Brad Stuby

Professor Lori Bedell

CAS 137H
3 November 2014
Paradigm Shift of Nuclear Energy
In the past 30-40 years the idea of using nuclear energy has fallen from the public light.
The accidents that occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have caused a shift
in thought about how and if nuclear energy is a worthwhile energy source. Factors such as
dealing with nuclear waste and the rise of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind have
helped to shift the public eye in disfavor of nuclear energy.
The beginning of nuclear energy started in 1939 when Lise Mietner and Otto Frisch who,
both worked under Niels Bohr, suggested that neutrons are captured by the nucleus. Using
severe vibrations they discovered that the nucleus could split into two. They had discovered
nuclear fission and calculated that the energy released was about 200 million electron volts. At
the same time the Russians were specializing laboratories in the advancement of nuclear physics.
They were installing cyclotrons which were some of the first machines that accelerated charged
particles in a spiral motion to create a reaction. The Russian research stalled due to Stalin
arresting many of the scientists that were working on nuclear power.
Two years later the Military Application of Uranium Detonation Committee (MAUD)
published a report that stated the controlled fission of uranium could be used to provide energy
in the form of heat for use in machines. The MAUD committee also determined that the use of
graphite and heavy water as moderators to slow the fission reaction could increase the length and
make the process safer.

The idea of generating electricity with nuclear energy faded until the end of World War II
because most research dealt with the creation of the atomic bomb. President Eisenhowers
Atoms for Peace project reoriented research efforts towards the generation of electricity. The
first reactor to produce electricity was the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-1) in 1951. The
Russians followed suit 3 years later with the first non-military reactor called the Atom Mirny.
In the early 60's, nuclear power went commercial. Westinghouse and General Electric
both developed, designed, and built new nuclear reactors, but soon after, the industry started to
decline. From the late 1970's to the early 2000's few reactors were ordered, while many of the
pre-existing orders were cancelled.
In 1971 there were rule making hearings on emergency core-cooling systems that
publically revealed widespread disagreement among top safety experts. In the mid-70's, Ralph
Nader formed Critical Mass an anti-nuclear organization that coordinated a national meeting
that drew attention from all around. They wanted to shift nuclear power away from the federal
government and into the hands of the states where environmental groups and consumer groups
are more effective at lobbying. Some of the main concerns against the idea of nuclear power
were the inadequacy of safety measures, movement of radioactive waste along public roads and
highways, and numerous television debates and public disagreements between Nobel Laureates.
After the accident at Three Mile Island and soon after that, Chernobyl the public opinion on
nuclear energy plunged. In 1976, the U.S. Gallup poll found more people opposed to than
unopposed to future plants and in 1979 the Harris polls stated that 80% of people saw radioactive
waste as a large issue.
The debates between public officials, scientists, and safety experts led the country to
believe that we were not ready to take on the nuclear power plant as our largest form of

electricity generation. The outcry from groups like Ralph Naders spread fear into many people,
helping to strike down propels for nuclear power plants throughout the county.
On March 28th, 1979 at 4am, problems at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant start to
occur. The water cooling system failed and heat could not be efficiently removed from the steam
generator. The control rods fell into the core which stopped the reaction, but the fission
byproducts that were created still produced heat. A pressure relief valve opened, but the second
issue occurred when that same valve never closed after the pressure hit acceptable levels. With
the valve still open more steam and water escaped, dropping the cooling water levels in the
reactor to dangerous levels. These issues could have been stopped if the emergency cooling
system turned on, but due to a test only 42 hours earlier a valve that had needed to be closed to
conduct the test had never been reopened, stopping the flow of water from the emergency
cooling system to the reactor. While reviewing the data and trying to find he problem an
operator noticed that the original pressure valve had never closed. He managed to close it,
allowing for the reactor to become re-covered with water and efficient heat removal was
restored. During the time that the reactor sustained partial meltdown damage. The public outcry
over the accident occurred when some radioactive material reportedly escaped through the steam
pipes and into the drain tank that had overflowed due to the massive amounts of water that had
escaped through the pressure valve. This radioactive material flew into the atmosphere and
drifted over nearby towns and residences.
On April 28th, 1986 a group of electrical engineers decided to experiment on the nuclear
reactors and conjoining turbines in Chernobyl. These electrical engineers did not understand
how the reactors worked. The Chernobyl reactors were as Hans Bethe said fundamentally
faulty, having a built in instability. This being, that if the reactor loses its coolant it can actually

