Why the U.S.

Needs Nuclear Energy

Kyle Monsma
2nd Period
 Monsma 1

Kyle Monsma

11 Feb 2008

English VI

Mrs. Davis

Why the U.S. Needs Nuclear Energy

In the modern world, energy has become a major part of industrialized society; it has

allowed us to live in our high standard of living. Energy, which is a key part of the U.S.

economy, allows us to do everything from heating homes at night to instant communication.

However, with the current fluctuation of oil prices, the United States’ huge dependence on oil

(and other hydrocarbon based power sources) has come under question. Despite whether or not

claims about manmade global warming are true or not, it is clear that America needs to quickly

replace these power sources with alternative energies. These alternative energies could be used

to power more and more devises that require energy, for example, to use in plug in electric

hybrids which get 100 plus mpg or in the production of hydrogen for fuel cell driven vehicles

which can eventually replace the need for oil. Currently, the problem with many alternative fuel

sources today is that they are too costly, and require way too much time and land to reasonably

implement. There is a solution! It is nuclear power. Nuclear power is the most viable future

alternative fuel source, which is a key in America achieving energy independence from oil while

providing enough power to continue America’s economic and industrial might.

One of the major advantages of nuclear power is its reliability. Nuclear energy is a very

reliable energy source both because of its ability to keep prices relatively constant and the fact

that uranium comes from very reliable countries. When compared with hydrocarbon based
 Monsma 2

resources (such as natural gas), nuclear energy has the advantage of “not [being] subject to

disruptions as were seen when Hurricane Katrina halted natural gas production in September

2005” (Metcalf 86). Also, seasonally “natural gas is subject to significant price fluctuations” due

to its use as a heating fuel and in industrial processes (Metcalf 89). Nuclear power also proves

itself to be a reliable means of energy production because of where the fuel for it comes from

also. It comes “readily available from reliable allies such as Canada and Australia” (Metcalf,

89). This means that Uranium does not need to be purchased from unstable and unreliable

countries such as Iran or Venezuela, which have been the focus of much concern. Another aspect

of nuclear energy, which pertains to its reliability as a future source of power, is that it takes full

responsibility for its environmental impact. Nuclear energy retains its entire waist within

containment facilities unlike hydrocarbons which vents out pollution into the atmosphere. This

is clearly demonstrated when comparing the average nuclear power plant with the more common

average coal plant.

“…a typical coal-fired power station emits some 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide

each year as well as 1 million tonnes of ash, 500,00 tonnes of gypsum, 29,000 tonnes of

nitrous oxide, 21,000 tonnes of sludge, 16,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 1000 tonnes of

dust and smaller amounts of other chemicals, such as calcium, potassium, titanium, and

arsenic” (Hodgson 2)

It should be noted that sulfur dioxide is harmful to human health, and is a contributor to acid

rain. On the other hand, nuclear energy has only a small insignificant emission of carbon dioxide

(due to the process of making Uranium) and absolutely no other emissions. Because nuclear

energy is the cheapest available form of energy, this also makes nuclear energy reliable as an
 Monsma 3

economically viable way of replacing hydrocarbon based power. In Belgium, a recently set up

commission “to examine the options for electricity generation” estimated that in 2010 it will

“cost BFr 2.34 to generate every kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal … 1.74 for gas, wind as

1.85 (seashore), 2.39 (offshore) and 3.26 (inland), but just 1.22-1.28 for nuclear power”

(Hodgson 3) Nuclear energy is in fact the cheapest form of energy available, and is not being

fully implemented here in the U.S., because of legal restrictions and overzealous protesters. Not

only is nuclear power a very reliable and cheap source of energy, but it is also very safe.

Nuclear power -in America at least- is not dangerous! With the development of new

safety measures and a really high oversight of the U.S. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission),

the implementation of the many tight safety regulations and use of a ridiculous amount of safety

counter measures has taken place. Many people, when they think about nuclear energy, have bad

flash backs to the events of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Since the events of Three Mile

Island accident (which resulted in absolutely no deaths), American safety for procedures carried

out at nuclear power plants has greatly improved. The events at Three Mile Island led the

government “require[ing] upgrades in piping, valves and other equipment at all nuclear plants,

and [an increase] NRC inspections”, as a result “Today, ‘the U.S. operates not only the biggest

but probably the safest and most reliable fleet of reactors’” (Davidson 3). It would, however, be

irrational to even consider comparing the disaster at Chernobyl with any potential problem the

U.S. may have. This is because of the many key flaws with Russian nuclear power plant design

are so obvious. First of all, the Chernobyl reactor had a positive steam coefficient (this means

that as the reactor got hotter it would react faster), and on top that the Russian plant did not even

have a containment vessel (Muller). In the words of Richard Muller, a professor of physics,
 Monsma 4

“Nothing like [the Chernobyl reactor] would have ever been made legal in any country that had

any kind of oversight.” Another fear, when it comes to the safety of a nuclear power plant, is the

possibility of terrorist attack. It is however clearly demonstrated by the recent heightening of

security by the NRC in the wake of 9-11, which continually staffs its Operation Center “with

knowledgeable personnel” (Metcalf 67). Nuclear buildings are also the safest civil installations

designed with layers of concrete and steel to hold in the worst internal nuclear disaster “’are

[also] robust and would protect the fuel from impacts of large commercial aircraft’” that a

terrorist may attempt to use (Metcalf 67). Many more regulations and many different simulated

terrorist attacks help to continue to improve security on all nuclear power plants.

