Nuclear Energy & Society

Introduction
Only 30 years ago, nuclear energy was an exotic, futuristic technology, the subject of
experimentation and far fetched ideas. Today, nuclear energy is America's second largest
source of electric power after coal. More than 110 nuclear energy plants supply more
electricity than oil, natural gas or hydropower. Since 1973, they have saved American
consumers approximately $44 billion, compared to the other fuels that would have been
used to make electricity. Since our electricity system is interconnected, practically every
American gets some electricity from nuclear energy. In addition to the economic benefits
achieved through the use of nuclear energy, there are environmental benefits as well.
There are, however, various drawbacks caused by the production of electricity through
nuclear power. Although there are various risks involved when using nuclear energy as a
source of power, we argue that the benefits greatly outweigh any potential problems that
may arise.

Nuclear Reactors and Their Fuel Cycles

Nuclear Energy Page 1/15

 The use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity continues to increase all over the
world. By December of 1979, about 128,000 million watts were being generated by 249
reactors operating in 22 countries.

Nuclear
reactors around the United States

Before we can truly understand how a nuclear reactor works, we must first examine the
processes that occur in its core. In order for a reactor to work there needs to be at least
one free neutron per fission. Nuclear reactors are fueled by uranium or plutonium in a
solid form. They are ceramic pellets approximately the size of the end of your finger.
These pellets are placed into 12 foot long, vertical tubes, which are bundled together and
placed underwater inside the reactor. When the plant starts up, neutrons are let loose to
strike the uranium atoms or the plutonium atoms. When the neutrons hit either of these
types of atoms in pellets, the atoms split to release neutrons of their own, along with heat.
On average 235U and 239Pu yield two free neutrons. Initial fissioning of 235U produces
neutron energies of 2 Mev. To convert to more everyday units, this is equal to
approximately 3.2 x 10-11J. These neutrons must be slowed down in order to increase the
fission probability in the core of the reactor. The way in which these neutrons slow down
is by hitting something that has approximately its own mass. Water is effective at slowing
down neutrons. Once the neutrons slow down, they go back into Uranium and fission
probability increases considerably. Heat is then transferred from the core of the reactor to
the water and then induces steam.

Sometimes a neutron and proton will combine and produce a deuteron and therefore
that neutron is now lost. Companies use heavy water in order to alleviate this dilemma.

Nuclear Energy Page 2/15

Some neutrons are captured directly by 235U or 238U and gamma rays are emitted.
Some neutrons simply escape form the core altogether. These are considered fast
neutrons. These fast neutrons have the ability to produce a fission reaction with 238U to
produce heat and more neutrons. 239U could also be produced if 238U were to capture a
slow neutron. The product rapidly decays into 239Pu. 239Pu has a greater fission
probability than 235U, hence as 239Pu builds up, it fissions and contributes fuel
(neutrons) to the reactor. Control rods absorbs neutrons in order to keep the number of
neutrons, and therefore, the reactions are controlled. They are usually made of boron steel
or graphite, since they are high neutron absorption material.

Pressurized Water Reactor System

Pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors are the two major types of
generators that the US. uses to produce electricity. Pressurized water reactors consist of a
single fuel element assembly of up to 200 zircaloy cadded fuel 'pins'. These 'pins' are
immersed in a large steel pressure vessel containing ordinary 'light' water. The light water
serves as both a coolant and moderator. Light water has a higher neutron-absorbing
capacity than heavy water (D2O). This causes it to increase the percentage of 235U in the
core. Uranium dioxide is a source of fuel for this reactor. The pressure vessel consists of
control rods that pass through the lid, the light water under pressure, and the reactor core.
The water attains a temperature of approximately 270 C without boiling, due to a
pressure of about 13.8 to 17.2 MPa. This pressure is maintained through a pressurizer.
The 'light' water passes in a closed circuit to a heat exchanger. This causes the water in
the heat exchanger to heat up and convert to steam. This steam drives one or more turbine
generators, is condensed, and pumped back to the steam generator. Another stream of
water from a lake, river, or cooling tower, is used to condense the steam. It is necessary to
shut down the reactor completely, remove the lid, and replace an appropriate portion of

Nuclear Energy Page 3/15

 A potential danger exists with the possibility of a rupture of the cooling system tubing.
If this were to occur there would be no way of preventing the reactor from overheating.
Due to this danger, reactors are surrounded by a double-walled pressure containment
building and contain a number of emergency core-cooling systems.

