Research Project

Nuclear Energy is Awesome

Jacob Clift

English 2010
Rodney Marchant
26 April 2015

Clift 1

There is currently a discussion happening in the United States on the topic of energy.
Everybody agrees that energy is an important topic and that fossil fuels are unsustainable at the
current rates of use. Oil is subject to foreign whims and can have prices raised or lowered at the
will of a small group of oil producing companies in the Middle East and other oil-rich regions.
While consumers may benefit from low gas prices in the short term, it is important to not forget
the long term dangers of allowing foreign interests to control the oil market. Coal mining is
dangerous both for the environment and the workers and will eventually lead to mountains
destroyed for the sake of coal and cannot be kept up. Natural gas is efficient but also has the cost
of air pollution and environmental harms. It is because of these drawbacks and dangers that
alternative forms of energy must be considered, both for the health of the Earth and the
environment as well as for all the living organisms on this planet including humanity.

One topic that should be considered is nuclear energy and its benefits to life in Utah.
Nuclear energy is incredibly efficient with very few drawbacks. It is a secure, stable source of
energy that is not dependent on foreign oil or subject to changing weather conditions. No
greenhouse gases are emitted during the fission or fusion processes and do not contribute to
pollution or rising global temperatures. Not only is nuclear power a benefit to the energy sector it
is a great benefit to the economy. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute nuclear power plants
generate hundreds of permanent jobs that pay up to 36% more than other jobs in the area as well
as create jobs that work to provide services that support the nuclear plant.

The question that should be answered is if Utah should lead the way and build more
nuclear reactors and to continue research into more efficient forms of fission and fusion. Utah is
in a unique position to do this. The state has large open areas with little to no environmental

Clift 2

significance as well as adequate resources and companies that would be interested in such a
venture, such as Blue Castle Holdings of the Blue Castle Project. Moving away from fossil fuels
and other forms of energy production that produce emissions would help stop Utahs air from
getting even worse and give us more time to work on a problem to solve the air quality problems
as well as mitigate the effects of the inversion.

There are many organizations participating in the discussion of nuclear power and
alternative energy such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI), World Nuclear Association (WNA), the Blue Castle Project and various federal agencies,
environmental lobby groups, and other people and organizations with an interest in nuclear
energy.

It is important to understand the nuclear process and how it works before any judgements
can be made. Without this background information some necessary information may be lost.
Nuclear power comes in two forms, fusion and fission. Fusion is the process of combining nuclei
from light elements such as hydrogen and its isotopes at high temperatures. Pairs of nuclei meet
and cause the protons and neutrons to fuse together, creating immense heat. Nuclear fusion is the
process that occurs in stars and in nuclear weapons. Nuclear fission is the current form of nuclear
power used today and happens when heavy elements like uranium and plutonium collide at high
speeds and temperatures. Fission occurs when a neutron hits a nucleus. Because the nucleus
cannot take in the extra neutron the nucleus breaks down into two smaller nuclei. More neutrons
are released, repeating the process continually in a chain reaction.

Nuclear fission occurs in a reactor core surrounded by a steel containment vessel encased
in a concrete reactor shield. Inside the core is where fission takes place causing immense to be

Clift 3

transferred to a steam generator that boils water to steam. The steam moves through pipes to
turbines, generating electricity. The reactor core is kept under pressure to prevent the coolant
from boiling. The coolant slows fission down, keeping the chain reaction going at a manageable
pace. It is because of this need to keep the coolant under pressure that many safety issues arise.

It is also important to any discussion to remember past mistakes and accidents, doubly so
in the case of nuclear power. Nuclear energy has a destructive history ranging from 1942 to now.
Between the Manhattan Project and the subsequent destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the
scare that surrounded Three Mile Island, the attempted cover-up of Chernobyl, and the most
recent event at Fukushima, man-made nuclear energy has had a controversial lifetime. Three
Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are the historical examples of the shortcomings of
nuclear power, events governments and agencies can learn from. However, with over 14,500
cumulative reactor-years, nuclear power has proven to be a safe and efficient form of energy.

Over the course of over fifty years of nuclear power only three events are of any
significance, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of these three, only two resulted in
harm to those outside of the plant, and only Chernobyl has caused deaths. Any other accidents
were contained within the plant with no last effects. Despite all the fear mongering, events such
as the Chernobyl disaster are not possible today because of the differences in reactor types.

