Roberts 1

Joshua Roberts

Professor Lasky

ENC2135-0003: Research, Genre, and Context

13 February 2022

Project 1: The Debate on Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is one of the most debated topics in reducing the carbon emissions we

produce. However, the debate on whether nuclear energy would be a reliable source is nothing

new; in fact, people had been hotly debating it as well several decades ago. Despite a long time

since the start of the debates, the topics of interest have remained relatively the same, where

people debate the discussion of efficiency and economic and environmental impacts today as it

was then. Therefore, moving forward with the topic and concluding with actions is essential to

determine actions against the current global warming issue. On the one hand, nuclear energy is a

good solution against the production of greenhouse gases as it produces minor carbon emissions;

on the other hand, there are concerns with the potential and current environmental issues that

nuclear energy causes, like the nuclear waste that still needs defined disposal and the potential

threat of another nuclear meltdown. In order to directly determine the reliability of nuclear

energy as a commercial power source, it would be essential to compare the arguments made by

each side and determine which outweigh which. This essay compares the exact arguments to

determine the best solution to the nuclear energy debate, and in this comparison, the conclusion

is that while nuclear energy is not the best possible energy source, nor is it reliable to switch to

only nuclear power, it is currently our best current power source.

When people discuss topics in the nuclear debate, the topics often have a split view, so

for simplification, this essay will discuss topics that anti-nuclear debaters use to push their point.
 Roberts 2

One of the concerns for long term reliability for nuclear power is the ability to mine more fuel to

provide a stable energy flow reliably. "According to the World Nuclear Association, at the

current consumption rate with conventional reactors, there are only 80 years of world uranium

resources at reasonable recovery cost levels. Moreover, nuclear power currently only supplies

about 5.7% of the world's total energy; thus, if we hypothetically supply the whole world's

energy needs with nuclear power, there would be only five years of supply." (Abbott, 45).

Therefore, the hypothetical world fully powered by nuclear fission raised concerns about

meeting energy demands. Since meeting the world's energy demands could be done with

renewable sources, a rational conclusion for long term viable sources would be to limit the use of

fission based nuclear energy and support the use of renewables instead. Not only is the rate at

which companies can mine new fuel a concern, but the waste that nuclear plants produce is a

concern as well. Currently, there is a growing issue of nuclear waste, which has had proposals

that do not provide sufficient answers.

"The current generation rate of the most dangerous nuclear waste is alarming, i.e. ~12000

tons/year, considering that each reactor produces about 25-30 tons HLW annually." (Prăvălie,

88). Therefore, many often propose reprocessing spent nuclear waste in response to the alarming

quantity of waste. However, with the current reprocessing plants in use reprocessing around

5600 tons a year, it is less than half of the overall produced waste annually; in addition, the

plants could only reprocess the waste so much, meaning it would not solve the waste problem the

long-term solution. Furthermore, waste is not the only way nuclear power plants can provide

harmful byproducts and health effects, but when a power plant fails, it can lead to disaster. There

is a history of accidents regarding nuclear power plants that have been recognised as significant

disasters and have had caused long-term health products and harmful byproducts. "The
 Roberts 3

Chernobyl accident of April 26th, 1986, is known as the most severe nuclear disaster in civil

nuclear power history, considering the large explosive release of radioactive material into the

environment due to human error. The most important released radionuclides were 137Cs and

131I; it is estimated that ~30% of the reactor core content of 137Cs and 60% of 131I was

transferred into the atmosphere." (Prăvălie, 87). The two specific isotopes have drastic impacts

on the environment as contamination with cesium-137 was drastic given the long half-life of

thirty years, and iodine-131 is quite a troublesome issue due to its involvement with the food

chain, going from pasture grass to cow milk even with its short half-life of only eight days. The

concerns for the possible long-term health effects and radioactive byproducts that nuclear power

plants produce are valid, but nuclear energy provides many benefits that help the current global

warming crisis and provide a powerful temporary source until other sources come along.

Despite having many concerns, nuclear power plants have many benefits compared to

other sources that will aid the current crisis that the world has. The current global warming crisis

is primarily the result of mass amounts of CO2 that people emit into the atmosphere; nuclear

energy produces a meagre amount of CO2 that may combat the persistent issues by providing a

cleaner energy source in that term. The current "The evidence indicates that the US can reduce

its CO2 emissions by increasing nuclear energy consumption. Therefore, the concrete proposals

to build more nuclear plants may be justified not only to increase energy supply and energy

security but also to increase the capacity of the US to reduce CO2 emissions." (Menyah, 2915).

Data has indicated that with increased nuclear energy consumption, there would be a decrease in

CO2 emissions, as greenhouses gases are currently an environmental issue that we are dealing

with; this drives effort and reason to start supporting the use of nuclear energy. Furthermore, in

comparison with other alternative sources, specifically wind, solar, and coal, it shows that it
 Roberts 4

produces much less SO2, NOX, and dust than solar and coal, almost to only a tenth in instances.