A more efficient way of removing heat is allowing water to boil. The boiling water
reactor allows the coolant within the reactor core to boil. The steam generated is then
separated, dried, and passed directly to the turbine generators. After going through the
generators, the steam is condensed and passed back into the reactor core. Like the
pressurized water reactor, the boiling water reactor fuel is 235U, enriched as uranium
dioxide. In addition, the steam collection also occurs on top of the reactor. One other
thing the boiling water reactor has in common with the pressurized water reactor is that it
must be shut down for refueling. (see above figure)

As far as safety is concerned, the entire reactor is housed within a primary containment
chamber which incorporates, underneath, a large ring-shaped tunnel somewhat filled with
water. If any water or steam were to escape, it enters this tunnel, and condenses. In
addition to this tunnel, there are several emergency systems in place.

Nuclear Energy Page 4/15

 This is a Life-
like Pressurized Water Reactor.

Powering Our Economy:

Since the oil embargo of 1973, Americans have used energy more wisely and more
efficiently. During this time, our population has grown from 211 million to almost 280
million, our economy has grown about 50 percent, but our use of energy has grown only
10 percent. But our economic growth, however, has been fueled largely by electric power.

Between 1973 and 1990, our GDP, which is the measurement of a nation's wealth,
grew by about 50 percent. In the same period, electricity use grew by 58 percent. From
this information, we can conclude that in order to meet the needs of our strong economy
and our growing population, we must have reliable supplies of electric power. The
nation's nuclear power plants produced 674 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 1996.
This was more electricity than the entire country consumed in the early 1950s.
Worldwide, there are 442 nuclear power plants at work, contributing about 19 percent of
the world's electricity supply.

Nuclear Energy Page 5/15

 Reduction of Dependence on Oil:
At the time of the 1973 oil embargo, oil accounted for about 17 percent of US. electric
supply; nuclear energy was about 5 percent. In 1990, however, oil represented only about
4 percent of U.S. electric supply, while nuclear energy accounted for about 21 percent.
Consequently, the U.S. imports 20 million barrels less of oil each year. For example,
since l973, nuclear energy has displaced 4.3 billion barrels of imported oil and reduced
our trade deficit by $12 billion. This decrease in our trade deficit causes a direct increase
of our Gross National Product, which is also measure of a nation’s wealth.

Protecting Our Environment:

Nuclear energy plants produce electricity through the fission of uranium, not the
burning of fuels. Consequently, nuclear power plants do not pollute the air with nitrogen
oxides, sulfur oxides, dust or greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

America's nuclear energy plants reduce electric utility emissions of greenhouse gases
by 20 percent, or 128 trillion tons per year. Without our nuclear power plants, electric
utility emissions of nitrogen oxides would be 2 million tons per year higher. Emissions of
sulfur dioxide would be 5 million tons a year higher. Thus, nuclear energy has drastically
cut our dependence on foreign imported oil.

Nuclear Energy Page 6/15

 In France for example, from 1980 to 1986, SO2 and NOX emissions in the electric
power sector were reduced by 71% and 60% respectively, causing reductions of 56% and
9% respectively, in total SO2 and NOX emissions in France (Trudeau 160).

Nuclear energy also offers an alleviation of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) problem
that the world can do without. About 1,600 million tons of CO2 annual emissions would
have resulted if 16 percent of the world's electricity now generated by nuclear power
were to have been generated using coal. This is a significant amount. In fact, it is 8
percent of CO2 now emitted annually from the burning of fossil fuels.

Another important benefit that nuclear generated energy has on our environment is that
the wastes produced are completely isolated from the environment. Would we have
produced the electricity with coal instead of nuclear energy, at least 90,000 tons of toxic
heavy metals would have been released, in addition to tremendous amounts of CO2, SO2,
and NOx. Some of these toxic heavy metals include arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury.
Although the radioactive wastes produced by nuclear energy may be dangerous for
thousands of years, part of the waste caused by the burning of coal remains dangerous
forever.

