Running Head: NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

Ahdyat Zain Athoillah (1315171)

Muhammad Arif bin Zuhairi (1220775)
(Kulliyyah of Engineering)

English Language Department

CELPAD
SEMESTER 1, 2016/2017

LE 4000
ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC WRITING
SECTION 40

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

The depletion of fossil fuel as the main energy used in the world has led to the
invention of other energy sources like nuclear. All fossil fuels are limited in its existence
physically and economically. Then it makes it non-renewable natural sources (Hk & Tang,
2013). In addition, the accumulation of emission like carbon dioxide (CO 2), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and other emissions which their assimilation in nature cannot
be balanced by organism has obviously made the world temperature warmer. These emissions
trajectories depend on the demand-side factors like population, affluence, global equality and
technology choice (Vernon, Thompson & Cornell, 2011).

Nuclear energy as an alternative energy used by developed countries emerged as a

new controversy. According to Grandin, Jagers and Kullander (2010), Nuclear energy is in
many respects an attractive non-fossil alternative (p. 26). This source of energy is carbon
free which makes it really interesting to be implemented to reduce the carbon accumulation in
the atmosphere. It includes all pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NO x), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
heavy metals mercury, cadmium and other heavy metals present in coal. It is unlike coal,
bioenergy and petroleum which still release carbon in the process of electricity generation.
This advantage of nuclear power has clearly attracted many countries like France, Japan and
other developed countries to use it.

Allah SWT said in Al-Hadid verse 25 that He made a powerful iron. Uranium which
is the main energy source of nuclear power plant is indeed a powerful iron. Latif and Ramzan
(2015) mentioned, Two ton of oil or three ton of coal can produce energy almost equivalent
to one gram of uranium fuel (p. 4130). Nuclear is one of the energy sources provided by
Allah to be utilized for the betterment of all living beings.

We have already sent Our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them
the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain [their affairs] in justice.
And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might and benefits for the people,
and so that Allah may make evident those who support Him and His messengers
unseen. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might (57:25).

2
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

However, ethics and other aspects such as health effect, disaster mitigation and
society fear are integral to decision-making and not something done separately. Technical
issues, economic calculations, possible ecological damage, climate change mitigation and
risk assessment are pieces of information that feed into the decision making about nuclear
power that need to be considered (Parkins & Haluza, 2011). The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences Energy Committee explained that safety, nuclear waste non-proliferation, fuel
availability, life-cycle analysis and economic competitiveness are the key issues in nuclear
fission (Grandin et al., 2010). All of those aspects must be considered to ensure that the use of
nuclear energy is beneficial for others.

The Kyshtym accident, Three Miles accident, Chernobyl disaster, and Fukushima
disaster which caused catastrophic damage to the environment and to the society are clear
evidences why nuclear power plant should be revised again. Although nuclear energy is a
powerful alternative source of energy that brings many benefits in commercial and industry
uses, its negative effects are severe especially for human health, environment and economy.

Nuclear Power Plants Are Expensive Almost in All Stages

Economic aspect which includes cost is one of the most important aspects which must
be considered before establishing the new power reactor. Furthermore, catastrophic nuclear
accidents, nuclear waste storage and the possibility of proliferation of nuclear weapon from
nuclear power have been a controversy (Davis, 2012). Compared to the other energy sources,
nuclear power plant is much more expensive to be built. Waste storage, decommissioning and
research and development incur high cost (Savacool & Cooper, 2008). Hence, this economic
aspect should be considered before investing big amount of money to the nuclear power
plant.

The electricity generation for all power plants has the similar method. The difference
comes from its source of energy. The nuclear plant uses fission reaction from uranium to
produce heat and then to generate electricity (Latif & Ramzan, 2015). In addition, the other
differences are nuclear power plant has three areas of vulnerability which must be protected:
controls on the nuclear chain reaction, cooling systems that prevent hot nuclear fuel from
melting even after the chain reaction has stopped and radioactive waste storage (Holt, 2009).
The design of the plants is to keep the plants safe from extreme natural disasters such as
earthquake, hurricanes and other extreme events (Holt, 2009). These costly facilities are to
ensure the safety of nuclear plant. However, the accidents may still occur after investing high

3
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

amount of money in this nuclear energy like what happened in Fukushima and Three Mile
Island power plants.

High cost of construction is one of the barriers of nuclear power plants. Even though
this nuclear power has high construction cost with enormous facilities, it has relatively low
operating cost (Davis, 2012; Portney, 2006). Davis (2012) argued Construction costs are
high enough that it becomes difficult to make an economic argument for nuclear, even before
incorporating these external factors (p. 2). Most of the components of the reactors must be
specially designed and supplied by potential supplier worldwide. These components are then
assembled on site and structures are constructed to house the assembled components. Then
the stages of building the plant are design, construction, assembly and testing by highly-
skilled engineers (Davis, 2012).