increase the reaction and run faster and hotter rather than shut it self-down. These reactors in the
U.S.S.R. did not have the mandated containment systems that the United States reactors have.
Due to a lack of time between shift changes the engineers slowed the reactor down too quickly
causing a rapid buildup of neutron-absorbing products which poisoned the core. The next step
was choosing between aborting the experiment or continuing on. They decided to continue on
and removed all but six control rods, the safety minimum was 30. After by-passing the rest of
the safety protocols the engineers proceeded with the experiment by turning the turbine generator
off. This reduced the amount of electricity that the cooling system needed to run efficiently. No
emergency systems were running due to the earlier bypasses. The engineers noticed their errors
after a surge in power but it was too late. They tried to insert the control rods, but due to a
design flaw the rods helped to increase the reaction and displace the cooling water causing an
explosion. The explosion killed 2 people instantly and released massive amounts of radioactive
gases and materials into the air and surrounding ground. 26 more people would later die from
radiation poisoning while hundreds more were affected to some extent. The surrounding areas
were immediately evacuated and quarantined. The estimated radioactive release was close to 10
Hiroshima atomic bombs.
March 11th, 2011 a 9.0 magnitude earthquake shook the foundations of Japan and their
nuclear power plants. There was little to no damage to the nuclear reactors located at the
Fukushima power plant and all the reactors immediately shut down. The real issues occurred
when the 50 foot high tsunami broke on land and flooded the nuclear plant site. This caused the
loss of power to the plant and disabled 12 of the 13 backup generators. The water also fried
much of the electrical wiring and stopped the heat exchangers. Like in the Three Mile Island
accident, the reactors were still producing heat due to the nuclear byproduct that is created from

the fission process. Since there was no electrical power and the backup generators and heat
exchangers were disabled the reactors started to meltdown due to lack of heat removal. During
the next 3-4 days the reactors continued to meltdown, as it was almost impossible to repair the
damage done by the tsunami. During this time reactors 1-4 all had hydrogen explosions occur
within at varying intensities. These explosions broke through the containment structures and
released radioactive gases and materials into the atmosphere and surrounding land and sea. The
reactors built in the 1960's used data from that time on safety protocols concerning the height of
tsunamis and magnitude of earthquakes.
Two of the three accidents mentioned only occurred because of human error and
ignorance. During the Three Mile Island accident the crew that tested the backup systems forgot
to reopen a valve they had closed. This would have allowed the emergency cooling system to
work and in turn save the reactor from melting down. The Chernobyl accident occur solely
because a group of engineers with little knowledge on the workings of a nuclear reactor decided
to run and experiment. They disobeyed all the safety regulations and disabled the emergency
backup systems. Then due to faulty designs the one preventative measure they tried to initiate
backfired on them. Avoiding these accidents could have been easy if they had followed the
safety regulations and had proper training in the workings of a nuclear reactor. The final
accident mentioned, occurred simply due to out dated knowledge and unforeseen unstoppable
events. The Fukushima reactors were not built high enough to withstand the tsunami that landed
in 2011 because the buildings had used 1960's data and technology. The earthquake and tsunami
are also events that humans cannot control. These accidents shifted the idea of nuclear energy
into a dark light for many people. Fukushima occurred at a time when many people started to
believe in nuclear power. That accident turned many people away from nuclear power again.

One major aspect that people tend to look at when considering their stance on nuclear
power is the waste produced. There are two main kinds of waste, those being low-level waste
and high-level waste. Low-level waste includes contaminated items like protective clothing,
equipment, tools, and air filters. This kind of waste is easily disposed of by commercial garbage
collectors who have licenses to do so. The waste classified as high-level includes heavily
radioactive material such as depleted fuel cells and byproducts of the reaction process. This kind
of waste is highly radioactive and thermally hot. There are two ways to dispose of high-level
waste (HLW), direct disposal and reprocessing. Direct disposal is a simple four step process that
starts with immobilizing the waste in an insoluble mixture and placing it in a corrosion resistant
container. The container is then placed underground in a stable rock structure and filled in with a
back-fill that is impermeable. Direct disposal is how the U.S currently disposes of its nuclear
waste. One of the original sites that stored nuclear waste used to be Yucca Mountain. President
Obama stopped all work and storage at the site in 2010. The state of Nevada, where the
mountain is located, is also discontent with storing nuclear waste in their state, especially since
they dont have any nuclear reactors. The act of disposal through reprocessing is when the
radioactive material goes through a chemical procedure that separates the plutonium from the
rest of the material. That left over material is then taken to a direct disposal site and the
plutonium is reused. The reprocessing cycle is more dangerous than direct disposal. Plutonium
is one of the most dangerous substances on the earth and dealing with it can be deadly.
Nuclear waste production is small in comparison to other wastes that are generated. On
average about 300,000 metric tons of waste are created each year by nuclear power plants. A
typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant generates about 200-350 metric tons of waste a year
compared to the same megawatt coal fired plant that creates about 400,000 tons of ash a year.