The environmental benefits of nuclear energy can he seen clearly in France. In the
1980s, because of concerns over imported oil, France more than tripled its nuclear energy
production. During that same period, total pollution from the French electric power
system dropped by 80-90 percent.

Worldwide Benefits:
More than 400 nuclear power plants are operating in 25 countries around the world
today, supplying almost 17 percent of the world's electricity. In most countries, nuclear
energy plays an even larger role as a source of electricity than in the United States. Many

Nuclear Energy Page 7/15

of these nations are building new nuclear energy plants to meet the needs of their growing
populations and expanding economies. About 83 new nuclear energy plants are currently
being built around the world.

The Drawbacks to using Nuclear Energy

Despite the fact that nuclear energy offers great benefits as an alternative source of
electric power, nuclear energy as a whole, is still a controversial issue in many countries.
The reasons for this center round the issues of safety, waste, and nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Safety
National and international anxiety about nuclear power stems directly from a fear of
release of radioactive material and its consequences on people and the environment. The
problem, however, is that there is a huge information gap between specialists on the

Nuclear Energy Page 8/15

exposures from nuclear power and the public. When one looks at the 1991 report by the
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, (UNSCEAR)
one would see that the routine generation of nuclear electricity releases only negligible
amounts of radioactive materials to the environment. "The average dose any individual in
the world receives each year from all of the activities in the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle is
less than 0.1 percent of the inevitable exposures he or she receives from natural radiation
sources, such as cosmic rays and radon emitting building materials" ( Trudeau 59).

One has to accept that electricity production can't be totally free of risk. The accident at
Chernobyl, in the former USSR, was undoubtedly the most severe radioactive accident
the world has experienced since the arrival of nuclear energy as an alternative source of
electric power. Although there 31 deaths can be attributed to the Chernobyl accident,
there are many misgivings about the true nature of the accident. For example, the people
who died, including the nuclear operators and the figherfighters, received very high
doses, unlike the surrounding areas that were relatively safe from exposure to high
radiation levels. "Contrary to some erroneous reports, no accurate health effects from the
incident have been found in the population in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. Elsewhere in
Europe, countermeasures taken in many countries immediately after the accident
effectively reduced the levels of exposure to the public" (Trudeau 159). One can also see
from UNSCEAR data that outside of the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl accident has
emitted a dose that is a fraction of what the population receives every year from natural
radiation found.

One positive result from the tragic Chernobyl accident is that there is now increased
awareness and commitment of the nuclear community to international cooperation in the
field of safety. "Through the efforts of utilities and governments, of the IAEA and others,
an international nuclear safety regime is emerging, which includes a wide range of
arrangements for improving operational safety and emergency preparedness and response
to accidents" (Trudeau 159).

The United States has also had a serious accident concerning the production of nuclear
energy. "An accident with potential for a core meltdown occurred in the PWR at the
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March 28,
1979" ( Glasstone 105). The three Mile Island accident appears to have resulted from a
combination of design deficiencies, inadequate procedures, and operator errors. "The
consequences will be far reaching" (Glasstone). Like the Chernobyl accident, some good
has come from the accident at Three Mile Island. After the accident, the Electric Power
Research Institute established a Nuclear Safety Analysis Center to review and analyze
information relative to the safety of nuclear power plants. The fact of the matter is that
nuclear power plants are safer today than ever before, and they will be unquestionably
safer tomorrow than today.

Nuclear Waste
Another drawback that is often associated with the use of nuclear energy is that of
nuclear waste. There is a huge misunderstanding that the waste created by nuclear energy

Nuclear Energy Page 9/15

is more "dangerous" than that of other means of producing electricity. The truth of the
matter is that radioactive waste from nuclear energy may be dangerous for thousands of
years, while wastes resulting from the burning of coal, remains dangerous forever. The
reason for this is because the toxicity of these stable elements does not decrease over time
as does the toxicity of radioactive materials.

