Nuclear Power: An Alternative Energy Source to Save the Planet

Over the past century, the average temperature of Earth’s climate system is gradually rising. Through multitudinous experiments and research, it has become a scientific consensus that anthropogenic effects are contributing significantly to the climate-warming trend (“Global Climate Change”). Humanity’s usage of fossil fuels as the primary energy source largely increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through releasing around 91 percent of the entire global carbon emission (Hausfather). If not repressed, human expansion of carbon pollution will soon result in widespread famines, extreme weather, sea level rise, and other severe consequences (Denchack). Fortunately, nuclear power, an alternative energy source, can provide a promising solution towards this problem. Through generating heat with nuclear reactions instead of combustion, nuclear power plants might be able to save the planet with their competence. 

Fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum, and natural gas, are non-renewable resources formed through geologic processes on organic matters’ remains (“Fossil Fuels”). During combustion, the hydrocarbon molecules present in them react with oxygen to generate directly employed heat or steam for electricity (Hobbs). While they do drive technological and economic development as the main energy source, this reaction produces excess carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which results in the enhanced greenhouse effect. The level of atmospheric CO2 in 2014 is shown to be 43 percent higher than 1750, when the Industrial Revolution first started (“Global Carbon Emission”). This increasing atmospheric CO2 absorbs and reemits more of Earth’s long-wave radiations back to Earth, warming Earth’s surface, starting a positive feedback loop, and therefore causing a series of extreme effects that will threaten humanity’s existence in the next century (Zillman). 

Fortunately, nuclear power, a green alternative, might soon be able to replace this flawed energy source. Instead of combustion, nuclear energy can be generally obtained through two types of exothermic nuclear reactions, controlled nuclear fission and nuclear fusion (“Nuclear Energy”). Nuclear fission is a type of elemental transmutation, in which the large, weakly-bounded atoms’ nucleus are broken up into two smaller, lighter nuclei, and a large quantity of kinetic energy is released. This method is commonly used on uranium and plutonium and is widely applied in various industries around the world. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is a newer theoretical energy source same as the reaction that powers the sun; it holds great potential with increased safety without chain reaction and an estimated four times higher energy production than fission (“Fission versus Fusion”). Nuclear fusion describes the reaction by which two or more lighter nuclei combine to form heavier atomic nuclei and subatomic particles (Conn). Throughout the process, they release a substantial amount of kinetic energy converted from partial mass of the fusing nuclei, which then forms heat and drives turbines, converting mechanical energy to electrical energy. Nuclear fusion is inhibited by the Coulomb repulsive force between positive nuclei; therefore, the reactant nuclei must clash together under extreme temperature and pressure to overcome this repulsion and fuse (Prager). Since a large number of nuclei is required to produce useful amounts of energy, theoretically only an ionized gas heated to a temperature where electrons are knocked out from the atoms is able to have sufficient kinetic energy for fusion. This gas, comprising positive nuclei and free negative electrons, enters the plasma state (Najmabadi). Deuterium and tritium, heavy isotopes of hydrogen, are planned to be used in fusion reactors, as their energy yields are high and requirement for plasma temperature is relatively moderate (Ammosov). The schematic fusion reactor diagram centers around a plasma where deuterium and tritium will be fused and includes generators and turbines where the resulting heat will generate electricity (Ahmed). Nevertheless, since plasma can lose energy through conduction, radiation, and convection, more advancements need to be made on sustaining the plasma and balancing energy losses before this reaction can also be widely utilized for energy (“Nuclear Energy”). 

There are many strengths towards nuclear power; for instance, it is far more effective and reliable than fossil fuels as an energy source. The amount of energy produced with 0.1 ounce of nuclear fuel is estimated to be equivalent to that produced by 120 gallons of oil or a ton of coal (Sen). It is also shown that in 2017, nuclear plants worked at full capacity 92 percent of time, while coal plants merely 54 percent, demonstrating this power’s reliability (Wang). Moreover, compared to non-renewable fossil fuels, virtually limitless fuel is predicted to be available for fusion, and uranium, the key element of fission, is relatively abundant and can be reprocessed to reuse. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency, economically accessible uranium can also sustain reactors for more than 200 years, not to mention future technologies that can extract the 60,000-year supply of uranium from seawater (Fetter). 

However, there are still serious deficits which hinder the development of nuclear power. One of the most significant ones is nuclear disasters. Radiations and radioactive materials from nuclear fission pose extreme threats to human health and environment if not well controlled; for example, the Chernobyl explosion disaster, a result of flawed reactor design, caused the death of 20,000 people due to radiation exposure (Plokhy). The radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster also severely contaminated the Pacific Ocean and surrounding areas (Pearce). Compared to fossil fuels, another limitation of nuclear power is its relatively high initial cost, as billions of dollars are already inputted into the research of nuclear fusion, the construction price of a single nuclear fission plant reached nine billion dollars in 2018, with more expenses required for protecting the nuclear waste, maintaining facilities, and implementing security procedures later (Schilissel).

