Energy is a very important thing. Our whole world runs on it. Without energy the whole world would come to a standstill. A majority of our energy comes from burning petroleum, coal, and the rest of the fossil fuels. But as the world advances and technology improves, the need arises for more and more energy, and this in turn leads to more and more burning of fossil fuels. It is estimated that if the fossil fuels are consumed at the rate that they going, very soon, they will be depleted. This is the energy crisis that energy scientists are faced with.
        As the world enters the 21st century, the energy crisis continues and the pressure on fossil fuels and non-renewable sources grows. This has prompted today's scientists, physicists, and environmental experts to come up with an alternate source to fight the crisis. And the only solution, it seems, to all these problems is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy first entered the field of production of electricity 25 years ago, when the first nuclear reactor was set up ("A New Dawn for Nuclear Power," 2001). Then, it was welcomed as a new, clean source of electricity that would slowly wipe out the energy crisis. But then the Three Mile Island incident and soon after it the Chernobyl incident changed all that. People began to become more wary of this new form of energy. Not a single nuclear reactor was set up in the United States since then, and anti-nuclear sentiments in Europe and the rest of the world reached their peak. After that there had not been much talk about nuclear power or about using it to produce electricity.
        But then something happened in the United States that was to change all that. On May 17th, 2001, President Bush unveiled his national energy strategy, which supported nuclear power to a very large extent. "While rolling blackouts in California, natural gas prices spiking, and debate over how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continues, advocates say the time has come to begin building new reactors" (Weeks, 2001, p. Bo3). The whole world was taken by surprise and this became a controversial topic all over the world. The whole idea of a nuclear renaissance has made the people more wary. There is a lot of mistrust concerning nuclear power, and it has become one of the most controversial elements of the Bush administration's forthcoming energy plan. So, is nuclear power advantageous enough to consider its comeback? Is it truly going to help us remove the energy crisis? Is it going to bring us a lot of good? This is exactly what I would like to discuss in this research paper.
        Nuclear power threatens to fast engulf the whole field of production of electricity. Many scientists and nuclear experts all over the U.S. claim that it is the best solution so far (Lake, 2001). It is clean, abundant, and efficient. Nuclear power unlike other existing energy sources does not produce large quantities of wastes or cause any kind of pollution. Even greenhouse gas emissions are at their minimum with nuclear electricity production. All these advantages put together have caused nuclear power to become one of the strongest candidates to enter the race for electricity production in the 21st century. There are lots of people who support nuclear power. There are many physicists and scientists who support it and want its comeback. But not everyone in the world feels this way. There are many who are wary of nuclear power and want to look at all the disadvantages before deciding on its comeback (Weeks, 2001). To the common man, nuclear power is something very strange and new, and from past experience, they know that it has the capacity to cause vast and immense damage--damage that can last for many generations even after the disaster. So, it is only understandable if these people do not trust nuclear power and decide that they do not want it to be brought back.
        But there are many scientists and nuclear experts who feel that nuclear energy is a perfect solution to the energy crisis and they support it in spite of all reason. Even though serious accidents have occurred in the past, they feel that nuclear technology is now more mature and better understood. They claim "concerns about operational safety, though understandable, do not add up to a damning case against nuclear power" ("A New Dawn for Nuclear Power," 2001). Since nuclear power is available so abundantly and is so efficient and safe, its supporters feel that it ought to be developed and globalized. Some of the reasons why they think nuclear power would be a huge success are, as mentioned before, that the raw materials needed to produce nuclear energy are available so abundantly. Uranium, the radioactive metal most often used to produce nuclear power, is available in large quantities all around the world and the extraction process is also not very expensive. In addition, nuclear reactors once set up will go on producing energy for as long as 500 years. They would stop functioning only if the fuel ran out.