Other interesting facts concerning nuclear waste include the reduction in emissions of
SO2 and NOx in countries using nuclear power is revealing. "In France, for example,
during the period from 1980 to 1986, SO2 and NOX emissions in the electric power
sector were reduced by 71 percent and 60 percent, respectively, making a major
contribution to reductions of 56 percent and 9 percent, respectively, in total SO2 and
NOX emissions in France" (Trudeou p.160). These tremendous reductions were made
possible by a fourfold increase in nuclear electricity generation.

Nuclear Weapons
A major drawback to the peaceful use of civilian nuclear power for the production of
electricity is that it has allowed for the production of nuclear weapons. While there is no
question that nuclear energy has various benefits, the fact that nations can create nuclear
weapons of mass destruction t is particularly disturbing. Atomic weapons are created
through the splitting of the atom and detonated through the process of fission, while
hydrogen bombs are detonated through the process of fusion. Hydrogen bombs are 1000
times more explosive than atomic bombs, thus nations with hydrogen bomb technology
can destroy nations within minutes. This thought has led to intense debate over the issue
of nuclear energy as an alternative source for energy.

The threat posed by the development of nuclear weapons was the prime reason for
scientists setting up the Pugwash Movement; after 43 years, it continues to be the prime
focus of concern. The problems have been widely documented in the literature, including
several Pugwash monographs. This section deals mainly with one aspect, the role of
scientists in the nuclear arms race, a role that continues well after the end of the Cold
War.

During the four decades of the Cold War, thousands of scientists, on both sides of the Iron
Curtain, used their knowledge and ingenuity to invent “gadgets” that would improve the
performance of the weapons on their side or make more vulnerable the weapons on the
other side. The role of scientists in maintaining the momentum of the arms race was
succinctly expressed by Lord Zuckerman, who served as chief scientific adviser to the
British government:

When it comes to nuclear weapons the military chiefs of both sides ... usually serve only
as a channel through which the men in the laboratories transmit their views ... For it is the
man in the laboratory who at the start proposes that for this or that arcane reason it would
be useful to improve an old or to devise a new nuclear warhead ... It is he, the technician,
not the commander in the field, who is at the heart of the arms race.

Nuclear Energy Page 10/15

The motivations for scientists in these laboratories were described by Herbert York, the
first director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

The various individual promoters of the arms race are stimulated sometimes by patriotic
zeal, sometimes by a desire to go along with the gang, sometimes by crass opportunism ...
Some have been lured by the siren call of rapid advancement, personal recognition, and
unlimited opportunity, and some have sought out and even made up problems to fit the
solutions they have spent most of their lives discovering and developing.

The outcome of the scientists’ efforts - mainly in the military research establishments in
the USA and USSR, and to a much smaller extent in the corresponding establishments in
China, France and the UK - was to amass huge nuclear arsenals, at one stage exceeding
70,000 warheads. Had these weapons been detonated in combat, it would have destroyed
our civilization and conceivably also the human species, as well as many other living
species. On several occasions during the Cold War, we came perilously close to
catastrophe. One such occasion was the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962; a recent
account of the event by Robert McNamara, containing new evidence, has shown that the
peril was in fact much greater than was thought at the time.

With the end of the Cold War the arms race came to a halt and a process of
dismantlement of nuclear weapons began in the USA and Russia, coupled with
negotiations towards comprehensive disarmament, in accordance with Article VI of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.

For a variety of reasons, mainly political, this process has come almost to a complete
standstill. At the same time, however, thousands of scientists are still employed in
national military research establishments, particularly in the USA, backed by huge
budgets. Ostensibly, the Stewardship Operations and Maintenance programme in the
USA is aimed at improving the safety and reliability of the weapons in the arsenals. But
only a small proportion of the 4.38 billion dollar budget for the FY2000 seems to be
directly designated to the reliability of the weapons, and there is suspicion that the real
purpose is to develop new types of precision nuclear warheads. Work on the
improvement, or enlargement, of nuclear arsenals is also going on in other nuclear
weapon states. The worry that this may lead to a new arms race cannot be dismissed
lightly.

This worry gains more substance in the light of the move in the United States to abrogate,
or substantially amend, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972, and to build up
the National Missile Defense and Theater Missile Defense programmes, in which again
many scientists will be employed. The arguments that have been put forward to justify
the setting up of the new systems at a cost of $10.5 billion, namely, the threat of a
ballistic missile attack from a rogue state, seem so weak that some other reasons are
bound to be suspected. In any case, the plans to tinker with the ABM treaty are strongly
opposed by Russia and China. The latter may feel compelled to respond with measures
that would involve further expansion of its strategic nuclear forces. All this is likely to
become an additional obstacle to the process of nuclear disarmament.

