Sheffield 1

Emily Sheffield

Campbell

UWRT 1104

28 March 2019

Boom! From Nuclear Bombs to Nuclear Energy

When I was little, all my parents would talk about was nuclear energy. How fantastic it

was, the new research on nuclear fusion, and how much it impacts the environment (in good

ways). My dad is a historian of the history of science, specifically during the WWII era so he

knows quite a bit about the dropping of the nuclear bomb and the process of making one. Even

though he was well equipped with knowledge of what nuclear power could do, he was all for

nuclear energy. This confused me as a kid, but now I understand the difference. But the question

I always wanted to ask about nuclear energy was “What was all the hype?”. In school, I was

taught the dangers of radioactive materials, never the benefits. Considering the current state of

the world due to climate change caused by greenhouse gases and the misuse of non-renewable

energy, is nuclear power energy really the best solution for the planet right now (Climate)?

According to ​The World Nuclear Association​, the earliest discovery of uranium was

found in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist. For the next 106 years, there were many

chemists who played around with radiation but it wasn’t until Wilhelm Rontgen discovered in

1895 that by passing an electric current through an evacuated glass tube that you could ionize

radiation. This amplification of ionizing radioactive materials led to many more discoveries

including Henri Becquerel's. He demonstrated how a pitchblende can cause a photographic plate

to darken due to the emission of beta radiation and alpha particles. From all of the experiments,
 Sheffield 2
post-Klaproth discovery, led to the naming of the process: “radioactivity”. Many of the

population of the world is familiar with the name Marie Curie. She developed the term

“radioactivity” and did many experiments showing the positive effects it can have in the world.

But were they really positive? The discovery of radioactivity led to the making of the first

nuclear bomb but at the same time has proven a fascinating subject in the world of chemistry.

Although there were many experiments dealing with non-atomic bomb-related ordeals,

many of the research on nuclear fission and nuclear power was between 1939-1945, before and

during WWII (Nuclear). In these six years, the process of nuclear fission was rapidly developed.

According to ​Lumen: Boundless Chemistry​, nuclear fission is the process where the nucleus of

an atom is split into two or more smaller pieces and when this occurs, it creates a large amount of

energy due to a chain reaction. This process is used in nuclear energy reactors all around the

world. The World Nuclear Association states that the US is the largest provider of nuclear

power, producing more than 30% of the nuclear generation of electricity. This shows that the

United States is a large supporter of nuclear energy and although other countries have the assets

to build them there are many things that are getting in the way.

In many European countries, for example, Finland, are putting in place nuclear reactors.

These reactors are being built in rural areas and Pekka Peura, a professor at The University of

Vaasa and author of ​Regional Impacts of Sustainable Energy in Western Finland,​ analyzed the

economic and employment impact of renewable self-sufficient energy. His findings were that if

rural communities were to implicate a self-sufficient renewable energy source, it would

potentially play an important role in improving regional economies. The drawback is the number

of jobs that people would be losing in the established fossil-fuel economy. Although fossil fuels
 Sheffield 3
are a source of energy that needs to be eradicated and replaced with better options, there are still

going to be drawbacks in trying to replace all energy sources with nuclear power plants due to

the already established fossil-fuel economy. In a TED Talk Debate, Mark Z. Jacobson and

Stewart Brand debated on nuclear energy, the main question being: “Do We Need Nuclear

Energy?”. On one end, Brand debated how nuclear energy is very clean and how it has been

proven many times that nuclear reactors spread almost no radiation. He compared the amount of

radiation you would come into contact with to a human eating one banana per year. Although I

agree with Brand, I was thinking to myself “We can still do better”. Jacobson, however, had a

different approach to how energy should be handled, which definitely caught my attention. His

philosophy was simply in favor of other renewable energy sources over nuclear power and how

the carbon footprint is much smaller in a wind power field than it is when building a nuclear

reactor. This made sense to me because you can use a wind-power field for more than one thing.

He also explained that the time taken to build one nuclear reactor can be up to 6 years. Due to

climate change and the crisis for energy in the world right now, 6 years might be too long of a

process that could negatively impact the environment. Although I do think nuclear energy is a

source that could do positive things for the economy and environment, is it what we, as a planet,

need right now? We do not need more and bigger carbon footprints (Climate) but instead a

sufficient and durable form of energy that will last.

A common misconception of nuclear energy is that it ​is​ renewable. Although it is clean

energy, it is not renewable due to the materials needed to conduct the process of fission. “The

element used is Uranium-235,” says National Geographic, “and even though uranium can be

found in rocks all over the world, this specific type is non-renewable.” You might be thinking,
 Sheffield 4
why do they have to use a specific type? I said that as well, but the process of nuclear fission

requires an unstable nucleus of an atom to then be split into more stable counterparts. U-235 is

one of the specific types of uranium that is unstable and due to the difficulty of harvesting this

material, it is not guaranteed that this energy source will last another hundred years

(Non-renewable).

