A major problem in the modern world is where to get the electricity we have come to rely on because every possibility has many pros and cons of its own. Nuclear power has recently become a highly thought of solution to the problem. Nuclear Power is from the fission (the splitting of an atomic nucleus) of Uranium atoms. This fission frees large amounts of heat, gamma rays, and spare neutrons, which in turn splits more atoms so that the process continues on its own. The excess heat boils water, turning a turbine generator, producing electricity. Water is also needed as a coolant for the heated generators. In America, the Clean Water Act and National Discharge Elimination System regulates the water to make sure no pollutants or dangerously high temperature water makes it into the water source it releases the used water into. Used uranium fuel is the radioactive waste from the Nuclear Power Plants. The waste is contained in steel-lined, concrete vaults for storage in numerous designated areas. The idea is that the small amount of fuel (Uranium) produces a large amount of energy in the reaction, and so a greater output for less money can be made. This could then make electricity cheaper.[1]

            A big problem from this, however, is that many nuclear power plants don’t adhere to the safety codes and regulations, and often Agencies that are supposed to make sure the standards are in place don’t do anything when they aren’t. The output coolant water isn’t moderated as it should, and it damages plant and wild life where it comes out. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has found many nuclear power plants out of compliance with fire codes, but “the commission has decided to gut these regulations rather than force nuclear power plant operators to comply with them.” Fires are expected to happen in a nuclear power plant, and they can be contained, and handled fine, but without proper regulations, the fires could meltdown the reactor site and expose millions of people to radiation. Rick Kimble, the manager of general communications for a plant in North Carolina, claims a large scale fire is impossible due to the fact that nuclear fuels don’t burn, and any fire could be easily contained. David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, strongly disagreed and pointed out the large fire at Browns Ferry where a radioactive catastrophe was narrowly avoided which was also thought to be immune to fires. Many nuclear power plants also rely on humans to shut down reactors instead of computers, which are much more reliable sources due to the complexity and stress it involves, it is often difficult to handle in critical times. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service found that the NRC has over 27 reactors in the United States not in compliance with their fire regulations. Jerry Brown, a consultant for the nuclear industry sees these failures as a prelude to a bad future, because “a nuclear power plant can kill a million people.”[2]

The British National Fuels plc (BNFL) is a British company involved in Nuclear Fuels that, according to 40 United States organizations against BNFL spreading to the US, has a “global record of repeated, serious violations of environmental laws, regulations, and standards, as well as a pattern of lies, deceptions, and false statements to the public and governmental officials.”[3] The BNFL does, in fact, have a bit of a dark history as their Sellafield location has been known for its decades of pollution into the North Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea. It has also signed on to nuclear cleanup, where it has also been slacking. In Oak Ridge there were many safety concerns, which lead to an Energy Department investigation that stated “that production priorities had taken precedence over environmental, safety, and health considerations at the site.”[4] The company has often been noted as giving off the appearance of working hard to meet a deadline, but it has been only working to meet the deadline, not working for quality. Even after recognizing the need to improve their conditions, over a period of six months, three separate fires started in BNFL factories. One of the worst details is how this relates to the nuclear power industry as a whole. The Department of Energy had independent reviewers say that BNFL was not “adequate to meet Department of Energy safety and quality requirements” but it did “compare favorably wit other Department of Energy contractors.”[5] This means that there are many other nuclear plants not doing the job as they should, endangering many.

There are also many who argue that nuclear power is much safer overall, it just doesn’t seem so at first glance. Nuclear power avoids the use of fossil fuels which are mass producers of pollution. The amounts of Carbon Dioxide produced by fossil fuels traps the heat in the atmosphere, which will eventually cause a big climate shift. This would then make agriculture shift, and rise the sea level, pushing humans from the coasts, and contaminating our fresh water. The fossil fuels also emit gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that produces acid rain which can make lakes uninhabitable to fish, and it can devastate forests. Air pollution that comes with burning fossil fuels has also been accounted for as the cause of around 30,000 deaths each year.[6] Nuclear power could also eliminate the need for oil transportation, which would eliminate the possibility of the great damage that oil spills do. Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of Pittsburgh, points out that what everyone looks at is the worst possible accident, when they should look at the probability of it actually happening. In reality exposure to every US electricity nuclear accident would only decrease the loss of life expectancy of a human by .012 days, while some one who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is expected to lose 2,300 days.[7]

