The Pros And Cons Of Expanding Nuclear Power

Ever since 1934, the first time nuclear fission was successfully tested when physicist Enrico Fermi irradiated uranium with neutrons, scientists have come up with many ways to harness nuclear power (Mershon, 2012). From the destructive force of nuclear bombs that have the capability of destroying entire cities to nuclear reactors that provide energy to countless communities, nuclear power has shaped human course over the past century. Yet there is a current decline in nuclear energy as newer resources bring more efficient and safer means for countries to explore. This begs the question, Should developed countries continue to expand nuclear power? The nuclear industry supports this expansion, claiming that expanding nuclear power will stimulate

According to a report in Peace Research (1999) most of them were built during 1970’s, resulting in many of them being around forty years old. As such, newer and more efficient technologies have since been introduced which improve on nuclear reactors. According to Grandin, Jagers and Kullander (2010), authors of “Nuclear Energy”, these newer nuclear reactors are expected to have advantages that include sustainability, reduced capital costs, more energy output with less energy input required. These reactors, called Generation IV, are smaller in size and have yet not hit market due to the restrictions set on the Nuclear power industry. One such technology that the Nuclear industry has heavily invested in is molten-salt reactors, which Kevin Bulls (2013), a senior editor for the MIT Technology review, concluded “could spur new ‘light’ to the dying industry” (para. 3). Bulls reports that building one of these molten-salt reactors could cost roughly around $1.7 billion, which is is half the cost of most current power plants. He reports that these new models have a lower chances of a Nuclear meltdown. As such, these newer technologies addresses the high costs usually associated with constructing power

A recent report done by the Union of Concerned Scientists (2009) reports that “between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit” (p. 2). These costs are so expensive that they require government assistance and incentives in order to get them financed and built. Koehler, David, Paine, and Cochran (2005) estimate that more than $65 billion in taxpayer subsidies are provided for the nuclear power industry. This is more than what any other industry out there receives, yet Koehler et al., point out that even with these substantial subsidies, nuclear power plants are still costly to construct. Rather than using this money that taxpayers pay for to fund nuclear plants, it should instead be redirect to other alternative sources that have a greater potential (Koehler, et al.,