Carroll1

Alex Carroll BS105 Summary of Yes Article: Coming from a family of engineers and miners, Iain Murray knows his fair share about energy. When an energy crisis began just South of Murrays home town in North England, the citizens of Durham were in search of a clean and efficient source of energy. They decided upon nuclear energy and built the Hartlepool Nuclear Power Plant. The Nuclear plant was successful beyond expectation, supplying nearly three percent of the UKs energy since 1983. However, despite the large energy output, environmental groups are scarring the plants supporters into shutting down the plant. These groups use the arguments of global warming and green house gas dangers in order to bully those in favor of the plant into shutting it down. Because of these environmentalists, the benefits of nuclear energy have been smeared and slandered such that nuclear power is becoming a much less sought after method of energy. Murray goes on to account a brief history of the obstacles of the nuclear power revolution including the Greens of Germany. The Greens, an anti-nuclear organization, are depicted by Murray to have been hell bent on the demise of nuclear power as a whole. Some of the arguments these environmentalist groups have made against nuclear power are the possibilities of nuclear explosions, the likelihood of a melt-down, and the dangers of nuclear waste. Murray believes every one of these arguments to have been overstated and untruthfully supported. Murray goes on to ensure the reader that nuclear power and low levels of radiation exposure are not dangerous to humans. He refers to Chernobyl, a source usually

Carroll2

accredited as the worst nuclear accident in history, saying the accident only killed 56 people and contaminated an area of twenty square miles. Next, Murray looks at things from an economic standpoint. Not only is nuclear power a clean and safe form of energy, but its cost effective as well. Apparently the only reason it is more expensive than other energy sources, is because of the immense amount of construction needed for power plants. Evaluation of Yes Article: Iain Murray makes a very interesting case against anti-nuclear environmentalists. His facts and arguments are well organized and straight to the point. His standpoint is mostly unbiased and he seems to be truly concerned for the greater good of both the people and the environment. However, I am not convinced. Though his side is well represented, his reasoning is slightly disturbing at best. The most unsettling of his arguments was his reference to Chernobyl, normally cited as the worst nuclear accident in history. Murray, however, uses this tragedy in order to support nuclear power. He rationalizes his argument that nuclear power is safe by saying the worst nuclear accident in history only killed 56 people and contaminated 20 square miles. No offense Mr. Murray, but I would prefer a form of energy that has not taken any human lives. When talking about radioactive leaks and waste spills, Murray again uses his strange, irrational form of thinking. He goes on to say that the radiation levels put out by these power plants and waste sites are much lower than the deadly dose to a human. The way I interpreted that statement was, Sure our power source is dangerous, just not enough to kill you. It is this kind of irrational though that diminished my support of his pro-nuclear standpoint.

Carroll3

Summary of No Article: In the authors opinion, nuclear energy is a waste of time, an irresponsible use of government funding, and a dangerous risk to the safety and well-being of all. There are five myths about nuclear energy that are apparently misleading the public to think otherwise. Shrader-Frachette plans to bring light to all of these myths while advocating safer and more efficient energy alternatives. Supporters of nuclear energy claim that their energy source is clean. However, they are only referring to the nuclear reactors alone. The production of nuclear energy can be broken down into nine different steps. The eight other steps, besides nuclear reactors, rely on fossil fuels to be completed. For example, the uranium must be mined, refined, and delivered to a power plant, each step requiring fossil fuel energy sources. Myth number two of the article is that nuclear power is inexpensive. Though receiving far more government dollars than any other alternative form of energy, it is over twice as expensive as wind energy. When considering transportation, refinement, and storage, nuclear power is around 7.6 cents per kilowatt more expensive. According to Shrader-Frechette, nuclear energy is not necessary to address climate change. Wind and solar power could provide the vast majority of electricity to the U.S. by 2050 compared to nuclear powers 20 percent. Wind and solar are cheaper and produce no direct emissions. An increase in nuclear power will not only be more expensive, it will be more dangerous. By increasing nuclear energy use we make weapons materials more easily acquired. By stopping our atomic energy usage, we make the purchasing of such materials more conspicuous and easier to detect as threatening. We must also know that safe nuclear energy is a

Carroll4

myth. A nuclear explosion or meltdown has the potential to create Hiroshima and Nagasaki- like casualties (140,000). This is one of the reasons utilities companies refuse to operate on nuclear power until they are not held reliable for accidents. There are many, safer alternatives to nuclear energy including wind and solar power. Nuclear energy is not as environmentally safe and cost effective as it originally seemed and should not be used as a major energy source. Evaluation of No Article: Kristen Shrader-Frachette has compiled a very successful argument against nuclear energy. Her structural set-up, using five myths about nuclear power, was very effective as a persuasion tool and provided a fair amount of information. Her article was equally convincing and brought light to the many shadowy areas of nuclear power. For example, I had previously never thought about the environmental impacts of the nine step nuclear process. Like many others, I have always believed nuclear power to be an emission free source of energy with very little impact on the environment. However, Shrader-Frachettes explanation of all the other steps involved in nuclear power showed its clearly negative impact. Many people believe that nuclear energy is a safe and green way to produce energy, which it is. But the means used to make and transport the necessary materials is not. Other interesting problem addressed in the article was the storage of nuclear waste, the byproduct of nuclear fission. After such waste is created, it must be stored in a safe and well protected area. According to the article, storage of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain facility is extremely dangerous due to high seismic activity in the area. Such activity could cause a radiation breech, contamination large areas of land and threatening many innocent lives.