Viewing from an environmental perspective, nuclear reactions don't generate additional CO2 emissions like combustion with fossil fuels, curbing its effects on global warming. With minor emissions from construction and mining, nuclear plants only release around 5 percent as much greenhouse gas as coal plants, which makes it a clean and sustainable energy source (Rhodes). Nevertheless, nuclear power also constitutes some of its own potential environmental threats. Nuclear fission produces a large amount of radioactive wastes like reactor fuel and uranium mill tailings; even though most of these wastes are currently stored at the power plants, they will eventually need to be disposed of and reallocated due to space constraints (Kivi). Statistics show that the nuclear plants in the U.S. produce around 2,000 tons of waste per year (Biello). These wastes can potentially leak and contaminate a wide radius of water and land during their transportation and burial, posing various health risks like cancer to surrounding people due to their radioactivity (“Radioactive Waste”).

In conclusion, nuclear power is becoming a promising alternative for energy production. As a clean, sustainable energy source, nuclear plants generate electricity through nuclear reactions rather than combustion, avoiding CO2 emissions and curbing global warming. However, while it seems to be a perfect solution with high effectiveness, there are still various flaws and problems posed by this power, including concerns about accidents, costs, and environmental impacts that need to be gradually solved as this technology becomes more advanced in the future.

Works Cited

Ammosov, M. V. “Influence of the Coulomb Repulsion between Electrons on Their Energy Spectrum in the Case of the Nonlinear Surface Photo Effect.” JOSA B, Optical Society of America, 1 Nov. 1991, www.osapublishing.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-8-11-2260.

Biello, David. “Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source?” Scientific American, Scientific American, 28 Jan. 2009, www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/.

Conn, Robert W. “Energy Released in Fusion Reactions.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 5 July 2019, www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-fusion/Energy-released-in-fusion-reactions.

Denchak, Melissa. “Are the Effects of Global Warming Really That Bad?” NRDC, 6 Aug. 2019, www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad.

Fetter, Steve. “How Long Will the World's Uranium Supplies Last?” Scientific American, Scientific American, 26 Jan. 2009, www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/.

“Fossil Fuels.” Environmental and Energy Study Institute, www.eesi.org/topics/fossil-fuels/description.

“Global Carbon Emissions.” CO2.Earth, 8 Jan. 2020, www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions.

Hausfather, Zeke. “Analysis: Fossil-Fuel Emissions in 2018 Increasing at Fastest Rate for Seven Years.” Carbon Brief, 10 Dec. 2018, www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-fossil-fuel-emissions-in-2018-increasing-at-fastest-rate-for-seven-years.

Laporte, John. “Topic: Global Nuclear Power.” Statista, www.statista.com/topics/1087/nuclear-power/.

Martin, William. “Nuclear Power.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 14 June 2019, www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-power.

Najmabadi, Farrokh, and Stewart C. Prager. “Fusion Reactor.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 12 Dec. 2018, www.britannica.com/technology/fusion-reactor.

“Nuclear Energy.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 4 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-energy.

“Nuclear Power Reactors” World Nuclear Association, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx.

Parsons, John, et al. “A Fresh Look at Nuclear Energy.” Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 11 Jan. 2019, science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/105.

Pearce, Fred. “What Was the Fallout from Fukushima?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 June 2018, www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/03/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated

Plokhy, Serhii. “Chernobyl Disaster: Deaths, Environmental Damage Continue.” Time, Time, 26 Apr. 2018, time.com/5255663/chernobyl-disaster-book-anniversary/.

Ritchie, Hannah, and Roser, Max. “Fossil Fuels.” Our World in Data, 2 Oct. 2017, ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels.

Schiessel, David, and Biewald, Bruce. “Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs.” Synapse, July 2008, synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf.

“Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming.” NASA, NASA, 21 Jan. 2020, climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

Sen, Debashree. “Nuclear Energy Vs. Fossil Fuel.” Sciencing, 2 Sept. 2019, sciencing.com/about-6134607-nuclear-energy-vs--fossil-fuel.html.

“Why Are Fossil Fuels Such Popular Energy Sources?” ABC News, 1 Dec. 2015, www.abc.net.au/news/science/2015-12-02/fossil-fuels-and-why-are-they-such-popular-energy-source/6991164.

Zillman, John. “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.” Curious, 7 Nov. 2017, www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/enhanced-greenhouse-effect.