1. 1
THE ENERGY TO BE
The way things are going today suggest that soon the population of our planet will reach
eight billion people. This is relevant to power consumption because the more people who inhabit
the earth, the more power will be required to keep the lights on for the ever increasing
population. In a time where global warming has surpassed the point of no .return. Our world
requires a new energy, perhaps a semi-clean energy that has the ability to support our needs.
There are many solutions to continue supplying our never-ending need for energy, but only a few
stick out. Of course there are green power solutions like solar and wind, but those require the sun
and the wind to produce power. Along with that, these devices take up space as they have to be
built above ground and are often very large in size. These are inefficient as they take up too
much space in order to provide the large amount of energy we require. Nuclear power on the
other hand, produces power very efficiently, and can be built just about anywhere if it is
designed properly. For nuclear power to be adopted as our main power source, the public must
be aware of not only its dangers but also how plentiful its power production can be. Nuclear
power when compared to other power sources reigns supreme as most efficient. But this is only
the case if the reactor is operating within its appropriated lifespan, is designed to meet specific
guidelines for safety, as well as built in a suitable place where natural disasters are unlikely to
occur. This power production method has developed a track record that is known more for its
mishaps rather than its triumphs. In a time where the world’s power consumption is at its highest,
why is nuclear energy not the world’s main power source?
When nuclear power was first adopted, it looked as though the world had found its
eternal energy provider. Yergin mentions a quote Time magazine made in the 1950’s
describing atomic energy as a “new phase”. Even though the future was so bright for nuclear

2. 2
energy back in the 50’s, it quickly became of force that could provoke fear. Robinson says
“Nuclear power was the beginning to look like a panacea… Now it looks more like a bargain
with the devil”(Robinson 226). Both authors believe that nuclear power had a bright future
but met a dark and quick end before its full potential could be reached. “Over the next few
years, about 50 nuclear power plants were ordered”(Yergin 369). It exploded to the point
where “there was insufficient operating experience”(Yergin 369). The technology was so new
and so undeveloped that brand new nuclear power plants could not even be turned on because
nobody knew how to manage it. The world was so excited about the potential of nuclear
energy, that they were unable to adapt quickly enough in order to safely harness its power. The
hype of nuclear energy was short lived as accidents and disasters began to outweigh the
positives nuclear energy provided.
Today we use coal and dams to generate electricity, and gas to heat our homes and
power appliances. These methods have been around for so long that it is hard to adapt to new
ways of power production, even if the safety standards are better. “In 1944 a natural gas
explosion in Cleveland leveled an entire neighborhood and killed 130 people… coal mining
killed 100,000 workers in the 20th century… A hydroelectric dam collapsed in Japan… killing
an undetermined number of people ”(Tucker 228). So what else is there to be afraid of? We
are surrounded by potential dangers on a daily basis, nuclear power is not the only power
production method to be worried about. We take risks everyday while using these other power
technologies, when we could be using the most efficient, slightly more dangerous, but less
accident prone nuclear power. Yes, nuclear power has its dangers but so do”"es gas, oil, coal,
and various types of other power technologies. Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling, as
water pipes and gas lines break, flooding and decimating neighborhoods. New nuclear

3. 3
facilities can replace the old, allowing us to use electricity and power lines that can be easily
repaired, rather than having to dig under feet of concrete to mend a broken steel pipe. Nuclear
energy is more efficient than coal, gas, and dams. For example, “1 pound of enriched uranium
can produce as much energy as 1 million gallons of gasoline”(Doeden 52). That is an
astounding statistic, here is another one to put nuclear power into even more perspective, “A
coal plant must be fed by a 100-car freight train arriving every 30 hours. A nuclear reactor is
refueled by a fleet of six trucks arriving once every two years”(Tucker 228). As of now
nuclear energy is unmatched in efficiency, but like the rest of America’s infrastructure, many
nuclear power plants have already or are in the process of reaching their breaking points.
Reactors around the world are expiring and reaching their determined operating lengths,
but many are being maintained with upgrades so that they may be used longer. Geoffray claims
that many reactors “ are approaching--or have surpassed-- their initial 30- to 40-year life
spans”(Geoffray 62). Reactors with 30-40 year life spans are known as “Generation II” reactors.
“Generation III” reactors are simply gen 2 reactors with a whole bunch of upgrades. Potential
disasters could be avoided by decommissioning these reactors once they’ve reached their
expiration date, or their upgrade limit. “Fukushima reactors are of an older design.”(Robinson
226). And should have been decommissioned, which could have lessened the effects immensely.
But it wasn’t and now radioactive materials are dispersed across the ocean. This event also
reinstalled fear into people all over the world about the dangers of nuclear power production,
thus not helping it become the number one energy producer. It is words like
“RADIOACTIVITY” and “NUKES” that are bolded in the headlines of the news from time to
time. “Scary though the accident looked and sounded in the media, its radiological consequences
are negligible. Nobody has died from radiation exposure”(Buongiorno 10). A person can only