Why are we putting so much effort, money, and time into an energy source that is not

renewable? The planet needs sustainable, affordable, and clean energy that will combat the effect

of the ozone layer deteriorating and the rising temperature of the earth (Climate). We need to

replenish the strength of the ozone layer so that the earth can heal and maintain reasonable

temperatures. This is important because if we were to use energy that was clean and renewable it

would have a positive impact on the environment because we are not emitting greenhouse gases

into the air. Wind and solar power are good examples of renewable energy because they do not

emit toxins and have a relatively low carbon footprint. There are negatives of wind and solar

power though, including the scenarios of “Not always a sunny and windy day” says Stewart

Brand in his TED Talks debate about nuclear energy. In his rebuttal, he explained that although

solar and wind power are not out of the question entirely, nuclear energy is a process that can be

and is being refined. He used an example of how in the UK, they had a two week period where

their wind power was not producing enough energy and had no choice but to buy nuclear energy

from France to keep things running. He used this example to show how although there is a

stigma around nuclear energy “not being useful”, it is the hero that we need at the end of the day

to solve the energy crisis we are going through.

nuclear energy as being a hazard. This concerns me because due to the constant revision of

nuclear energy and by using nuclear waste to power nuclear reactors it is clear that it is an

example of human minds developing a constant source of energy that will prove itself useful in

the years to come (Brand).

The refining of nuclear power has been a strenuous process. From the discovery of

uranium in 1789 to creating nuclear weapons in the 1940s to protests of the use of them in the

1980s, and the acceptance of it as a source of energy. To put it in simple terms, it has come a

long way. I have seen many different sides to the argument, have explored what it truly means to

be “renewable”, and if nuclear energy is the best solution. From this data I have gathered, I have

seen that nuclear power has many hazards due to the Uranium mines and the dangers of

transporting toxic waste and unstable materials. But when it is all said and done, I can concur

that nuclear energy’s positive effects outway the negative. The process of building energy plants

can take up to 6 years, in the meantime we must use renewable energy sources such as wind and

solar to balance the wait time (Brand). A phrase you could use is “you win some, you lose

some”. Wind and solar power are renewable and clean but not always reliable. Nuclear energy,

while not renewable, is clean of toxins emitting into the air and reliable. We should carve a

pathway for a better future for nuclear energy, not try to subdue it. We cannot make a significant

change to Earth without setting a consistent set of bricks down and furthering research all over

the world to continually make bigger and better changes to nuclear energy. I now understand the

“hype” of nuclear energy and it is because nuclear power has come from a background of

destructive power and through that has prevailed to become a source of energy that could help
 Sheffield 6
the planet. Although Mark Jacobson in his TED Talk debate explains how nuclear energy is “not

the best thing we could do”, it has become one of the most interesting and refined topics of the

last 20 years and is still being explored today. What the planet needs are sources of energy that

are refined, well-studied, clean, and most of all reliable. Nuclear energy fits all of these

catagories and who knows, maybe if we curve the pathway, even more, it can one day be

renewable.
 Sheffield 7
Work Cited

Brand, Stewart., Jacobson, Mark Z., “Does The World Need Nuclear Energy?” TED, 20 Nov.,

2014, fod.infobase.com/p_ViewVideo.aspx?xtid=48524

“Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” ​NASA​, NASA, climate.nasa.gov/.

Ho, Shirley S., et al. “‘I Can Live with Nuclear Energy If…’: Exploring Public Perceptions of

Nuclear Energy in Singapore.” ​Energy Policy​, vol. 120, Elsevier Ltd, Sept. 2018, pp.

436–47, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.060.

“Non-Renewable Energy.” ​National Geographic Society​, National Geographic, 14 Feb. 2013,

www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/

“Nuclear Power in the USA.” ​World Nuclear Association,​ Mar. 2019,

www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-p

wer.aspx.

Parsons, John, et al. “A Fresh Look at Nuclear Energy.” ​Science,​ vol. 363, no. 6423, The

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jan. 2019, pp. 105–105,

doi:10.1126/science.aaw5304.

Peura, Pekka, et al. “Regional Impacts of Sustainable Energy in Western Finland.”​Journal of

Cleaner Production,​ vol. 187, Elsevier Ltd, June 2018, pp. 85–97,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.194.

Serp, Jerôme, et al. “Assessment of the Anticipated Environmental Footprint of Future Nuclear

Energy Systems. Evidence of the Beneficial Effect of Extensive Recycling.” ​Energies,​

vol. 10, no. 9, MDPI AG, Jan. 2017, p. , doi:10.3390/en10091445.

Wang, Qiang, and Wang, Qiang. “Nuclear Safety Lies in Greater Transparency.” ​Nature​, vol.
 Sheffield 8
494, no. 7438, Feb. 2013, pp. 403–403, doi:10.1038/494403a.