The Pros And Cons Of Clean Nuclear Power

In 2016, Nuclear energy produced 94,748,858 kilowatts of electric power. This power by itself would be enough to fully power 77 million homes for over a year. Considering the puny American fleet of one hundred power plants, this is no small feat. Since 1979, the size of the American nuclear program has shrunk considerably, with the prospect of ordering new plants a far off concept to American bureaucrats and corporate officials. Yet, the industry was not always negative. Since the 1950’s, America and its allies have been investing in clean nuclear power in the idea that it would provide a clean sustainable power source. However, in March 28, 1979, a nuclear plant in Dauphin county, Pennsylvania suffered a meltdown. Although it was not as

Propaganda from ecological groups like greenpeace have spread the idea of glowing green waste leaking into the water table and wreaking havoc on our environment. Their idea of a nuclear meltdown illustrates grand explosions throwing the lids off containment chambers and filling the air with deadly radioactive gases. Their belief is in a nuclear monster which typically has three issues: cost, safety, and environmental damage. Opponents argue that nuclear plants are useless when their cost is compared to the cost of installing a solar field or a wind farm. After all, why spend 40 million to build a single power plant when that same money could be spent building a wind farm,with less than a fifth of the same expense? Along with 10 to 15 year construction times, individuals outside of the industry find nuclear investments worthless. Worse than this, the liability of having a nuclear plant close to a city or town scares even the biggest companies in the energy business. In the event of an environmental disaster, these companies could be blamed or even held liable for the event (Roadmap 5). This is one of the main reasons why there is a absence in power plant orders since 1970. And while these arguments against nuclear power may seem reasonable and fair, they are actually handpicked to induce fear and hatred against the nuclear

Still, a nuclear power plant does not pose the same amount of danger as a nuclear bomb, or even provide a substation amount of radiation pollution. The main danger from a nuclear plant comes in the unlikely event of a meltdown. In these cases, water heated by nuclear reactions can turn to steam, which can strain the enclosure. This steam can escape the enclosure, which can spread nuclear fallout throughout the atmosphere. Even more dangerous, a buildup of hydrogen and oxygen gases can lead to a violent explosion releasing more radiation into the atmosphere. () Due to the danger and damage of these events, multiple safety features exist with a nuclear system. The main safety feature of all reactors, and the method by which reactors produce power, are the number of pump and water cooling systems. Many reactors contain primary, secondary, and backups cooling systems in the unlikely event that numerous failures occur. (3) These cooling and pump systems are located within large containment structures made of concrete or steel. These sarcophaguses are made to prevent the release of radioactive debris or steam in the case of a breach (3). The most important safety system is the series of control and moderation rods. These manage the levels of fission occurring within the generator. Without these tools, generating nuclear fission would be too dangerous for any purpose. Control rods are typically