Nuclear Power and Its Benefits and Pitfalls Source Drew Bush Drew Bush, Yahoo!

Contributor Network Alternative Energy Jun 26, 2009 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."

Nuclear power is becoming and will continue to be a big topic over the next several years. Of course, one of the biggest issues in today's society is global warming and nuclear power has a connection with global warming. From what has been said, nuclear power is supposed to clean. It isn't supposed to emit carbon dioxide and air pollution which contributes to smog and haze. This is because of the fact that it does not burn coal or oil. So that's it, right? Problem solved. Well, unfortunately it's not that easy. There are many issues with nuclear power. Some people believe that expanding nuclear benefits in the near future can only bring more benefits than disadvantages; however, there are those individuals who feel much differently. Many people believe that an economy run on nuclear power is promising. Michael J. Wallace believes that several new nuclear power plants should be constructed in the near future. He gives statistics which show increasing support for the use of nuclear energy and the construction of new nuclear power plants. As a matter of fact, over sixty percent of Americans believe more plants should be built (211). Not only are Americans favouring the expansion of plants, but so are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. government. Of the one hundred three operating plants in the U.S., sixty eight of them have been allowed to renew their licenses and operate for an additional twenty years beyond the forty year license terms (212). Wallace notes that there has been their have been impressive gains in reliability and output. He believes that there are a number of reasons (for public policy) why more plants should be built. First, the plants will contribute to the fuel and technology diversity. This is essential because relying on just one fuel source leads to spikes in prices. Second, even though it may cost a lot to build the plants, the cost of operating a plant would be rather stable and volatility in prices would be less. Third, the price volatility of natural gas would be reduced because the plants would reduce the dependence on natural gas. Lastly, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced (212). Along with the idea that nuclear power should be expanded is the idea that the U.S. should reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Phillip Finck believes that if spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed, nuclear power will be able to contribute more to the nation's energy needs. Also, the

amount of carbon emissions and nuclear waste would be reduced. The need for a second repository (after Yucca Mountain) would also be delayed or even avoided (332). While there would be many benefits to having nuclear power, Finck does admit that the U.S. needs to "adopt a more comprehensive approach to nuclear waste management" (334). Finck believes that unless the U.S. develops separation technologies that separate the elements of spent nuclear fuel into separate streams and destroy selected elements with transmutation technologies, we will need to build several Yucca mountain style repositories (335). He offers the Limited Recycle (the PUREX process) and the Closed Fuel Cycle (UREX technology which is an "improvement" over the PUREX process) as ways to dispose spent nuclear fuel. In both cases, Uranium can be stored for eventual reuse. Also, the volume of spent nuclear fuel would be reduced and electricity costs would go up by less than ten percent (336-337). Not everyone feels that we should count on nuclear power because it is too unreliable and risky to count on. The editors of Public Citizen point out that the blackout that occurred in 2003 in the Midwest and Northeast exposed the enormous risks and reliability deficiencies of nuclear power (219). Public Citizen points out that many of the countries nuclear reactors are falling apart. They feel that the only thing these nuclear reactors can provide is danger. The editors cite that there have been a number of instances in which steam generator tubes, emergency cooling pumps, and reactor vessel heads have suffered rather serious degradation and if the degradation was serious enough, a meltdown could occur (220). A second problem is that if power goes out, the nuclear power plant's emergency sirens and evacuation plans might fail. In many instances, some power plants have reported that their sirens were disabled because of equipment failure or lack of power (222). A third problem is that nuclear power plants are not able to start up independently and give power back to the grid if the power goes out. They have to rely on offsite power from the grid to power up to full capacity. Also, these plants take much longer to restart after a power outage, much longer than natural gas and coal plants (224). Along with the idea that new nuclear power plants should not be constructed is the idea that nuclear spent fuel should not be reprocessed, at least in the near-term. Matthew Bunn, a Senior Research Associate at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, believes that we should not reprocess spent fuel, at least in the near-term, because costs are very uncertain and the increased availability of bomb-grade nuclear materials could lead to nuclear war and terrorism (332). Also, there are limited waste management benefits. Bunn points out that the size of a repository is not determined by the volume of the waste but by the heat output of the waste. When plutonium is recycled, there is a "build up of heat-emitting higher actinides" (343) and the heat output is actually higher.

Because of this, larger repositories would have to be created and this would be more expensive. After examining the arguments from both sides, one could reach the conclusion that nuclear power is still in its infancy not just in the U.S. but worldwide. It may be some time before nuclear power expands the globe. Both sides seemed to agree on one major point: the U.S. needs to take a more comprehensive approach to waste management. It is not surprising that there are a number of risks associated with nuclear power (as there is with anything else in the world today). There are advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power. It is true that it is much cleaner in that it doesn't release a huge amount of carbon dioxide. However, as Public Citizen points out, just one technical glitch or human error could lead to a nuclear meltdown. If and when new power plants are built, all precautions must be taken to make sure that everything is safe. One day, nuclear power plants will have a higher place in the energy market, but more research needs to be done before nuclear power plants dot the landscape.

Easton, T. (Ed.). (2008). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. Dubuque: McGraw-Hill.