Hibbs (2012) explained In 2002, the US Energy Department predicted an overnight

cost of $1,200 per installed kilowatt (kW) for new reactors in the United States. ... When the
costs for borrowing capital are added in, the total price tag for one pair of new power reactors
in the United States calculated just before the onset of the financial crisis was just over $10
billion (p. 13). Furthermore, when the plants actually need longer duration to be built, it
leads to higher cost which must be spent. Davis (2012) gave data that the reactors ordered
during the 1950s took on average about 5 years to build, whereas reactors ordered during the
1970s took on average 14 years. It is difficult to plan and finance the nuclear power plant
because of its long construction lead time and uncertainties especially when the electricity
demand and supply fluctuate (Savacool & Cooper, 2008). Hence, the longer period for
construction must bear more cost of capital in the existence of uncertainties during its
constructions.

In addition, the construction of nuclear power plant nowadays is not viable in terms of
its certainty and budget. More nuclear power plants having high construction cost are the
reactors in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France. These reactors apply next generation
design which implements new safety features in its design. Davis (2012) explained in detail:
Construction in Finland began in 2005 and was expected to be completed in 2009 at
cost of about $2,800 per kilowatt. A series of problems and delays have now pushed
operations back to 2013, and costs are now estimated to be about twice the original
estimate. Similarly, construction in France began in 2007 and the reactor was
expected to be completed by 2011 at a cost of $2,900 per kilowatt. Completion has

4
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

now been pushed back to 2014 and the project is reported to be 50 percent over
budget (p. 7).

For the comparison to other energy sources, coal power plant and new clean coal plant
have less cost and shorter duration to be built. According to the estimates of recent
construction in Japan and Korea from the vendor to build plant in the United States, a new
1,000-megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant would cost on the order of $2 billion and take
ve years to build. By contrast, a new 1,000-MW pulverized coal plant would cost $1.2
billion and take three to four years to build, and a new clean coal plant (one in which the coal
is rst converted to cleaner burning natural gas) would cost about $1.4 billion and take four
years (Portney, 2006).

In nuclear fission reaction, the extractions will produce radioactive waste which can
radiate its radioactive wave for hundreds of centuries. This waste must be stored in order that
the radioactive will not contaminate the environment. Nowadays, this waste is removed from
the reactor structure and stored in a pool inside the reactor building or later transferred to dry
casks on the plant grounds (Holt, 2009). This waste storage incurs high cost. In nuclear power
plant the total cost for waste management only (excluding the site selection, construction,
operation and closure of disposal facilities) is estimated at 6 billion from the beginning of
2013 until 2080 (FMENCBNS, 2015). This high cost of storage must be continuously born by
the next generation because the amount of waste produced by each power plant is 30 tons of
high level waste per year. It can have radioactive for 250,000 years (Savacool & Cooper,
2008). From the estimation given by Savacool and Cooper, it is clearly shown that the nuclear
energy will be burdening the next generation to keep it safe from radioactive radiated.

Nuclear power plant still needs supply of coolants even though it has stopped running.
The reactor must be supplied with water continuously which is about ten percent of the water
from normal operation to cool the nuclear fuel rod even though it is not producing electricity.
Despite of having enormous facilities in its safety and regulation, nuclear reactor can still
pollute the environment. In Illinois, the groundwater can be contaminated by radioactive
tritium and other toxic substances because one of the reactors from Exelon Corporation
released its contaminated water to the local water supply since 1996 (Savacool & Cooper,
2008).

After generating electricity for the power plant, the electricity price is much
dependent of the subsidy given by the government. The electricity fare can be cut to the

5
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

cheaper price by implementing subsidy. However, it does not reduce the cost of generating
electricity. In the other words, it shifts cost, instead of lowering it (Stagnaro & Bakst, 2010).
Then, due to the high cost of investment put on nuclear power plant. It is only competitive in
market when more subsidies from the government are applied. Simply it will have no
investor financing the plant without subsidy (Savacool & Cooper, 2008). The subsidy can be
given to electricity produced by any other sources. However, giving subsidy to the nuclear
power plant which has outstanding cost to be born is not wise enough when the possibility of
catastrophic disaster may still happen.