Three Mile Island happened in the March of 1979 when a minor malfunction in the nonnuclear part of the second unit happened, resulting in a series of automated responses including
the opening of a pressure relief valve. When the pressure dropped the valve failed to close
leading the operators to think coolant is being pumped into the system. Two hours after this
failure, high radiation levels were in several areas of the plant and about two-thirds of the core

Clift 4

had been exposed. Right before 7 am, a site emergency was declared, and almost a half hour later
a general emergency was declared. It was not until about 1:50 pm that something happened, a
hydrogen explosion. After a few more days of tension the reactor was able to be properly cooled
and the problem solved. While the core did melt, no harm came to human lives or the
environment.
Chernobyl was a RMBK reactor. RMBK reactors, or high power channel-type reactors,
were only used in the former Soviet Union and have since been decommissioned or improved
upon. The reason Chernobyl happened was because of a combination of design flaws and
improper training. One of these design flaws allowed for excess steam that led to an increase in
power. During a routine test of how long the turbines would spin during a shutdown, the reactor
spiraled out of control faster than the workers could insert the control rods, resulting in
explosions, fire, and the release of radiation. This disaster results in many lives lost and effected.
Chernobyl today is still dangerous to live near and many lives are still effected. Some changes to
these style reactors were made to drastically reduce the likelihood of another Chernobyl-sized
event.

On the 11th of March, 2011 an earthquake that measureed 9.0 on the Richter scale hit 130
kilometers off the northeastern coast of Japan. Several of Japans nuclear power plants shut down
automatically, while the Fukushima Daiichi plant had lost its main power grid connection and its
cooling systems began to be powered by backup generators. After being hit by several tsunamis
the backup power generators shut down. Following the tsunamis were a series of explosions and
attempts at cooling the reactors with seawater and freshwater, things were finally contained.

Clift 5

In these three cases the same basic events happened. Government officials realize they
are unprepared and current measures are insufficient and vague. Technical experts and engineers
disagreed about the state of the reactor and what could happen next. The question was asked if
the citizens should be evacuated. The urgency of the situation was further exacerbated by the
proximity to large population centers, capital cities. The events surrounding Three Mile Island
included an optimistic view by authorities, so an evacuation was not called for even though state
capital Harrisburg was nearby. In the days after the explosion at Chernobyl, Soviet officials
feared that the citizens in Kiev, Ukraine would have to be evacuated due to the rapid spread of
radioactivity. Over the course of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster Japanese officials considered
evacuating Tokyo despite public statements saying everything was under control.
The minimal effects at Three Mile Island helped assuage the publics fear of the
consequences of nuclear accidents but also revealed the unpreparedness for radiation
emergencies. Despite very few radiological releases Three Mile Island showed the inability of
both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emergency services to properly handle nuclear
crises. As a result of the revealing of these inadequacies many regulations were formed and
proper training programs implemented. One such regulatory agencies created was the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Before new reactors could be activated they would
be required to have their emergency management plans approved by FEMA.

The Chernobyl explosion was an example of the difficulties in protecting populations

from such accidents. The Soviet government was unable to measure the amount of radioactive
material ejected from the reactor and how far it will spread. Just like with Three Mile Island
there were no evacuation plans and in this case it was drastically needed. At first officials

Clift 6

evacuated Pripyat, a city only a kilometer from the plant. Gradually the evacuation area was
expanded to 10 kilometers, then 30. Even this was not enough as some evacuation zones were
radioactive.

Even with a quarter century of technological advances and past experiences similar issues
arose during the Fukushima Daiichi disaster of 2011. The Japanese government was faced with
the lack of information needed to make important emergency decisions. Because of the lack of
power caused by the shutdown of the backup power supplies three of the six cores were
overheated and sustained extensive fuel damage. With the rapid increase of pressure in the
containment buildings the plant operators were faced with a problem: either vent an unknown
amount of radioactive steam or risk the pressure being too much for the containment buildings.
The officials chose to release the pressure which resulted in explosions in units 1 and 3.

The safety of nuclear reactors is often the first thing brought up in any discussion of
nuclear power. Opponents and naysayers will cite Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima
as examples of what can and will go wrong. One major opponent of nuclear power is the
environmental protection group Greenpeace. On their website they claim that Nuclear power is
neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation and just because
nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean." They say that if a meltdown occurs many
thousands of people would be killed and injured leaving the area uninhabitable for years and
years, and that the reactors currently in use have been leaking radioactive waste from
underground pipes as well as leaks into ground water from the waste storage plants.