Another safety problem people see with nuclear energy is the waste and the radiation

from it. First of all, pictures of glowing green corrosive sludge does not accurately depict what

nuclear waste looks like. Nuclear waste is “solid and compact, and relatively small in volume”

(Metcalf 80). Currently, the waste is put into very safe locations on site, which use “18 or more

inches” of steel-reinforced concrete along with additional “steel, concrete and lead” acting

further as a radiation shield (Metcalf 80). After 2010, a centralized location for nuclear waste

will be opened in Yucca Mountain to relieve these above ground storage sites and cut costs. This

facility will have the capability to hold “some 70,000 tons of used fuel, which is sufficient for the

40,000-plus tons produced to date and for some 20 years to come” (Leone 81). Placing nuclear

waste underground at Yucca Mountain will also make it safer from any possible attack from

terrorist, and leave it in a remote location far away from any major population minimizing

hazards from radiation. Another mistake people make when they think of nuclear energy is the

great danger of radiation. Many people do not realize that radiation is today scientifically well
 Monsma 5

understood. Radiation is a natural part of our environment and comes from everything from

radon in the air, carbon-14 in our bodies, and cosmic rays from stars in the distant galaxies. In

fact, the average person is exposed to about 200 millirems per year from Radon in the air as

opposed to the about 0.1 millirems per year from nuclear power (Metacalf 113).

Even professor Muller at Berkley University stated, “if one year from now if all the waste

from Yucca Mountain basically somehow gets into the soil and starts spreading … and as

a comparison I talk about a large amount of Uranium that is currently well mixed with

water … about 20 times more than of Yucca Mountain and is used for the population of

San Diego and Los Angeles …what I refer to of course is the Colorado River.”

Overall, radiation is not as dangerous as most people assume. It is with a full understanding of

radiation people can learn that atomic energy is not dangerous at all.

Nuclear energy on top of being a safe and reliable alternative fuel source is also the most

practical alternative fuel source. Nuclear energy is the only alternative fuel source which can

easily replace hydrocarbon fuel sources and could be rapidly implemented in the next 20 years.

This is because if we as country get serious about replacing the “2000 fossil-fuel power stations

in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week” (Hodgson 8). “Can we find 500

square km each week to install 4000 windmills …. [or] 10 square km of desert each week with

solar panels and keep them clean … [or] a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing 9bn

pounds every five weeks” (Hodgson 8). On the other hand, nuclear power can easily accomplish

this. In 1983, 43 nuclear power plants were built this is about only 9 short of making one nuclear

power plant a week; this shows how easily the US could make 52 or more nuclear power plants.

Moreover, nuclear energy is needed for ensuring the U.S. national security. As discussed earlier,
 Monsma 6

not only is nuclear energy very reliable, but it is also a fully matured alternative fuel source. The

reason nuclear energy needs to replace current hydrocarbon based resources is, because of the

instability of nations that oil comes from. Even more so, if the U.S. were to completely cut-off

the need for imported oil it would greatly reducing the national deficit in which “more than $55

billion” was from imported oil in 2004, and is more today (Leone 44). Yet, the most important

reason for replacing fossil fuels is that there is only a finite amount of easily accessible oil. At

current consumption, all oil is projected to run out in “less than 100 years,” and the easily

accessible oil is expected to run out even sooner (Hodgson 6). With new technologies and

developments, nuclear energy is expected to get better and better. “Fast reactors” and

reprocessing would allow more of the nuclear fuel to be used in the production of even more

energy (Hodgson 3). In new “reactors that depend on spallation neutrons from a proton

accelerator”, the process could easily be used to make a reactor go critical and produce energy

and allow for the further use of radioactive wastes (Hodgson 3). The biggest and most promising

form of nuclear energy is fusion energy. Fusion, which uses the same principles that power the

sun, will become the cleanest and most abundant fuel source once it is fully developed. The

technology is still very far away, and for now fission based nuclear energy is the most reasonable

alternative fuel for implementation in the next 40 years.

If the USA expects to continue to grow economically and continue be the super power it

is today, an ample amount of energy will be needed. However, with a pending oil crisis, it is

time for the USA to replace its dependence on hydrocarbon resources. To fix the problem, a

clean alternative energy source needs to be implemented. It is atomic power alone that with

current technology could successfully replace fossil fuels nuclear energy in a practicable manner,
 Monsma 7

which does not take up huge amounts of land. The solution for America’s future energy needs; it

is clean, reliable, economically viable, and a promising energy source of tomorrow.

 Monsma 8

Works Cited

Davidson, Paul. "A New Era of Nuclear Power is Beginning. How Risky is It?" USA Today 12

Dec. 2007. SIR. SIRS. Clear Lake Library. 17 Feb. 2008.

Hodgson, Peter, and Dennis Anderson. "Do We Need Nuclear Power?" Physics World June 2001.

SIRS. Clear Lake Library. 17 Feb. 2008. Keyword: Nuclear Power.

Leone, Daniel A. Is the World Heading Toward an Energy Crisis. Farmington Hills, MI:

Greenhaven P, 2006.

Metcalf, Tom, and Gena Metcalf. Nuclear Power. Detroit: Greenhaven P, 2007.

Muller, Richard A. "Nukes." Physics C10. Berkeley Unicersity of California, California. 14 Feb.

2006. 20 Feb. 2008

<http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978275>.