Carroll5

My Position on Nuclear Power: With oil prices on the rise, finite resources running low, and an economy that is on the decline, many Americans are looking for cheaper, cleaner forms of energy. Upon first glance, nuclear power seems like a feasible contender with other forms of energy. Nuclear reactors seem to be relatively safe while having a minimal impact on the environment. However, these initial impressions of nuclear power are alarmingly false. Nuclear power is a dangerous and expensive alternative energy source and should not be used or supported by the American people. To better understand the potential risks of nuclear power, we need to know how it came to be. In the early 1950s, Lewis Strauss, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, advertises to the American people that nuclear energy has the potential to be so economically efficient that its price could not be metered. This prompted President Eisenhower to embark on the construction of several new nuclear reactors (Sokolski, 2010). However, the abundance and cheapness of oil at the time kept nuclear power from really expanding to its aforementioned potential. More talks of switching to nuclear energy emerged in the early 1970s as a result of the times energy crisis. Many nuclear power projects were started but ran so far behind schedule and so over budget they had to be cancelled. This movement was also put on hold due to setbacks such as the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, which will be addressed later (Sokolski, 2010). The American society is now in the middle of a third nuclear energy campaign. If the past has told us anything about nuclear power, it is that this form of energy in not safe enough to become useful on a large scale level. Nuclear power is quite unstable and can lead to nuclear meltdowns or explosions. Such accidents give off large amounts of radiation which can be

Carroll6

harmful or even deadly with high exposure. March 28, 1979, Americans had their first taste of the dangers of nuclear power. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station overheated during the routine nuclear fission process (Lipper, 2010). This near meltdown forced thousands of people to evacuate the area due to immense radiation leakage. Fifteen years later, the world experienced the worst nuclear accident to date. A nuclear power plant located in Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded, killing over fifty people and contaminating nearly twenty square miles of land (Anon, 2010). Both of these accidents show the dangers of nuclear reactors and are prime examples why America should stay away from nuclear energy. Though the effects of those two tragedies were devastating, the dangerous potential of nuclear power is far worse. Nuclear reactors, where nuclear fission takes place, have become prospective targets for terrorist groups (Peterson, 2010). Imagine if an attack similar to 9/11 were directed at a nuclear power plant located in a highly populated area. Even at the safest power plant, a terrorist attack would cause a terrible explosion with massive amounts of radiation. Weapons proliferation, or the creating of nuclear weapons using products and materials of the nuclear power process, is another risk of nuclear energy. There are up to 2,000,000 kilograms of Highly Enriched Uranium located in global stockpiles. It takes just 15-24 kilograms to create a nuclear weapon (Peterson, 2010). If we were to stop using nuclear power as a source of energy, the purchasing and possession of Uranium would be much more suspicious and easier to target. Despite its many dangerous pitfalls, nuclear power does create clean electricity. The production of energy using nuclear power gives off relatively low amounts of greenhouse gases that are harmful to the environment, this much cannot be denied. However, nuclear fission is not without flaw. Basic principles of physics tell us that matter cannot be completely destroyed. So what happens to the Uranium used in nuclear power plants? It is used to create their clean

Carroll7

energy, but produces a toxic byproduct: nuclear waste. This waste is very harmful to the human body and could wreck havoc on our food and water supplies if there is a leak. After Nuclear fission, the toxic waste must be safely stored for thousands of years before becoming harmless (Peterson, 2010). Nuclear power does have some benefits. It is clean and creates large amount of usable energy. However, its cons greatly outweigh its pros. Until we can find a way to safely sustain nuclear fission, prevent nuclear meltdowns and explosions, stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and discover a way to store thousands of tons of nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years, we should discontinue or use of nuclear power and look for safer, more reliable forms of energy.

Carroll8

References Cited: Anonymous, 2009. Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy. Time for Change. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability Anonymous, 2010. Nuclear Energy. Oracle ThinkQuest. http://library.thinquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy.html Lipper, I. 2010. Three Mile Island. University of Michigan. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.html Peterson, S. Lyman, E. 2010. Nuclear Energy: Does It Make Sense For The Environment? New York Times Upfront. Volume: 143. Issue 2 pg: 22 Sokolski, H. 2010. The High and Hidden Costs of Nuclear Power. Policy Review. Issue 162, p. 53-56.