The Aftermath of Nuclear Plant Accident Can Have a Detrimental Effect on Human
Health

Nuclear energy negative effect outweighed the benefit it may give to humankind. One
main reason is that the aftermath of nuclear plant accident can have a detrimental effect on
human health. This is because it can cause physical health risks to human body. Moreover,
those whom witness the effect of nuclear accident might have health problem psychologically
and mentally.

Initially the development and studies of nuclear power focused on producing an

atomic bomb for use in World War 2. It was only after the war ended in 1945 that commercial
uses of nuclear energy began for generation of electricity. The construction of nuclear reactor
intended no harms compared to the dropped atomic bombs on Japan cities of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima killing an estimated 129,000 peoples. Unfortunately, nuclear power plant
accidents that occur in Three Mile Island USA, Chernobyl Russia, and Fukushima Japan
changes many perspective toward nuclear power, especially the public.

In 1979 in Three Mile Island USA an enclosed reactor nearly exploded due to the
internal temperatures exceeded 2,750C. The incident did not lead to any immediate deaths
and radiation leakage was also minimized thanks to containment building that was built
specifically to control leakage in case of accident occurrence. However, many studies showed
the increase in cancer rate among nearby population.

Meanwhile in 1986 in Chernobyl Russia a poorly designed nuclear reactor releases

radioactivity exposing thousands of people to elevated degree of radiation. This was because
the structure containment melted down due to below standard engineering design. The
consequences of this mishap cause about 780 square kilometre area to be evacuated. There
were also 31 immediate deaths while 500 more people hospitalized for numerous reasons.

6
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

Moreover it was estimated about 6000 to 24,000 peoples died from cancer since the radiation
released.

In the 21st century in 2011 another nuclear power plant accident occurred in
Fukushima Japan which was initiated by a tsunami and earthquake. These natural disasters
caused destruction to emergency generator cooler, thus causing nuclear reactor to overheat.
The insufficient cooling causes the release of radioactive material. It was also a surprise how
the power plant was able to operate since it failed to meet minimum safety requirement in
containing collateral disaster.

The three accident occurring in three different decade of 30 years span clearly
indicated worrying risk. Logically there should be improvement as technology progress in
term of safety control. However, accident kept on occurring. Human lives was the
consequences of these accident, how many more valuable lives are humanity willing to risk
until we realize enough is enough?

The effect of these three incident that occur in the span of 30 years is still being
studied today. For example regarding the Three Mile Island accident according to Han et al.,
2011:

No significant increased risk was found for all malignant neoplasms, cancer of
bronchus, trachea, and lung, and female breast cancer among the Three Miles Island
(TMI) adult cohort by the end of 1995. Low-dose radiation exposure from the TMI
accident may have minimal effect on cancer risk, but the increased male leukaemia
risk among the 5-mile radius residents cannot be ignored. (p. 5).

These life threatening diseases should trigger the world community to put an end to nuclear
power. Increasing human energy resource while endangering human health is not worth it.
Wealth can never replace human lives and having abundant of wealth but not able to fully
utilize it is worthless and immoral.

Another example of studies show that the Chernobyl accident causes long term health
risk as stated by Christodouleas et al., 2011:

In the region around Chernobyl, more than 5 million people may have been exposed
to excess radiation, mainly through contamination by iodine-131 and cesium isotopes.
Although exposure to nuclear-reactor fallout does not cause acute illness, it may
elevate long-term cancer risks. (p. 2338).

7
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

In the same study Christodouleas et al., 2011 also stated that there is strong evidence of an
increased rate of secondary thyroid cancers among children who have ingested iodine-131
Furthermore, a study was done regarding mental health problem at Chernobyl area. Bromet,
2012 stated that:
Eleven and 19 years after the accident, our research group evaluated the mental health
of mothers of young children who had been evacuated to Kyiv. Compared to
neighbourhood controls and controls from the greater Kiev metropolitan area, the
evacuee mothers were twice as likely have major depression, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and poor self-rated health years later. (p. 73).
This proof should be a lesson to us. Victim involved suffer psychologically and
physically nuclear energy was supposed to be a solution to resource depletion but now it
became a problem to human lives short term and long term. The future generation will also
suffer and given the burden of cleaning their elders mess. This is selfish and unfair to them.
Moreover, the Fukushima daiichi nuclear accident also caused mental problem as stated by
YABE et al., 2014:
In the sociodemographic information of evacuees, many people (39.2%) were
compelled to live separately from their usual household members after the
disaster and had to move several times. Two or more moves and suddenly
living alone likely provoke substantial mental burdens. (p. 62).