Moreover, considering nuclear power produces no CO2 emissions in the generation

process, it would stand against electrical sources from coal and natural gas. Not only does

nuclear energy provide a cleaner output of CO2 emissions, as in more minor, but the energy of

its fuel is substantial compared to the other mentioned sources of energy. The density of uranium

is far greater than the energy of coal or natural oil. "The quantity of fuel used to produce a given

amount of energy - the energy density determines in large measure the magnitude of

environmental impacts as it influences the fuel extraction activities, transport requirements, and

the quantities of environmental releases and waste. The extraordinary high energy density of

nuclear fuel relative to fossil fuels is an advantageous physical characteristic." (Rashad, 292).

Compared to the energy output of one kilogram of coal or oil, which ranges from 3-4 kilowatt-

hours of electricity, one kilogram of uranium produces 50,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity and

up to 3,500,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity with reprocessing. In addition, a 1000 MW plant

would only need 30 tons of uranium annually compared to 2,000,000 tons of oil or 2,600,000

tons of coal. The density of energy sources could lead to a catastrophe if people mishandle the

nuclear reactors, but it is not the only energy source that could have severe issues. Other sources

of energy could have led to intense issues regarding fatalities and health risks. "If risk

assessments considered only short term severe accident fatalities, the reported data would

indicate that hydroelectric and gas fuel cycles have led to the largest single event fatality

numbers." (Rashad, 300). The Chernobyl accident was, of course, a catastrophe in any category,

but there have been accidents involving the other sources of energy: hydroelectric dams have

failed and overlapped, which led to thousands of deaths and massive disruption in social and

economic activities in entire towns; throughout history, there have been several coal mine
 Roberts 5

accidents that have led to hundreds of deaths; explosions and fires deriving from oil and gas

industries have led to fatalities and injuries in the companies itself and the nearby public. Despite

concerns with nuclear energy, it provides benefits that relatively outweigh the consequences

compared to the other current sources, but there is also influence that has led to these views.

Now that the essay has laid out the significant pros and cons, other factors lead to the

views on nuclear energy and significant trends within each group. The two standard sides of the

debate on nuclear energy often have arguments and defences that persist in most debates. "These

data, therefore, show that there remained, within our relatively well-informed sample, broad

areas of disagreement over factual beliefs, notably relating to the availability of practical

alternative energy sources, political consequences of the expansion of the nuclear industry, and

health hazards of routine radioactive pollution." (Eiser, 533). Moreover, results from the

questionnaire found that the different sides of the debate on the reprocessing plant not only

disagreed heavily on subjects but also focused on specific aspects: the pro-group tended to latch

on the economic and specialised benefits of developing it, whereas the anti-group believed that

the development of nuclear energy would lead to an increase of environmental and material

risks.

When discussions on nuclear energy arise, whether for or against it, they often debate in

discourse communities. These discourse communities are either subject to decide a conclusion

on the subject or reinforce one side's ideas. "Not only do the contributions broaden our horizons

by examining the issue of communicating nuclear energy and the environment from a global

perspective, but they also offer deeper insights into the media and public discourse of nuclear

energy in specific countries such as Australia, Spain, and Switzerland." (Ho, paragraph 12). For

example, in a 2018 study on the debates and communication on Twitter on nuclear energy and
 Roberts 6

the Swiss Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative, they found active discourse to connect multiple

discourse communities. These discourse communities included politicians, news reporters,

scientists, and members of environmental organisations and the energy communities. In addition,

this study found that online platforms represented by Twitter could lead to the debates of diverse

viewpoints across communities. Discourse groups are a vital way of exercising the topic and

gaining insight about the problems or benefits at hand, but with the spread of misinformation,

faulty views on the subject at hand can strengthen. "When mass media and social media mix real

information and misinformation about nuclear energy and the environment that might shape

people's perception of the controversial technology, many challenging questions remain." (Ho,

paragraph 27). Social media is prone to nesting fake news and bounds of misinformation about

the nuclear debate, influencing public discourse and perception of the energy source. Researchers

concluded that false news has more significant amplification than factual information.

This essay compared the exact arguments to determine the best solution to the nuclear

energy debate, and in this comparison, the conclusion is that while nuclear energy is not the best

possible energy source, nor is it reliable to switch to only nuclear power, it is still an essential

power source that may be helpful for our current requests. The consistent arguments made by the

side that was against the use of nuclear power were concerned with the potentially limited

availability of mining fuel in the future and the current and potential issues that nuclear power

may cause, such as the problem with disposing of nuclear waste and the lingering threat of

another possible nuclear meltdown. On the other hand, the argument made by the supporters of

nuclear energy brought up the energy density of uranium, a primary fuel source for nuclear

power; it is much denser than coal or oil, primary fossil fuels. People have also supported nuclear

energy because of its low carbon emissions, which is essential and possibly effective in the
 Roberts 7

combat against global warming. Lastly, even though the concerns with a possible nuclear

meltdown are valid, the other familiar commercial sources have had their fair share of disasters.

Nuclear energy is an excellent solution to dealing with the issue of global warming and the

potential issue of powering an evergrowing population. However, as people continue to debate it,

it may delay the enforcement of this solution.