84% of people in Britain think that nuclear power plants create hazardous waste, yet they are
alright with coal fired plants and the known environmental effects associated with them.
The environmental impact of nuclear plants are lower than most would think but because
of the stigma that they are nuclear powered many people still believe that they are more
dangerous than the current fossil fueled plants we use on a much larger scale. Nuclear power
plants emit no carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides. They do use large quantities of
water which can affect the nearby water life and vegetation. The plants do discharge steam
where trace amounts of radioactive material can be located. 36% of people also believe that
nuclear plants cause air pollution and 39% think it adds to climate change as well.
Since many people think that nuclear power affects the environment then it must affect
humans as well. 70% of people in Britain think nuclear power is hazardous to human health. As
stated before the fossil fueled power plants are more likely to affect human health than nuclear
power plants. For a human to be truly affected by nuclear radiation they would have to
consistently be in contact with radioactive material or have large doses of exposure in a short
amount of time. Nuclear power is a relatively clean energy source that is highly efficient and
currently overlooked due to health hazards that are minimal to none in our day and age, but scare
people into believing they are much worse.
In 2005, 60% of people preferred renewable resources like wind and solar power. While
64% of people in the U.S. opposed the construction of new nuclear plants. The main argument
for nuclear power is that is has a much better scalability than renewable energy. But, many
people dont believe it is safe enough, or clean enough compared to wind and solar energy.
When comparing a 1,800 megawatt nuclear power plant with two reactors that covers an area of
1.7 square miles that runs at about 90% of the time you would need 720 wind turbines to match

the same amount of wattage. That many turbines would also cover an area of 169 square miles
and the wind would need to be moving 90% of the time as well. When comparing that same
nuclear power plant to solar power, assuming that the sun was shining for 90% of the day, there
would need to be 21 square miles of solar panels just to match the same output. When
comparing the costs of these alternative energy sources nuclear power consistently came in as the
winner. Nuclear power, costing on average of $60 per megawatt hour with an average capacity
factor of 90% is considerably higher than both wind and solar power. Wind power costs the
same amount as nuclear power but only has an average capacity factor of 38%. Solar, being the
most expensive also has the lowest average capacity factor, coming in at $280 a megawatt hour
and 21% capacity factor.
Even after all the consistent knowledge bringing nuclear power in at first place in cost,
efficiency, and cleanliness the public still refuses to see it as the best choice for our next step
towards cleaner and more efficient energy. The same ideas that scared the public 30 years ago
are the ones that currently scare many people, the shift maybe be changing but it is changing at a
very slow rate.
There have been accidents that occurred that shook the publics faith in the safety of
nuclear power plants. In 2010, 47% disapproved of the use of nuclear power while 45%
approved. 59% disapproved of building a power plant in their community as well. There are
many different ideas floating around in the public view about nuclear energy and currently they
are still slightly negative. Many people are not educated enough on the subject of nuclear energy
to make a quality decision on the issue. Nuclear power has constantly shifted through the ups
and downs of the public eye and will continue to do so because of the connotation of the word
nuclear.

Works Cited
"A Comparison: Land Use by Energy Source-Nuclear, Wind and Solar." Entergy. Web. 5 Nov.
2014.
Bolsen, Toby, and Fay Cook. "Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974-2006." Public Opinion
Quarterly. Oxford Journals, 23 May 2008. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
Edwards, Gordan. "WHAT IS REPROCESSING ? WHAT IS THE THORIUM
CYCLE?" WHAT IS REPROCESSING? Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsiblity,
1 Jan. 1978. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
"Fukushima Accident." Fukushima Accident. World Nuclear Association, Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
Kasperson, Roger, Gerald Berk, David Pijawka, Alan Sharaf, and James Wood. "Public
Opposition to Nuclear Energy: Retrospect and Prospect." Science, Technology, and
Human Values. Sage Publications, Inc., 1 Jan. 1980. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Malmsheimer, Lonna. "Three Mile Island." Three Mile Island. Dickinson College, 1 Jan. 2003.
Web. 1 Nov. 2014
Nave, Carl. "Cyclotron." Cyclotron. 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
"Nuclear Energy." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
"Nuclear Waste Disposal." Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
"Open Energy Information." Energy Information, Data, and Other Resources. Web. 4 Nov.
2014.

"Outline History of Nuclear Energy." History of Nuclear Energy. World Nuclear Association, 1
Jan. 2014. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Poortinga W., Pidgeon, N.F. and Lorenzoni, I. (2006) Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power,
Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey
Conducted during October and November 2005. Technical Report (Understanding Risk
Working Paper 06-02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk.
"Radioactive Waste Management." World Nuclear Association. World Nuclear Association,
Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
Rhodes, Richard. "Nuclear Reaction: Why Do Americans Fear Nuclear Power?" PBS. PBS, 1
Jan. 1993. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Inhofe, James. "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet." U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Mar. 2006. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.