Not only does Greenpeace not provide any sources for their assertions, they deliberately
use false information and language with the sole purpose of scaring the public into agreement.

Clift 7

The declaration that a meltdown would harm thousands of people is based on the 1986
Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union, and event that will forever stain the history of nuclear
power. Chernobyl was a RMBK or high power channel-type reactor, and was only used in the
former Soviet Union and have since been decommissioned or improved upon. Chernobyl
happened because of a combination of design flaws, improper training, and unfortunate
circumstances. One of these design flaws allowed for excess steam that led to an increase in
power. During a routine test of how long the turbines would spin during a shutdown, the reactor
spiraled out of control faster than the workers could insert the control rods, resulting in
explosions, fire, and the release of radiation. Chernobyl-style meltdowns are not possible
claims Mark Hibbs of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace with respect to the Fukushima accident. That is not the same, by any means, as the
accident at Chernobyl in 1986 because the reactor had a completely different design.
Meltdowns such as at Chernobyl are not possible because of the different designs.

While Fukushima and Chernobyl were disastrous to the environment and to those who
were in the accident area, they are accidents that cannot happen again. Government officials and
agencies have learned from these events and implemented more restrictive regulations governing
the operation, training, and safety systems of nuclear power plants. Catastrophic meltdowns such
as the one at Chernobyl is not possible with modern reactors as the reactor design used at
Chernobyl is no longer being used.
The Nuclear Energy Institutes goal is to educate the public about the safety of nuclear
power and to lobby Congress, regulators, and state policy makers. They assert that nuclear power
generation creates no greenhouse gases and is very safe with a proven track record. The NEI

Clift 8

shares several reassurances, saying that while radioactive materials are released, they are in small
amounts regulated by the federal government. These materials are kept in storage until the
radioactivity levels decrease, after which they are treated or released in a planned and monitored
way. Many studies have been conducted and have shown that there have been no negative health
effects as a result of being in proximity of a nuclear reactor. In fact, there is constant, real-time
monitoring of radiation levels all along the perimeter of nuclear plants as well as redundant
safety layers to contain radiation. The meltdown that occurred at Three Mile Island was
uneventful and had no effects outside the containment chamber, and according to a United
Nations scientific panel no immediate health effects were caused by the Fukushima disaster.
According to the NEI and the panel, It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the
future among the general public.

The NEI claims that nuclear power generation is safe, especially in the United States.
Over 3500 reactor years of operation have shown nuclear power to be safe with no health effects
linked to radiation caused by their operation, and is supported by studies conducted by the
National Cancer Institute, The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic
Radiation, the National Research Council, and the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements. Not only are the nuclear plants safe for the public, they are safe for the workers.
The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted a study that shows there is a smaller chance that
a worker at a nuclear plant will be injured than a worker at a fast food restaurant or grocery store.
Employees are monitored constantly for radiation exposure with strict limits put in place by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Clift 9

Illinois, the state with the most nuclear reactors, has many safety measures in place. One
such safety measure is the states Division of Nuclear Safety which falls underneath the Illinois
Emergency Management Agency. Created after the Three Mile Island incident, the Division
helps the state make decisions regarding shelter and evacuation practices in the case of an
emergency. The computers in use at all the plants in the state are linked to the computers used by
the Division of Nuclear Safety in order to maximize the information available to officials in the
case of an emergency. By using Illinois Division of Nuclear Safety as an example, Utah can
make the decisions ahead of time and have the knowledge required for such decisions.

Some of the safety procedures in place include radiation dose monitoring and a
calculated probably frequency of core accidents. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a 1
in 10,000 year core damage frequency requirement though modern reactors exceed this need
drastically. This requirement states that there must be an incredibly slim chance of damage
occurring to the reactor core, one chance for every 10,000 years. Over the course of the 73 years
nuclear energy has been used for power generation only 10 core accidents have occurred outside
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, all of which were at military or research facilities
with no outside damage or contamination. Reactors operate with a specific approach with
multiple safety systems that supplement the natural features of reactor core design. The main
aspects of this approach are equipment monitoring and checks, designs and materials that aid in
disaster prevention, and action plans to direct personnel in proper training and methodology.

