The document critiques Andrew Kenny's argument that nuclear power is a better option than renewable energy. It argues that Kenny exaggerates claims about nuclear power's safety and sustainability. While Kenny provides some valid points about nuclear power's reliability, he underestimates its negative consequences, such as radiation exposure from accidents and the uneven global distribution of uranium resources. The document concludes that Kenny's defense of nuclear power is imbalanced and exaggerated.

1. Why nuclear power is not really a better
option than renewable energy
Tanooja Rai A0082986L
In “Why renewable energy is a worse option than nuclear” (Kenny, 2012), Andrew Kenny
concludes that renewable energy has served as a double edged sword and it may not necessarily
be always beneficial to us unlike nuclear energy. He postulates that while renewable energy does
have its forte given its usefulness in various applications, it disappoints in its ability to generate
grid electricity and has detrimental effects on both the environment and economy. Firstly, by
emphasizing on the comparative disadvantage in the utilization of wind energy -- a form of
renewable energy, Kenny argues that wind energy is ineffective and inefficient in electricity
production as compared to nuclear energy, substantiating it with the vast disparities in the
electricity production between Koeberg Nuclear Power Station and Darling Wind Farm.
Secondly, he claims that the credibility of electricity production by wind energy is far weaker
than nuclear energy based on a study by John Muir Trust which highlights unpredictable
fluctuations in wind electricity production. Although his reasons seem convincing, the false
assertion planted by Kenny that nuclear power is the safest form of energy technology outweighs
this initial attempt on glorifying nuclear power. There are strong factual incidents where nuclear
power has induced great pandemonium and led to widespread devastation. Moreover, Kenny has
made a couple of questionable claims in the discussion of the sustainability of nuclear power and
non-toxic nature of nuclear waste.
Kenny highlights that nuclear power has by far the safest record of any energy technology. He
cites the Fukushima incident where despite the severe dilapidation of the nuclear reactors, the

2. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 2
radiation from the accident produced no casualties. He places a blanket label on all future
accidental exposure to the radiation from the nuclear reactors by assuming they would not pose
as a deadly threat to the affected region, with no convincing substantiation. Inevitably, Kenny
has conveniently based his stand on merely one positive testimony accompanied by sweeping
generalizations. In fact, in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster that took place in 1986, 28
out of 134 severely exposed workers and firemen perished as a result of acute radiation
syndrome (UNSCEAR, 2000). Kenny has clearly downplayed the serious consequences of such
accidental radiation exposures. Furthermore, given nuclear power’s shameful safety record with
high radiation exposure issues still affecting countries like Japan till today - radiation readings
hitting as high as 2,200 millisieverts [mSv] per hour (McCurry,2013), Kenny has clearly
exaggerated his claims on nuclear power being the safest form of energy. In addition, in his
attempt to advocate that renewable energy is less safe than nuclear power, Kenny has made a
hasty generalization mentioning that thousands of lives have been lost in renewable energy
sources accidents recently.
Kenny also asserts that nuclear energy can be deemed as a long term solution to meet our energy
needs given that the earth’s minerals are rich in uranium and thorium. An important assumption
underlying his stance is that the rich amount of uranium and thorium, well required for the
production of nuclear power, is proportionately distributed to all parts of the world. However,
the global distribution of uranium and thorium is greatly uneven, with Australia having the
substantial part of the world’s uranium of 31 percent, Kazakhstan at 12 percent and Jordan and
Mongolia possessing only 1 percent of the world’s uranium (World Nuclear Association, 2012).
Having said that, Kenny has clearly failed to widen his perspectives to consider the rationale of
exclusivity on earth wherein such exclusiveness of earth’s minerals could entitle mineral-rich

3. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 3
countries disproportionate economic power in the use of nuclear power. Furthermore,
exploitation of such minerals may also ludicrously result in a monopoly of uranium and thorium .
In addition to that, if the whole world completely turns to nuclear power to meet their energy
demands, the supplies of usable uranium ore would deplete within a few short decades,
preventing countries from achieving self sufficiency in energy production. This clearly
contradicts Kenny’s claims that “nuclear power is sustainable for the remaining life of the
planet” (Kenny,2012).
Kenny also argues that nuclear wastes can be easily and efficiently stored, without causing any
negative externalities to the environment. On contrary, he mentions that wastes from wind are
highly poisonous, long-lived and deadly. However, he casually disregards the fact that nuclear
wastes can remain radioactive for thousands of years and render radioactive dumping sites
inhabitable. His argument that the mode of storage of nuclear waste has no serious repercussions
is myopic. Specialists have highlighted high potential of environmental pollution in countries
like Kyrgyzstan where high volumes of radioactive wastes are stored (IRIN Asia, 2008). They
have indicated several contributing risk factors such as natural disasters and structural
maintenance at dumping sites that could lead to radioactive leakages into transboundary river
basins, raising the potential of possible contamination spread across the Central Asian region. In
fact, more insidiously, to avert the high costs of preventing such adversities, the Fukushima
Diichi has resorted to dump radioactive wastes into the sea, affecting the marine lives
(Forbes,2013). Therefore, Kenny is clearly making an unjustified generalization.
In conclusion, Kenny has adopted a generally biased positive view of nuclear power in contrast
to nuclear energy. While Kenny does provide some valid points on the reliability of nuclear
power, he has underestimated the negative repercussions of nuclear power. A more balanced

4. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 4
treatment of factual data could have made his argument more credible instead of basing his
conclusions on his own favourable observations. In addition, Kenny fell short of providing
substantial real life examples to back the absolute positive picture that he painted of nuclear
power in being a clean and safe form of energy. He should not have neglected the benefits
brought forth by renewable energy and instead examine its significance in greater detail for a
more holistic argument. All in all, his defense for nuclear power is imbalanced and by far
exaggerated.
(Word count: 907 words )

5. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 5
References
McCurry, J. (2013, September 4 ). Fukushima radiation leaks reach deadly new
high. theguardian, Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-radiation-deadly-new-high.
UNSCEAR. (2000). Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident(Annex J). Retrieved
September 5,2013, from http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf
Kenny, A. (2012, August 14). Why renewable energy is a worse option than nuclear. Business
Day, Retrieved from http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2012/08/14/why-renewable-energy-is-a-
worse-option-than-nuclear.
World Nuclear Organisation . (2012, August ). Supply of Uranium. Retrieved September 5,2013,
from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-
Uranium/
IRIN. (2008, September 10). KYRGYZSTAN: Nuclear waste dumps threaten environment.
Retrieved September 5,2013 from http://www.irinnews.org/report/80271/kyrgyzstan-nuclear-
waste-dumps-threaten-environment
Worstall, T. (2013, April 9). Solving The Fukushima Radioactivity Problem: Dump It All Into
The Ocean. Forbes, Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-fukushima-radioactivity-
problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/.

6. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 6
Appendix 1
Tool’s Name Evaluation criteria
Google
Search
Engine
(theguardian
news
website)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-
radiation-deadly-new-high.
 A more detailed
overview of the
criticality of the
Fukushima
radiation leaks
 The detrimental
effects of this
leakage on the
general public and
the environment
supported by
statistical figures
and factual
contents
 Credibility of the
source
 Relevance of the
source to my
argument
Under the
References
section of the
WNO
website
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf  Credibility of the
report to address
the issue of the
Radiation of
Cherbonyl incident
and the mortality
rate.
 Availability of
statiscal figures and
factual contents to
substantiate my
argument
 Datas that oppose
the Kenny’s weak
arguments
Navigation
tool within
WNO
website
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-
Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/
 Availability of data
to illustrate the
disproportionate
distribution of the
uranium supply in
the world
 Credibility of
source and author
Google
Search
Engine
http://www.irinnews.org/report/80271/kyrgyzstan-nuclear-waste-dumps-
threaten-environment
 Souces to
substantiate my
argument that
nuclear waste is
still detrimental to
general public and
environment
despite its easy
storage.
 Availability of data

7. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 7
Google
Search
Engine
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-
fukushima-radioactivity-problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/.
 The severity of
nuclear waste
dumping and the
negative
repercussions
 Availability of data
to substantiate my
argument
 Crebility of source
and author

8. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 8
Appendix 2
Annotated Biblography
1) Reference: McCurry, J. (2013, September 4 ). Fukushima radiation leaks reach deadly
new high. theguardian, Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-radiation-deadly-new-
high.
Summary: This news article addresses on Fukushima nuclear accident and highlights the
deadly nature of this nuclear power as well as the negative repercussions that come along
with the radiation leaks. The article also acknowledges the government intervention in
Japan in this dire condition of Fukushima Daiichi to salvage the situation.
Evaluation: The article reports some statistical datas to illustrate the severity of the
current condition of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its surroundings. The
article adopts a neutral stand and it is very analytical in its approach towards reporting the
incident.
Reflection: I believe the statistical datas and factual statements found in this article ,
would provide a strong framework to justify my arguments against Kenny’s claims.
2) Reference: UNSCEAR. (2000). Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident(Annex
J). Retrieved September 5,2013, from http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf
Summary: This report established by UNSCEAR, provides a very thorough analysis of
the Chernobyl nuclear accident. It highlights on the physical consequences of the
accident on the general public and the environment, the amount of exposure of the
radiation in the affected regions, the short term and long term detrimental impacts on
health, induced by the accident.
Evaluation: The report is very analytical and detailed, addressing the various concerns
that resulted from the Chernobyl accident. Furthermore, the findings in the report are
strongly supporting by statistical figures, data, graph plots and factual statements from
credible sources.
Reflection: I believe this source would provide useful data and figures to address my
argument against Kenny’s claims that nuclear power is safer and cleaner form of energy.

9. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 9
3) Reference: World Nuclear Organisation . (2012, August ). Supply of Uranium. Retrieved
September 5,2013, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-
Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/
Summary: This source illustrates the disproportionate distribution of the supply of
uranium across the globe. It also addresses the expenditure on uranium exploration, to
achieve mineral resources sustainability and salvage the situation of depletion.
Evaluation: The source has clearly depicted the disproportionate supply of uranium
across the globe through factual data and graph plots. It is also very analytical in his
approach towards addressing the concerns of mineral resources depletion such as
uranium and thorium.
Reflection: I believe this source provides much relevance to my argument against
Kenny’s claims earth’s minerals are rich in uranium and thorium, with the strong
illustration that these minerals are disproportionately distributed across the globe.
4) Reference: IRIN. (2008, September 10). KYRGYZSTAN: Nuclear waste dumps threaten
environment. Retrieved September 5,2013 from
http://www.irinnews.org/report/80271/kyrgyzstan-nuclear-waste-dumps-threaten-
environment
Summary: This source illustrates the detrimental impacts that nuclear waste dumping
induces on the environment. It also highlights the high potential for environmental
pollution via this dumping sites especially in situations of natural disasters, which serves
a contributing factor to radioactive contamination, rendering the land inhabitable.

10. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 10
Evaluation: The source sites compelling examples and credible sources to substantiate its
reports towards nuclear waste dumping.
Reflection: I find this source useful to act as a credible source to substantiate my
argument against Kenny’s claim that nuclear wastes are safe. I can utilize the factual
statements which can act as compelling examples to support my arguments.
5) Reference: Worstall, T. (2013, April 9). Solving The Fukushima Radioactivity Problem:
Dump It All Into The Ocean. Forbes, Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-fukushima-
radioactivity-problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/.
Summary: This source the solution that Japan had adopted to salvage the radioactivity
issue that resulted from the Fukushima nuclear accident. This solution of dumping the
radioactive nuclear wastes into the sea is highly criticized in this article as not being a
feasible solution to such radioactivity problems. The source also highlights the negative
repercussions of this action – loss of marine lives, degradation of habitat for these marine
lives as well as environmental pollution.
Evaluation – This source is taken from Tim Worstall’s perspective with the regards to
dumping nuclear waste into the sea to solve the radioactivity problem. It is generally
portraying a negative view of such an approach and critically analyzing it with substantial
evidences and statistical figures.
Reflection: I believe this source is useful in enabling to take into account a perspective
from a credible source and utilized its factual statements and substantial evidences to
generate a stronger argument in relations to the criticality of nuclear waste dumping.

11. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 11
6) Reference: The Times Editorial Board. (2013, August 25). Nuclear waste can’t wat. Los
Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-yucca-
mountain-nuclear-waste-disposal-20130825,0,3109839.story.
Summary: This newspaper article highlights that by seeing nuclear power as a solution to
the worsening climate change, President Obama is being critically oblivious to the
detrimental impacts of nuclear waste disposals which can further escalate the problem of
climate change. It asserts that although Yucca mountain is deemed to be the safest
medium for nuclear waste storage, the very transition of nuclear waste to this medium or
other repository can be seen as a menace to the environment due to the wastes’ deadly
radioactive nature. This report is being critical towards the President’s approach in
solving climate change.
Evaluation: This source, although providing convincing and logical statements, is very
generalized in its arguments with minimal compelling examples and substantial
evidences.
Reflection: This source may not be useful in writing my critique towards Kenny’s
claims. Although it does addresses the detrimental impacts of nuclear wastes and places
nuclear power in the bad light, the source does not provide any substantial evidences,
statistical figures or compelling examples to support my arguments against Kenny’s
claims.
7) Reference: Wikipedia (n.d). Nuclear Power. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

12. Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy
Page | 12
Summary: This source provides an in depth explanation on nuclear power, highlighting
its origins,life cycle, the environmental issues that are induced by nuclear power as well
as the controversial debate on nuclear power
Evaluation: This source is too analytical. The contents of this source are too heavy with
too many referencing and evidences, some of which may be irrelevant to my critique on
Andrew Kenny’s claims.
Reflection: Given the vast amount of information and difficulty to source out relevant
information, I have reached to the conclusion of not utilizing this source in my academic
essay.