Cohen also asserts that nuclear reactor waste is easily stored with strong protection deep underground. This makes it far better than the fossil fuel pollutants that contaminate the ground forever. Dawn Stover, from Popular Science magazine, found that it has yet to be proven that this contained radioactive waste could with stand earthquakes or water seepage or any other possible events that could happen over the 10,000 years it takes for the radioactive waste to decay to natural levels.[8] She also pointed out that the storage sites are running out of room, meaning we will soon need more sites to store the waste or we will have to reprocess what we have, because right now we only tap about 1% of the energy content within the uranium. So reprocessing makes sense, but it also costs significantly more to do this.[9]

Another significant event that can sway many people’s minds about nuclear power is the large scale of damage done by the melt down at Chernobyl. The cause of the meltdown was operators testing how long the reactor in Chernobyl could sustain itself without power. They gradually decreased the power, but a design flaw in the reactor made it unstable at low power levels. It began to produce more and more steam, and began a runaway power surge that got power production up to a hundred times its regular maximum level. Two explosions occurred within that blew off the 2,000-metric-ton metal plate on top of the reactor, unleashing “the worst technogenic environmental disaster in history.”[10] The safety systems could have diverted this disaster, but they had been disabled out of fear that it could mess up the results of the experiment. The disaster had a world wide effect, radiation form the explosion hit Western Europe and the Ukraine very hard, but it even hit Japan and the United States with some radiation. Graphite burned for ten days, hundreds of times more radiation than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was released, and Green peace estimates that 32,000 people died as a result of the catastrophe.[11] The radiation has made an increase of pregnancy complications and mental trauma by ten times the amount it was in that area.

Chernobyl has changed the minds of many fearing another meltdown of such a wide scale, but since then nuclear technology has come a long way, and we have much more experience. The NRC’s safety-significant events report had dropped to one tenth of what it was in 1990 by 2000. For over two decades US nuclear generators have increased electrical production each year by nearly 8 percent.[12]  Right now, however, electricity from nuclear means costs more (with out carbon taxes). Yet the possibilities and promise of nuclear power is appealing. In 2002 BMW made designs for a car prototype that could run off liquid hydrogen (produced when nuclear energy splits water into Hydrogen and Oxygen). This could solve the problem of pollution from cars.

Recently, a new way to generate nuclear power has shown up. It is called the pebble bed modular reactor, and instead of uranium rods, it uses uranium dioxide particles within a graphite shell. The “pebbles” (which are actually about the size of billiards balls) keep the radiation contained (as well as many other layers of graphite) and are therefore considered meltdown proof by many, such as Andrew Kadak (professor of nuclear engineering at MIT). Chief nuclear officer at Exelon (a South African electric utility), Oliver Kingsley, is a little more skeptical of the project, and feels “It’s a venture in the early exploratory stage.” The new reactors could even add on to existing plants to avoid conflict, and this could make the electricity cost 30% less per megawatt. [13] The pebbles also recycle most of their radioactivity, leaving waste that is radioactive for a shorter amount of time. Ernest Moniz, an MIT physics professor, believes that a lot more work is needed on the approach, and even if it did wok out, he estimates it won’t make much of an impact for another 50 years.[14]

            John McCarthy, Professor Emeritus of computer science at Stanford, believes that there will soon come a time when Americans will have to choose between nuclear power and giving up individual transportation. If that time ever comes, it would be better to be well practiced in the science by starting now, than to have to hit the ground on the run then. Resurgence in nuclear power plants seems to be starting across the world, as Constellation Energy announced plans for a new nuclear power plant (it would be the first in the US in thirty years) on December 7, 2005.[15] In France, as well, there are new plans arising for plants in 2007. The recent rising seems to have been sparked by the rising costs of energy and oil. The future of nuclear power is being decided now.