There are also a few natural safety measures inherent in certain designs that include selfcorrecting reactions. One such measure is that as the temperature increases the efficiency
decreases, slowing the rate of reaction down. Another measure is that if steam forms in the

Clift 10

coolant there is a decreased moderating effect that prevents neutrons from causing fission,
slowing the process down automatically. In the 1950s and 1960s several experiments were
conducted which verified these measures.

Not only is nuclear energy safe, it is also economical and a competitive source of energy.
When compared to coal, natural gas, and oil, nuclear power is the cheapest production cost. In
2013 the cost of coal per kilowatt-hour was 3.24, gas was 4.09 per kilowatt-hour, oil was
20.65, and nuclear was 2.30. While the costs of, coal, gas, and oil fluctuated, nuclear power
stayed relatively the same.

The most expensive part of a nuclear power plant is the initial costs involved in
construction. These costs are due to the safety and security measures required of the plant design
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other governmental agencies. The initial costs
include the cost of site preparation, construction, manufacturing, commissioning, and the
financing of the power plant. Along with the initial costs of a power plant there are operating
costs. These costs are mainly due to the cost of the uranium fuel. However, there are advances in
making fuel cheaper by increasing enrichment levels. Uranium also has the benefit of being a
concentrated source of energy compared to coal and oil; one kilogram of uranium will provide
about two to three million times more energy than a kilogram of coal, making it a dense source
of energy. For some numbers to show the comparison of the fuels, one kilogram of coal
generates 8 kWh of heat, one kilogram of mineral oil generates 12 kWh of heat, and one
kilogram of uranium-235 generates 24,000,000 kWh. Of heat. Based on the European Nuclear
Societys research, one kilogram of naturally occurring uranium is the equivalent of about

Clift 11

10,000 kg of mineral oil and 14,000 kg of coal and produces nearly 45,000 kWh of electricity
after enrichment.

If Utah decides to build nuclear power plants, many economic benefits will be created
because of these plants. Each plant creates anywhere from 400 to 700 high-paying, permanent
jobs. Not only are there jobs created after the plant is built, there will be many jobs created
during the construction process that can be up to 4000 new jobs at peak construction. Because of
the new jobs in the area of a nuclear plant many more services and businesses will come to that
area bringing economic prosperity.

Utah would benefit greatly by having nuclear power plants. According to the Blue Castle
Project Utah will have the third fastest growing demand for electricity in the United States. It is
known that in the United States overall the demand for electric power is growing. With all the
EPA actions to close coal power plants to reduce emissions as well as state actions, it is
imperative that the state finds a solution before increased electricity costs becomes a problem.

Another logistical issue that comes with nuclear power is the storage and treatment of
nuclear waste. However, nuclear waste is a misleading term. While the nuclear process has few
byproducts, something has to be done about spent fuel rods. It is the spent fuel that is referred to
as waste. Currently waste is stored in facilities in South Carolina, Washington, Utah, and Texas
in concrete pools filled with water or in concrete-steel containers. However, these are only
temporary measures until Congress and the federal government come up with a program for
waste management.

Clift 12

One current waste management method is to permanently store waste in a geologic

feature such as Yucca Mountain. The water in the pools prevents radiation from escaping and
keeps the fuel cooled while the radiation decays. Fuel has been stored in this way for over 50
years and has proved itself during the Fukushima Daiichi accident where the fuel survived the
earthquake and subsequent tsunami. By taking advantage of this accident, the United States
nuclear energy industry installed better instruments to monitor the storage pools. However this
method takes up large amounts of space. To mitigate this the industry has taken to storing the
waste in concrete-steel containers kept above ground. These containers are kept under careful
watch and constant maintenance.

Another method of waste management is to recycle the fuel rods. The rods are recycled
by separating good fissile material from the bad. A few of the long-lasting materials such as
plutonium can be used as fuel for more advanced reactors. However, these recycling methods are
still being studied by the government and researchers and are not being used due to economic
and national security reasons. There is one notable advanced reactor type, the molten salt reactor.
The conception of the molten salt reactor was in the 1950s at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratories as a result of the Cold War. Originally designed as a small reactor that could power
a plane, the first reactor of this type was operated briefly in 1954. While this reactor originally
used molten uranium salts, salt reactors can use thorium, spent fuel, and fuel with low
enrichment levels.