Nuclear Energy Page 11/15

After more than half a century, a huge scientific effort is still being committed to military
applications that may threaten the security of the world. This is a serious misuse of
science, which the world community should not condone. The whole issue of the nuclear
menace needs to be put back on the world agenda, with non-nuclear weapon states and
NGOs urging the nuclear weapon states to honour their obligations under the NPT, an
obligation specifically reaffirmed in 1995 when the Treaty was extended indefinitely.

At the NPT Review Conference in May 2000, the five nuclear weapon states again
reaffirmed their “unequivocal commitment” to fulfilling all of their obligations under the
Treaty. The deletion of certain qualifying terms - such as that the abolition of nuclear
weapons is an “ultimate” objective or the link with general and complete disarmament -
is certainly a significant step forward. However, the absence of a concrete programme for
bringing nuclear arsenals down to zero, and no undertaking of no first use of nuclear
weapons, imply that the current policies – under which nuclear weapons are seen as
necessary for security – will remain in force.

In the scientific community too there are strong calls against the misuse of science and
scientists. This was given expression by Hans Bethe, the most senior surviving member
of the Manhattan Project. On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of Hiroshima, he said:

As the Director of the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos, I participated at the most
senior level in the World War II Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic
weapons.

Now, at age 88, I am one of the few remaining such senior persons alive. Looking back at
the half century since that time, I feel the most intense relief that these weapons have not
been used since World War II, mixed with the horror that tens of thousands of such
weapons have been built since that time - one hundred times more than any of us at Los
Alamos could ever have imagined.

Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons.

But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues. Whether and when
the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is uncertain. But individual
scientists can still influence this process by withholding their skills.

Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating,
developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons - and, for that matter,
other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.

Nuclear Energy Page 12/15

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks during World
War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States of America at the order of U.S.
President Harry S. Truman. After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese
cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on August
6, 1945, followed on August 9, 1945 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb
over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of
warfare.

Nuclear Energy Page 13/15

The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dropping of Little Boy.

The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises
18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the
end of 1945,[1] roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more
have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the
bombs.[2] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender
to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially
ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. (Germany had signed its Instrument
of Surrender on May 7, 1945, ending the war in Europe.) The bombings led post-war
Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding that nation from nuclear
armament.[3]

Conclusion
Overall, nuclear energy has proven to be most beneficial to our society. As a result of
this technology, the United States has decreased its dependency on foreign-imported oil.
In fact, the United States saves about 12 billion dollars each year through the lack of oil it
imports from other nations. Nuclear energy has also proven to be a protector of the
environment because of the lack of CO2, greenhouse gasses, and other gases it emits into
the atmosphere. There are, however, some major drawbacks to using nuclear energy.

Nuclear Energy Page 14/15

These drawbacks include the actual safety of using nuclear energy, the waste it produces,
and the atomic weapons that nuclear energy promotes. Overall, however, we believe that
the use of nuclear energy greatly outweighs any other source of energy.

Key Terms
NOX: NO2 or NO3

Nuclear reactor: Designed to harness the energy liberated in the fusion of certain atomic
nuclei in order to generate electricity.

Nuclear fission: The breakdown of an atomic nucleus of an element of relatively high

atomic number into two ore more nuclei of lower atomic number, with conversion of part
to its mass into energy

Neutrons: A neutral particle with approximately the same mass as a proton. neither
positive or negative.

Zircaloy: The typical fuel cladding in a reactor.

Pressuizer: Maintains the pressure by either heating or cooling an appropriate quantity of

water

Control rods: Used to absorb neutrons to keep the number of neutrons under control.

Coolant and Moderator: The moderator slows neutrons down. example- graphite.

Turbine: A hydraulic motor in which a vaned wheel or runner is made to revolve by the
impingement of a free jet of fluid or by the passage of fluid which completely fills the
motor.

Nuclear Energy Page 15/15