So just imagine how mentally damaged someone will be knowing that they have been
exposed to radiation? In their mind they might have cancer or even died of cancer in long
term. Area affected by radiation need to be evacuated. How would someone feel leaving their
nostalgic home and probably never to return to escape radiation contamination? People
become separated from family and friend. Evacuees might need to find new home or given
new home by government. Unfortunately, adapting to new society and changing some
lifestyle can be a burden especially for the older generation. Too add to that the society might
not accept them due to stigma of having exposed to radiation. Will radiation affect the new
born babies? What if the disease from radiation spread to the new society? These are just
some questions that might cause evacuees to be isolated and mentally burden

Nuclear power accident is a worry to society. Evidence of cancer affecting radiation

exposed population is clear. Immediate deaths of affected area and long term health risk is
also a proven concern. Finally, most people affected by nuclear accident will definitely have
mental problem because of stress and worried about oneself future or loved one future.

8
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

Nuclear Power Plant Gives Negative Impacts to Its Environment

Using nuclear energy is not a solution to the environmental problem. It is a bigger risk
on environment than the conventional energy available today. Arguably, in reducing
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, it seem nuclear
energy is a better choice. Nuclear energy actually operates much more cleanly compared to
the traditional burning of coal, natural gas, and oil since the emission of CO 2 is less. However
the risk of nuclear accident is catastrophic to the environment thus wiping out all the benefit
it may bring. Plus nuclear energy also requires activity in mining and refining of dangerous
raw material and getting rid of this radioactive waste is a big concern to the environment
(Xiang and Zhu, 2011).

One negative impact of nuclear energy to the environment is the release of

radionuclide. Radionuclide is volatile radioactive that include iodine, cesium, noble gases and
tellurium. These toxic are dangerous if openly release into our environment. Unfortunately, it
did happen in Russia where power plant accident in the region of Chernobyl causes the
contamination of water, air, and soil near the plant zoning area. The release of these toxic
radionuclide resulted in the degradation of pine trees or red forest in Chernobyl area due to
the radiation attack on the plant tissue and eventually these poisonous gasses will affect
human health and causes cancer (Steinhauser, Brandl and Johnson, 2014). This incident
clearly shows the big risk of nuclear energy to the surrounding eco-system. Water, air, and
soil are the basic need for plant, animal, and human to grow, breath, shelter and feed.
Contaminating these basic needs for the sake of little gain in resource is a big and foolish
decision.

Power plant accident in Japan in the region of Fukushima also resulted in toxic release
of radionuclide. According to Buesseler in 2012, 80% of radioactive was released directly
into the ocean through the discharge of cooling water of power plant. This is a crisis for
Japanese community near Fukushima region since majority of Japanese people consume a lot
of seafood. Moreover, the standard safety limit for caesium in aquatic species was exceeded,
63 species exceeded caesium limit in 2011 while the number only decreased to 41 species in
2012. The concern regarding caesium level causes the public to be more aware and cautious
since Japanese government restrict the standard caesium level. Data regarding caesium
concentration in species have been collected ever since the 2011 Fukushima incident,

9
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

unfortunately the caesium value of different fish type remain extremely high this is due to the
continuous contamination source form the seafloor which causes sediment to remain
contaminated for years (Wada et al., 2013). So again the reasoning to accept nuclear energy is
full of flaw, the living creature in the sea that human entrusted to protect ended up dead,
contaminated, and inconsumable not only for present generation but also the future
generation.

These two incidents alone should be enough to put a stop to nuclear energy activity.
The impact to the environment causes a domino effect to the health of living creatures. It
even affected the socio economy since Japanese people consumed mostly seafood. The
contamination of radioactive into the sea causes fish species to be inconsumable,
subsequently this will affect domestic activity and fishermen market sales. On top of that the
cleaning process of sea will take decade and will economically affect the country. Thus, the
alternative energy that was engineered to increase humanity energy resource ended up
contaminating and destroying the valuable and limited resources humanity have.

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion nuclear energy is a risk to humanity because of the nuclear power

plant accident that had occurred in the past. The impact to human health, economy, and
environment is negative and severe. It is not a solution to humanity depleting resource rather
it is a disaster waiting to happen anytime and anywhere.

Firstly, nuclear energy incurs higher cost in almost all stages. The construction of
nuclear power plants is not viable in terms of competitiveness compared to other energy
plants, such as coal power plant and clean coal power plan. Moreover, the delays time which
often happen to the construction period provide worse condition to the cost of investment.
One good thing about nuclear power plant is it has low operation cost when it has been in
operation. However, operating using fabulous facilities with outstanding cost does not
guarantee the plant from the disaster, like what has happened in Fukushima Daiichi and Three
Mile Island. In addition, the waste produced from the plant is the other issue need to be
solved. It radiates its radioactive for hundreds of centuries and the cost storage must be borne
by the next generation. After all, the electricity produced depends much on the subsidy from
the government. More subsidy means cheaper price of electricity for the society, with the
same cost of electricity generation.