These reactors utilize molten salts as their fuel and have many advantages over the
current light water reactors, advantages such as a lower operating pressure, no risk of meltdown,
passive safety systems, and more fuel types. Because a molten salt reactor does not need to be

Clift 13

kept under pressure there cannot be a dispersion of radioactive materials similar to what
happened at Chernobyl. Molten salt reactors have no risk of meltdown as a result of the fuel
already being in liquid form. Another reason molten salt reactors have no risk of meltdown is
that in the case of an emergency shutdown due to an earthquake or loss of outside power the
liquid will cool itself down and turn into a solid. The waste from molten salt reactors is even
more manageable than light water reactor waste. Because there are no fuel rods and because
nothing is under pressure, almost all the fuel is used in the nuclear process. When a molten salt
reactor is shut down the resulting waste is smaller in volume and reaches safe radioactivity levels
far faster than light water reactors; Three hundred years instead of the 10,000.

The state of Utah is known for having a stable and growing economy in the face of
economic adversity. Indeed, Utah should be at the forefront of the research, construction, and
investment into nuclear power production. If Utah solidifies its standing as one of the best states
in the Union to live by being a leader and setting an example of the safety and benefits of nuclear
power, Utah will gain so much and be an economic powerhouse. By teaching the public about
the safety and benefits of nuclear power, the state of Utah can lead the way for an independent,
sustainable energy future while the other states struggle to keep up with increased demands for
energy in the face of decreasing fossil fuels and rising energy costs.

To be at the forefront of the drive for better, cleaner energy Utah must increase funding
of the Blue Castle Project, the University of Utah and other state university engineering
programs, and provide economic incentives for energy companies to conduct business in the
state of Utah.

Clift 14

Works Cited
"Economic Growth & Job Creation." Economic Growth & Job Creation. Nuclear Energy
Institute, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. The Nuclear Energy Institute is an important source of the
benefits of nuclear power plants. This page especially goes into detail of the economic benefits.
Elsheikh, Badawy M. "Safety Assessment of Molten Salt Reactors in Comparison with Light
Water Reactors." Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences (2013): n. pag. Web. 26
Apr. 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850713000101>.
Professionals in the field are an excellent source of information. This article provides lists of the
safety features of molten salt reactors as well as a helpful diagram of a molten salt reactor.
"Fact Sheets." Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energy Institute, Feb. 2015. Web. 26 Apr.
2015. The Nuclear Energy Institute puts facts and information into an easy to understand format
with proper citations. This fact sheet especially is useful to show the economic benefits of
nuclear reactors.
"FAQ About Nuclear Energy." Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energy Institute, n.d. Web. 26
Apr. 2015. The Frequently Asked Questions page is an excellent source of information of what is
commonly asked and the answers to those questions.
"Fuel Comparison." European Nuclear Society. European Nuclear Society, n.d. Web. 26 Apr.
2015. This source is important because it provides a graph of various forms of energy generation
and compares an amount of each with how much energy they provide.
Hibbs, Mark. "Chernobyl-style Meltdown 'not Possible' in Japan: Analyst." DW.DE. DW, 14
Mar. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. It is important to listen to professionals and experts in fields
relevant to the topic. Mark Hibbs has been working alongside these professionals and writing for

Clift 15

nuclear energy publications and currently works at Carnegie's Nuclear Policy Program which is
based in Berlin.
"Nuclear Power and Nuclear Energy Dangers." Greenpeace. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. It is
never a bad thing to have opposition, especially in matters where many lives can be lost and have
generations of genetic problems as a result.
"Nuclear Power Economics." World Nuclear Association Information Library. World Nuclear
Association, 16 Feb. 2015. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. The World Nuclear Association has an
information packed library with facts and sources relevant to nuclear power.
"Nuclear Power Facts." Blue Castle Project. Blue Castle Project, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. The
Blue Castle Project is a company based in Orem, Utah that is conducting research on nuclear
power in the Green River area and is a driving force for the pro-nuclear lobby in Utah.
"Thorium." World Nuclear Association Information Library. World Nuclear Association, Apr.
2015. Web. 26 Apr. 2015. This resource published by the World Nuclear Association is a useful
source of information about thorium and thorium reactors.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal.
Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 2002. PDF. The Nuclear Regulatory is
an unbiased information source of nuclear power plant regulations and industry practices.