On top of that, renewable energy projects now cost less then nuclear power plants due to technological innovation (Schneider and Froggart, 2017).  Overall, while nuclear power is a low carbon energy source, renewable energy is cheaper, has no waste issues and is a more sustainable energy source for the world to use as a solution to global warming.

Nuclear power plants need to be phased out due to their dangerous toxic waste, negative financial and environmental repercussions of accidents, and to stop further nuclear weapons proliferation.  The discovery of nuclear power was a scientific breakthrough that forever changed the world.  While the power of nuclear energy, either in the form of weapons or electricity generation, is unquestioned, there are horrific and perilous consequences that stem from nuclear fission-based technology.  It is for the best interest of society to phase out nuclear power and look at other alternatives, such as renewable energy, to solve climate change.  As the world moves into the future, the danger and destruction of nuclear energy needs to be left in the past.

Bibliography

 Ferguson, Charles D. Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Mian, Zia, and Alexander Glaser. “A Frightening Nuclear Legacy.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 64, no. 4, 2008, pp. 42–57., doi:10.2968/064004010.

Schneider, Mycle, and Antony Froggart. “The Independent Assessment of Nuclear Developments in the World.” World Nuclear Industry Status Report, www.worldnuclearreport.org/.

von Hippel, Frank. “The Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy.” Fissile Materials, 2017, fissilematerials.org/library/rr09.pdf.

Previous
Previous

Urban Sprawl and Environmental Concerns in Miami