4. 4
use so much duct tape on a leaking pipe just like an engineer can only install so many upgrades
on a reactor before it gives out too.
Learning from past mistakes, is the way to improve. “The U.S., the U.K., France, China,
and South Korea… restated their commitment to the safe and secure development of nuclear
energy as a way to combat global warming and ensure energy independence”(Buongiorno 10).
This needs to be practiced by all countries with nuclear reactors. “A number of countries with
young nuclear energy programs… did not significantly alter their plans after
Fukushima”(Buongiorno 10). If Chernobyl wasn’t a big enough warning sign that more safety
measures need to be taken when using nuclear energy, than Fukushima is. Before Fukushima and
Chernobyl, there was the Three Mile Island accident, “prior to the Three Mile Island. Austria
completed a nuclear power plant… but it was never turned on and it has sat idle ever
since”(Yergin 374). This is an extreme reaction to a nuclear accident. It shows how scared
individuals are of nuclear accidents if countries are just able to give up an expensive new project.
Austria should have instead postponed the reactor’s activation so that all safety measures could
be taken to ensure the same accident doesn’t occur for them. But instead they wasted who knows
how much money on a reactor that was never used. France on the other hand took their time
developing their nuclear program. “One striking result of this commitment was to propel France
into the vanguard of the global nuclear supply industry”(Yergin 375). France managed to be the
foremost producer of nuclear energy because they were cautious, and its the only energy that is
plentiful enough to support their country.
It is understandable that the ocean water was intended to cool the Fukushima reactors, but
that had consequences that were fully realized when the reactors exploded and irradiated
shrapnel rained down onto the ocean and floated away. Water used to cool reactors is contained

5. 5
in order to keep it separate from the radioactive uranium core, however when water hits the
uranium rods it is instantly is turned into steam due to the extreme heat. Applebaum claims if the
“technologically brilliant Japanese can’t build a completely safe a reactor, who
can?”(Applebaum 230). Well anyone who builds a reactor where the forces of nature aren't
present, that’s who. Fukushima’s outdated technology were designed to be completely safe for
the time, that time being 1970’s. “German nuclear plants are among the best operated in the
world, and seismic and tsunami risks in Germany are practically nonexistent”(Buongiorno 10).
Rather than being built on seismic faults and areas with high risk for natural disasters, nuclear
power plants should be built barren areas where they are not at risk. If the only option for
building a reactor is in a high risk for natural disasters area than the reactor should be properly
outfitted with the technology it would require to survive a natural disaster of proportions
comparable to the earthquake and tsunami that hit Fukushima. It is not where the reactor is built,
but how the reactor is built. There is a reactor being constructed that is “designed to withstand
the impact of an airplane”(Applebaum 230). If it can withstand an airplane hit, then a reactor like
this can definitely handle any condition it is built in.
Nuclear power production like coal and oil, produces waste. Once the uranium fuel rods
are depleted they become very dangerous and must be stored properly. “Nuclear Waste stays
toxic for years”(Doeden 53). So what do we do with it? It was proposed to store it underground,
also to launch it into space. “The Russians… offer to take back the “nuclear waste” and
reprocess it into more fuel”(Tucker 229). Basically nuclear recycling process. Storing it
underground was stopped because there was a possibility for an earthquake to occur which could
damage the containment structure for the depleted uranium. If nuclear waste is dangerous just
imagine what is brewing underneath the Chernobyl ruins, as the uranium core is still melting