        One of the main reasons why scientists consider nuclear power so advantageous is because they claim that the spent fuel, i.e., the nuclear wastes produced from nuclear reactors, can be disposed of very easily. Nuclear wastes can easily be stored in spent fuel tanks or stored under the ground in dug up pits. According to James A. Lake, a nuclear engineer and president of the American Nuclear Society, "Nuclear wastes are the best-managed wastes in the world" (Lake, 2001). Lake also states that the wastes produced from nuclear reactors are very small in quantity as compared to coal plants, petroleum plants, and other energy plants. In addition to this, nuclear wastes are recyclable. Recycling extracts more energy and reduces both the amount and radioactive life of the nuclear waste at the same time. And this, Lake feels, is the most important reason why nuclear energy should be adopted. Lake says that the cost of recycling spent fuel is almost equal to that of using and storing the spent fuel. He adds that recycling also has an added advantage, that is, the large amount of energy extractable from the recycled fuel. Furthermore, almost all the new nuclear reactors that are coming up are computerized and mechanized. All the spaces that were filled by men are now taken over by machines. This, the nuclear experts say, is an added precaution to see that no mechanical errors occur. Mistakes made by the human hand are reduced as a result of these computerized reactors. Thus, all these advantages put together have made many scientists and physicists favor nuclear power over other sources.
        After considering a number of different articles and the opinions of various physicists around the world, I found out that in addition to all the advantages of nuclear power there are also a lot of disadvantages to it. One of the most important disadvantages of nuclear reactors and nuclear electricity production is the disposal and management of nuclear wastes. The disposal of nuclear wastes is not as simple a process as the scientists and physicists say it is. Apart from being a very expensive process, it is also very complicated. This is a very big issue and most "nuclear" countries around the world face problems, because not all of them possess enough money or the technical know-how needed to dispose of the nuclear wastes. If more and more start adopting nuclear power, this would lead to careless disposal of radioactive nuclear wastes. In order to save a lot of money at one go, many companies might start dumping the radioactive nuclear wastes in the oceans and other water bodies, instead of in the spent pools and underground pits. This is a very dangerous thing to do and it could kill a lot of marine and aquatic life. It also increases the risk of people being exposed to radiation.
        In addition to this, there is another dangerous problem that is linked to nuclear wastes, and that is nuclear proliferation (Lake, 2001). Nuclear proliferation is the process by which spent fuel and nuclear wastes can be used to produce nuclear weapons. Since nuclear wastes are stored in spent fuel tanks and underground, the risk of all this nuclear waste falling into the wrong hands arises. The nuclear physicists and experts push this problem away saying that proliferation of nuclear wastes is not an easy process and it is very expensive as well. They say that not everyone possesses the money or the technical know-how to do this. But this I feel is not a solution to the problem. It cannot be assumed that, just because it has never happened before, it will never happen. If some terrorist group or a nuclear company came up with an inexpensive proliferation process, then the world would be in big trouble!
        Finally, when it comes to the amount of wastes produced by a nuclear power plant, the supporters of nuclear power argue that the amount of wastes produced by a nuclear reactor is very small as compared to coal and petroleum plants. But this cannot be considered as an advantage as such because we must consider the fact that the wastes produced by coal and petroleum plants consist mostly of spent ash, waste gases, and bio-degradable substances, whereas with nuclear reactors, although they produce only little waste, these wastes are highly radioactive and give out large amounts of radiation.
        Another major disadvantage of nuclear reactors is that they increase the radiation risks in a country. Nuclear rectors, their wastes, and even sometimes their raw materials give out large amounts of nuclear radiation. And this radiation is highly hazardous to human and all other kinds of life. The more the number of reactors, the more the amount of radioactive nuclear wastes produced. This, in turn, increases the risk of exposure to radiation. In addition to this, there is also the added risk of these reactors blowing up, or some other nuclear disaster occurring. The after effects of a nuclear disaster are devastating, and they are long term as well. The effects of radiation on humans are carried on through generations for a very long time. Babies of people who've been exposed to radiation are born with various abnormalities. And these abnormalities are passed on to their children and their grandchildren. Thus, by setting up new reactors, the radiation risks of a country are increased (Darby, 2001; Leventhal, 2001).
