Nuclear Power (10/19)

Nuclear power seems to have so many benefits. It costs less to run and produces more energy. This fact can be essential in lowering common electricity bills. For example, nuclear energy supplied 36% of Professor Maleki’s energy for his house. This is a huge percentage. I can’t imagine what his bill would look like if this type of energy was not utilized. However, nuclear power’s benefits are overshadowed by its risks. The two main hazards are safety and waste.

I actually think the United States should be commended for how it went about producing nuclear power. The Soviets, in contrast, tried their best to catch up to the American effort, putting safety and environmental concerns aside. Paul R. Josephson discusses how Soviet reactors were built without containment structures, allowing radioactive material to have the potential to escape and pollute the environment in his article “Atomic-Powered Communism: Nuclear Culture in the Postwar USSR” (308). However, even with America’s “safest” reactors are prone to disaster. Nuclear power gone wrong is shown in the drastic meltdowns of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. A combination of failures on the construction, technology, and human sides led to these disasters. Something as simple as a valve malfunction at Three Mile Island started a domino effect leading to meltdown.

While these accidents began with technical failure, the reason why they reached such unsurpassable levels was due to human interaction. It is unbelievable to me that “Operators at both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl turned off their emergency core-cooling systems, as Richard Wolfson writes (191). A simple piece of paper covered up lights showing that there was a problem with the valves of the reactor at Three Mile Island (192). While that was an accident, operators purposely turned off alarm systems and protection devices (196). It is still just amazing to think that technological and human error, something as simple as not noticing a blinking light, can lead to a nuclear meltdown and loss of human lives.

While reading the chapters in Richard Wolfson’s Nuclear Choices: A Citizen’s Guide to Technology, various images of the popular television show of The Simpsons popped into my head. Homer Simpson, one of the main characters of the show, works in a nuclear power plant that gives just as much energy as it does problems to the surrounding town. In the opening credits, Homer is shown spilling chemicals and has a vile of radioactive substance stuck to his protective suit. It is easy to see how this so-called “moron” could put the plant at great risk. However, nuclear reactors in our time are not run by “morons” without the proper credentials, or at least I hope they are not. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island illustrate how even the smartest people can still make mistakes. The people working in the plants are only human after all.

Aside from possible catastrophes, there are still problems with working reactors. Disposal of waste products is of great concern. These wastes are “hotter” than the original products. This means that the wastes are more radioactive and more damaging. Wolfson writes, “It [nuclear waste from the reactor] is so intensely radioactive that a few minutes’ exposure in the vicinity of a spent fuel bundle would be fatal” (224). There are many options for removal and containment of wastes that Wolfson lists such as launching the spent fuel rods into space, burying the materials deep underground, melting the ice caps, etc. (228). However, all of these “solutions” have their problems. Whether these problems are because the solutions are illogical, expensive, or environmentally harmful, it seems like we still do not have a plan to make reactors safer. The reason for this is that the biggest problem with nuclear waste is inherent in the substance itself. Because of long half-lives, nuclear waste might still be “hot” for hundreds and even millions of years. Thus, no matter how many precautions we take, it always seems like this type of material will have horrible implications for us and our environment.

With all of the dangers associated with nuclear power reactors, why don’t we try make other alternative forms of energy more prevalent? Why isn’t solar or wind power used more? Union is at least taking a step towards helping the environment by putting solar panels on one house on Roger Hull Place to supply a part of its energy. However, why were more solar panels not placed on other buildings around campus that use far more energy, such as Science and Engineering, to alleviate some operating costs? Some cities are also taking proactive measures towards helping the environment. In Atlantic City, a place where I vacation, windmills were just built. I know that there was a lot of debate surrounded the building of those because they weren’t aesthetically beautiful. I can’t believe that people would prefer looks over utility. Alternative forms of energy like this do not have the same potential effects on the environment as nuclear reactors, but they do produce far less power. Like one of the great arguments of nuclear supporters, nuclear energy is our cheapest and most efficient form.