10
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

Secondly, human health affected not only physically but also psychologically. Cancer
related diseases are some of the main health consequences of nuclear disaster, while trauma
and stress are the long term psychological effect of nuclear power plant victim.

Thirdly, our environment that we shared with other leaving creature will be polluted.
The, sea, air, and soil will be contaminated and remain contaminated for years to come. The
resource we have become scarce and also unusable due to the radioactive accident caused by
humankind.

In the middle of the issue of fossil fuel depletion, renewable energy should be seen as
an alternative. It is green, carbon friendly and reducing dependence on fossil fuel most
importantly. In comparison to the nuclear energy, it has no risk of catastrophic disaster,
greener to environment, and the cost of construction is not as high as nuclear power plant.

11
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

REFERENCES

Bromet, E. J. (n.d.). Mental health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, 71.

http://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/32/1/N71

Buesseler, K. (2012). Fishing for Answers off Fukushima. Science, 338(6106), pp.480-482.

Christodouleas, J., Forrest, R., Ainsley, C., Tochner, Z., Hahn, S. and Glatstein, E. (2011).
Short-Term and Long-Term Health Risks of Nuclear-Power-Plant Accidents. New
England Journal of Medicine, 364(24), pp.2334-2341.

Davis, L. W. (2012). Prospects for nuclear power. The Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 26(1), 49-65.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. (2015).
Report on the cost and financing of the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
Grandin, K., Jagers, P., & Kullander, S. (2010). Nuclear energy. Ambio, 39(SPEC. 1), 2630.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0061-0
Han, Y., Youk, A. O., Sasser, H., & Talbott, E. O. (2011). Cancer incidence among residents
of the Three Mile Island accident area: 1982 1995 $. Environmental Research, 111(8),
12301235. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2011.08.005

Hibbs, M. (2012). Nuclear energy 2011: A watershed year. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 68(1), 10-19.

Holt, M., & Andrews, A. (2014). Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities.
Congressional Research Service: Report, 117. Retrieved from
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf
Hk, M., & Tang, X. (2013). Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change
A review. Energy Policy, 52, 797-809.
Latif, A., Ramzan, N., & Road, G. T. (2015). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR
AND COAL FIRED POWER PLANT, 27(5), 41294132.
Parkins, J. R., & Haluza-Delay, R. (2011). Social and ethical considerations of nuclear power
development. Social and Ethical Considerations of Nuclear Power Development.
Portney, P. R. (2006). 33 Nuclear Power: Clean, Costly, and Controversial. The RFF Reader
in Environmental and Resource Policy, 184.
Quran (Al-Hadid) 57:25.
Sovacool, B. K., & Cooper, C. (2008). Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer
to Climate Change and the Worlds Post-Kyoto Energy Challenges. William & Mary
Environmental Law and Policy Review, 33(1), 1120. Retrieved from
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol33/iss1/2
Stagnaro, C., & Bakst, D. (2013). F A C T S: A study by the North Carolina Waste
Awareness Net-, (47293), 18.

12
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR COMMERCIAL USE

Steinhauser, G., Brandl, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2014). Science of the Total Environment
Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the
environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, The, 470-471, 800817.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.029

Wada, T., Nemoto, Y., Shimamura, S., & Fujita, T. (2013). Effects of the nuclear disaster on
marine products in Fukushima. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 124(January
2012), 246254. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.05.008

Xiang, H. (2011). The Ethics Issues of Nuclear Energy: Hard Lessons Learned from
Chernobyl and Fukushima The Ethics Issues of Nuclear Energy: Hard Lessons Learned
from Chernobyl and Fukushima, 7(2).

Yabe, H., Suzuki, Y., Mashiko, H., Nakayama, Y., Hisata, M., Niwa, S., Yasumura, S.,
Yamashita, S., Kamiya, K. And Abe, M. (2014). Psychological Distress After The Great
East Japan Earthquake And Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Results
Of A Mental Health And Lifestyle Survey Through The Fukushima Health Management
Survey In Fy2011 And Fy2012. Fukushima Journal Of Medical Science, 60(1), Pp.57-
67.

Vernon, C., Thompson, E., & Cornell, S. (2011). Carbon dioxide emission scenarios:
Limitations of the fossil fuel resource. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 6, 206215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2011.05.022

13