        Another very serious disadvantage of nuclear reactors is the problem of unemployment. Coal, petroleum, chemical plants, etc. provide employment to a large number of people. These include people who have no background or education in the field of energy management and are in the energy field based only on a lifetime of experience. It is not possible to employ laymen in the nuclear industry. This industry requires specialists who are well-versed in the field of nuclear energy, radiation, nuclear reactors, etc. Maybe a small number of people may be employed to do the maintenance, setting up reactors, etc., but it is a fact that lots of people will be put out of employment if these coal and petroleum energy plants are replaced by nuclear plants. Thus, employment opportunities of people will be cut down a lot, since the nuclear industry cannot afford to employ those people who have little knowledge in the field of nuclear energy.
        Most of the employees of nuclear power plants and centers are physicist, scientists, and nuclear experts. Only a small number of people are employed for maintenance and other physical processes. Also, most of these nuclear reactors are mechanized and computerized. This new development was introduced as a precaution to make sure that the various nuclear processes are carried out correctly at the correct times. By making these reactors computerized, any sources of error by the human hand are eliminated. Thus, when the nuclear scientists say that "nuclear power is better developed and better understood," this is exactly what they mean. But what they do not realize is that, due to this mechanization process too, many people will be put out of employment. Machines will take up the places that were filled by people.
        Thus, it becomes evident to us that nuclear power, just like every other power source, has its disadvantages along with its advantages. But when nuclear power is compared to the already existing power sources, it is evident that it produces effects that are much more damaging than coal, petroleum, or any of the other fossil fuels. It is thus unreasonable to assume that nuclear power is the "best" power source that can combat the energy crisis. There are many other solutions that can be considered before deciding to depend solely on nuclear power. Instead of building newer and bigger reactors, it is a better idea to improve on the already existing reactors. They should be modified and their life spans should be increased (Weeks, 2001). This is a better idea than setting up new reactors and thus increasing the radiation risks in a country.
        In addition, there are also many alternate sources of energy that can be depended upon to produce nuclear power. Solar power, tidal power, thermal power, etc. are a few examples. These power plants are used in some parts of the world. There mare many countries that are not so rich in petroleum and coal who use these methods to satisfy their energy needs. Can't this be applied to a few more countries in the world? In addition, there is a lot of hydrogen present in the form of seaweed in almost all the seabeds. If a method were developed by which all this hydrogen could be used to produce electricity, then it would be enough to give energy to the world for a very long time. There are many scientists working in the hydrogen field, and they are working to develop this energy. These people should be encouraged. It is thus evident that there are also other sources of energy that can fight the crisis but are pushed back because of the easily available solution--nuclear power.
        I feel that nuclear power is not, and should not be made, the only solution to the energy crisis. Nuclear power has many disadvantages that should be considered before considering it a "perfect" solution. The power generated from nuclear power plants may be abundant and even affordable for the U.S. government, but it may not be as "clean" as the scientists think it is.

Angelo, W. J. (2001, September 7). Nukes show strong support. Engineering News Record, 247, 51. Retrieved October 13, 2001, from http://www.ehostvgw9.epnet.com

Darby, S. (1999, October16). Radiation risks. British Medical Journal, 7216, 1019. Retrieved October 13, 2001, from http://www.ehostvgw9epnet.com

Lake, J. A. (2001, May 13). Outdated thinking is holding us back. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2001, from http://www.washington post.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18315-2001May12

Leventhal, P. L. (2001, May 17). More nuclear power means more risk. The New York Times on the Web. Retrieved  October 22, 2001, from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/17/opinion/17LEVE.html

A new dawn for nuclear power. (2001, May 19). Economist, 359, 13. Retrieved October 13, 2001, from http://www.ehostvgw9.epnet.com

Weeks, J. (2001, May 13). Let's look harder before we leap. The Washington Post, p. BO3. Retrieved October 22, 2001, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18318-2001 May 12