Daniel Hung Lee

Dr. Semih Eser

EGEE 101H
16 February 2016
Nuclear Fission: Splitting Atoms for the Greater Good
As I read Vaclav Smils Energy: A Beginners Guide, I stumbled upon a revelation: just
four tonnes of matter contain energy that is equivalent to the worlds annual consumption of
commercial energy . . . (7). Of course, this is derived from Albert Einsteins mass-energy
equivalence, a formula that I was familiar with but evidently did not understand. Reading further,
Smil specifies, the fission (splitting) of the nuclei of one kilogram of uranium 235 releases an
amount of energy equivalent to 190 tonnes of crude oil as it diminishes the initial mass by just
one gram . . . (7). Connecting the dots with the help of additional research, it became clear to
me that nuclear energy holds the key to our low-carbon energy future.
By definition, nuclear energy can be released through either nuclear fusion or fission,
though the former with regards to the generation of electricity is still very much in infancy
(Chandler). Barring stupendous scientific progress, nuclear fission, known colloquially as
splitting atoms, will continue to be the preferred process for the foreseeable future. As its name
suggests, this split occurs when the nucleus of an atom is bombarded with a neutron, most
commonly in nuclear reactors such as our very own Penn State Breazeale Nuclear Reactor.
Traditionally, the atom in question is uranium-235, as its relatively large size and consequent
weak binding atomic force make it suitable for fission. The subsequent release of energy is used

to change water to steam, which is then channeled to spin turbines connected to electricityproducing generators (How Nuclear Power Works).
The mechanism of nuclear fission may sound modest, perhaps deceptively so, but its
implications are anything but. In one of the earliest videos we were required to watch for this
class, Dr. Scott Tinker espouses the benefits of nuclear energy, stating that it is cheap, clean (zero
emissions), relatively safe, and most importantly, our most powerful energy source (Tinker). Dr.
Sylvia McLain of Oxford University further calls it the best alternative to oil, and dismisses other
options, writing: What are the alternatives? There are many. Wind but it has to be windy; solar
but it has to be sunny; hydroelectric but you have to have water, (McLain).
However, and there will always be a however with normative statements, nuclear energy
faces substantial opposition with varying levels of validity. Said opposition can roughly be
categorized into two groups, namely wartime and peacetime. The former is well known, and
began with the dual bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which had an immediate casualty
count of 119,000 and 70,000 respectively (Smil 138). Fortunately, despite the nuclear arms race
that accompanied the Cold War, nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction has
largely minimized the risk of a major nuclear war. As for peacetime opposition, much of it can be
summarized with three events: Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. While this is not
an exhaustive list of nuclear power plant accidents, they serve to illustrate the rarity and isolated
nature of such occurrences. Furthermore, as Dr. Sylvia McLain once again so eloquently put it,
In all of these disasters some relatively dumb mistakes and painful oversights were made.
Such as waiting almost 18 hours to flood Fukushima Daiichi with sea water to cool the reactor,
(McLain).

Finally, I think it is helpful to look at the present reality of nuclear energy. In 2000, the
German government decided to completely phase out nuclear power by 2022. This may give off
the impression that nuclear energy is on the decline globally, which is simply not the case.
According to Dr. Jonathan Cobb at the World Nuclear Association, there are 70 nuclear reactors
under construction the highest number in 25 years. Additionally, there are 500 proposed plants,
which easily exceed the amount operating today (Anderson).
To conclude, I believe that nuclear energy should be at the forefront of our energy
challenge. As an economics major, I have been conditioned to think in terms of costs and
benefits, and I am convinced the benefits significantly outweigh the costs in this instance.

Works Cited
Anderson, Richard. "Nuclear Power: Energy for the Future or Relic of the Past?" BBC News.
British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
Chandler, David L. "New Finding May Explain Heat Loss in Fusion Reactors." MIT News. MIT
News Office, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
"How Nuclear Power Works." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
McLain, Sylvia. "On the Pros of Nuclear Power." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 27
Nov. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
Smil, Vaclav. Energy: A Beginner's Guide. Oxford: Oneworld, 2006. Print.
Tinker, Scott. "Nuclear 101." Energy 101. Switch Energy Project, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.