6. 6
down and will be for a number of years. Along with that, whatever got blown into the ocean as a
result of Fukushima is floating around or sinking to the bottom, and it is most likely highly
irradiated. However the controlled waste from nuclear reactors will have to be disposed of.
Sending it to space would be expensive but would work. Another proposed idea is from the
Chinese who, “have commercialized their first Integral Fast Breeder, a reactor that can burn any
kind of “waste””(Tucker 229). So this is a definite option for disposing of nuclear waste. We can
either have it repossessed by the Russians to receive more fuel, or have it burned by the Chinese
to generate power, so it’s a win with either option. The amount of nuclear waste that we have
acquired and will continue to acquire over the years will need some place to be disposed of, or
else a whole new level of pollution will be created.
The future of Nuclear power could go both ways. It could either get shut down just like
the Austrians did, or it could flourish like it did in France. “With U.S. electricity demand
expected to increase by as much as 29 percent in the next 30 years”(Rodman, Hartman 12).
Meaning we need to grasp the full potential of nuclear power and use it now not later. If this
would have been done in the 50’s like it was projected to, then we would be sitting pretty, with
more energy than we would know what to do with. Right now we have boats, submarines, and
cities powered by nuclear energy. Imagine how far we could go on spacecraft powered by
nuclear energy. Someday maybe everyone will own their own personal reactor. “Small modular
reactors… that can be built below ground, reducing potential threats of a terrorist attack or
natural disaster”(Rodman, Hartman 12). That would make them safe to be located anywhere,
perhaps maybe one day in someone’s own basement. Making nuclear power plants safe can be
considered easy when compared to convincing the world that nuclear power is actually safe. If
there are campaigns and events hosted to prove to the public that nuclear energy is safe, then one

7. 7
day it will become our main power source. Reactors could one day be so technologically
advanced that they would be able to function on their own, with little to no human input. There
are great technological advancements being made each day. At that rate, before we know it
nuclear power will be an everyday thing, just like coal and oil, but those will be energy sources
of the past.
The point is that the incidents regarding Chernobyl and Fukushima were freak accidents
caused by nature and uncautious actions. Today's technology makes it possible to design a
foolproof self-sustaining nuclear reactor. The technology for power production is only going to
get greater and it is key that we stay up to date. In order to ensure complete safety of nuclear
reactors we need to refine our nuclear programs by learning from past mistakes. The public has
to fully understand that nuclear energy is safe and by making it our main power source we can
then really on electricity rather than foreign oil. The media has not helped nuclear energy either.
The constant news coverage that was present during Fukushima. Nowadays people can get
information in seconds, unlike back when Three Mile Island and Chernobyl occurred. Russia
even tried to cover up Chernobyl incident for a while. The world is not yet ready for nuclear
power. It is a slow gradual adjustment that someday will come. The potential that this energy
source holds is not known to everyone, but soon enough it will be, soon enough our power needs
will no longer be sustained.

8. 8
WORKS CITED
Applebaum, Anne. “If the Japanese Can’t Build a Safe Nuclear Reactor, Who Can?” Rpt. in
Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Compiled by Christine R. Farris and Deanna
M. Jessup. Second Edition. New York: Pearson. 2013. 229-231.
Buongiorno, Jacopo. "Lesson learned: the Fukushima disaster should make nuclear energy safer
than ever." Technology Review [Cambridge, Mass.] July-Aug. 2012: 10. Science In
Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Doeden, Matt. “Green Energy: Crucial Gains or Economic Strains?” Minneapolis: Twenty-First
Century, 2010. Book. 49-57.
Geoffray, Jessie. "A shift in nuclear powers." Popular Science Sept. 2014: 62+. Gale Power
Search. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Robinson, Eugene. “No Fail-Safe Option.” Rpt. in Writing and Reading for ACP Composition.
Compiled by Christine R. Farris and Deanna M. Jessup. Second Edition. New York:
Pearson. 2013. 226-227.
Rodman, Lauren and Kristy, Hartman. "Nuclear reactors go small." State Legislatures 40.8
(2014): 12. Student Resources in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Tucker, William. “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima.” Rpt. in Writing
and Reading for ACP Composition. Compiled by Christine R. Farris and Deanna M.
Jessup. Second Edition. New York: Pearson. 2013. 228-229.
Yergin, Daniel. “The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World.” New
York: Penguin, 2011. Book. 361-78.