Monday, April 20, 2009

Research paper

Erik Johnson
English 250
Mr. Perez
April 17, 2009
Looking to the Past for a Better Future
In our nation there is an ever-growing concern about the use of fossil fuels for energy production. Between both our over-reliance on foreign fossil fuels and the need to preserve our world, in the future we may be looking at a difficult solution. The need for an alternative energy source is apparent and the solution may be just as obvious. Through the use of nuclear energy we can create a clean renewable energy that produces no carbon dioxide emissions. Many people may be skeptical about nuclear energy because of possible disasters and the potential for waste production. There is also the problem of government interaction in the 1970’s making breeder reactors illegal eliminating the ability to reuse the waste. However, this law is out-of-date because the threat that government officials were worried about is a thing of the past. Despite these problems there are solutions that, with time, can lead to a safer and more reliable energy source that is both clean and renewable. Through the use of nuclear energy, we can create a greener world and wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
Nuclear energy may seem like a complicated process, but it is actually very simple. Heat is produced by the process of fission using radioactive materials such as uranium and plutonium. The released heat is used to warm the water enough to produce steam. From there, it propels a turbine which creates power that is transferred to what is essentially a giant battery. Simply put, it is a fancy way to boil water. Due to the materials being used and the process through which energy is produced, nuclear energy production does not affect air quality in the slightest (Fromm).
One of the major concerns with nuclear energy is the potential danger of leaks and spills. It has been a significant amount of time sense the last nuclear reactor meltdown. The two most recent power plant incidents were Three Mile Island, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in 1986 (Sewell). Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen (Moore par 12). The Chernobyl reactor was an old plant built to poor specifications and did not have anywhere close to the safety precautions that exist today. The Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine was caused by a malfunction during a testing on one of the four reactors. A misjudgment by the scientist running the test caused the core to reach super-criticality (Sewell par 2). This caused the water around the fuel to vaporize very quickly into steam. The pressure had nowhere to go and caused a steam explosion making the reactor impossible to control (Sewell par 3). Many believe that the Three Mile Island incident was a disaster when, in fact, it was a successful example of averting a major nuclear disaster (Moore par 12). There was no loss of life and very little radiation emission from the plant. Though it is unlikely, if a nuclear spill were to occur there would be a large environmental impact and loss of life.
In comparison to the negative impact of possible nuclear mishaps, there is a larger concern in the coal and oil industries. There were sixty-nine deaths in 2007 from coal mining accidents and collapses (Mine). As for environmental impact, both oil drilling and coal power plants should be considered. Although oil spills have caused catastrophic environmental damage in the past, millions of barrels of oil are drilled each year. Coal plants produce large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses which are proven to damage the Earth’s atmosphere. Despite the obvious problems, coal is still a major source of power in the United States today.
During the 1970’s, for fear of the enrichment of nuclear rods being sold to terrorist organizations, Breeder reactors were banned from being made in the US (Tucker par 10). Normally, in nuclear reactors, the process calls for uranium-235, which accounts for 1% of the Earth’s crust, instead of the more common uranium-238, which undergoes fission differently than uranium-235, so it cannot be used in conventional reactors, which means that, at the moment it can only be placed back into the ground (Tucker). With a breeder reactor, the power plant could use the uranium-238 and causes it to spontaneously release neutrons to create plutonium-239 (Fromm). When the process is done, all of the uranium will have transformed into plutonium. This process is much more dangerous, but the abundance of the uranium -238 allows for many more years of power. The government’s main problem with Breeder reactors is the production of plutonium it could be used to create nuclear weapons. In all reality if a foreign government wants to build a bomb, they would build their own facilities, and it would be very difficult for any terrorist organization to extract plutonium from the radioactive material and build a bomb (Tucker par 11). We should not ban something that could change our planet and economy in the way that nuclear energy could.
If the government were to lift the ban on breeder reactors, nuclear energy would be the answer that the US has long been seeking. It is both a clean and renewable source that can provide much of the energy needed by the ever-growing population. Through an old process with modern day innovations, nuclear reactors will allow us to wean ourselves from the evils of fossil fuels. There may still be a few bugs that need to be worked out, but nuclear energy is a good alternative in the years to come. With the ever-growing need for energy comes the astonishing supply of uranium and plutonium needed to provide the energy the United States is craving.

Works Cited
Fromm, James R. "The Breeder Reactor." The Breeder Reactor. 1997. 6 Apr. 2009
.
Mine Safety and Heath Administration. Injury Trends in Mining. 16 April 2009

Moore, Patrick. “Going Nuclear.” The Washington Post 16 April 2006. 12 April 2009

Nuclear Energy: The Basics. Digital image. Http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/. 2005. 6
Apr. 2009 .
Sewell, Linda, and Edward N. Lazo. "Nuclear Power & Nuclear Accidents."
Http://www.hps.org/. 2 Jan. 2002. 6 Apr. 2009 .
Sutcliffe, W. G., and T. J. Trapp. "Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear
Explosives." Reactor-Grade and Weapons-Grade Plutonium in Nuclear Explosives. Jan. 1997. 6 Apr. 2009 .
Tucker, William. "There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste." The Wall Street Journal 13 Mar.
2009. 13 April 2009