Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Michael D. Schmitz
Thesis Statement: Energy from fission has rendered the primitive technique of
burning coal obsolete.
Schmitz 2
The inexpensive power stored in coal raised the United States to the top
the abundance of coal in the U.S. could continue to fuel the country for
However, despite its bountiful supply, should coal continue to be the major
source of U.S. power? Coal has been a source of energy in the United States for
more than 250 years, and substantial progression to a more efficient power
tapping into the wealth of energy stored in the nuclei of atoms. When unstable
atoms, such as a uranium isotope, the primary fuel for nuclear power reactions,
are bombarded with neutrons, they split and release their encased energy,
which can be redistributed throughout the electrical grid. This process is less
polluting, less dangerous, and rivals coal in expense. Energy from fission has
However, some people oppose the use of nuclear power. The Anti-
of...radiation” (“No Safe Dose ”). They claim that any level of radiation has a
negative effect and that humankind should minimize radiation levels as much
added to the levels naturally present (“No Safe Dose ”). Although this is a
Schmitz 3
widespread opinion, evidence has disproved the supposition. Dr. Roger Bate,
co- founder of the Science and Environment Forum and writer for the Tech
Central Station , cites experiments that show the human body withstanding
small doses of radiation without harm, and he even suggests that radiation may
though research states otherwise, many people erroneously believe that all
still would emit only insignificant amounts. Numerous places have naturally
Presenting the triviality of radiation from nuclear power, Dr. Cohen, a physics
professor emeritus, states that “the genetic risks of nuclear power are
equivalent to… men wearing pants an extra eight hours per year” because the
precautions are illustrated in an article from the Ayn Rand Institute written by a
nuclear physics PhD candidate. The article proclaims, “… the radiation levels in
would legally prevent the structure from being licensed as a nuclear power
health. If members of the legislature are at more risk from radiation than
workers in nuclear power plants, nuclear power must be a very safe science.
Schmitz 4
In contrast, the crude technique of burning coal exhales ton after ton of
hazardous refuse. Coal leaves millions of times more waste than fission.
hundred and fifty megawatt plant in Milliken, New York releases eighteen
thousand tons of sulfuric acid, seven thousand tons of nitric acid, and three
and a half million tons of carbon dioxide each year. These gases are devastating
to the earth as well as humanity. For example, the unbounded coal emissions
from a plant in Massachusetts cause about one hundred and sixty premature
of nature by warming the earth. Other pollutants from coal contribute to acid
rain. The pollution of coal is so immense that Dr. Cohen is able to declare “…
there would have to be 25 melt- downs each year for nuclear power to be as
dangerous as coal burning”. A process that desecrates life and the earth to the
Similarly, the disparity between the solid wastes of nuclear and coal
power is also colossal. The Milliken coal plant yields ten thousand tons of waste
every year; whereas a nuclear plant of similar size would only leave a few
compact tons of refuse every five years (Wharton). Coal leaves so much waste
to produce adequate energy. The nuclear process, on the other hand, is not
based on combustion. When fissile molecules are split they do not release
gaseous impurities, and each molecule of uranium releases many times more
Schmitz 5
energy than a molecule of coal. Nuclear waste can also be reprocessed more
than coal ash, further reducing solid wastes. The American Nuclear Society, an
percent of nuclear waste can be recycled back into new reactor fuel or into
Despite the small volume of refuse, the U.S. has had troubles storing nuclear
waste, but if reprocessing were fully supported, U.S. plants would have enough
space to capacitate its own waste (“Questions & Answers ”). While nuclear
waste is stored securely and compactly, coal ash is dispersed into the biosphere
and poured into landfills across the country. Many people would argue that
radioactivity, but the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a U.S. research center
unknown fact that coal also contains traces of radioactive isotopes. While the
radiation levels are not as dangerous as those in nuclear waste, they are
scattered through landfills and expose the public to more damage than the
securely disposed nuclear wastes (US. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.). Coal power, in
releasing three and a half million times more waste, is not nearly as efficient as
meltdown. During the reign of the Soviet Union, the first nuclear meltdown
industry. The British Daily Mail ’s front page read “2000 DEAD” and the New
York Post announced that fifteen thousand bodies were bulldozed into nuclear
Schmitz 6
waste pits. The Natural Resources Defense Council prophesized that over a
fueled by the widespread belief that any amount of radiation is dangerous, the
nuclear paranoia that the Cold War and Hiroshima inspired, and the Soviet
peaceful use of nuclear power, affirms that the meltdown directly killed only
thirty people. Lighter radiation scattered across the Ukraine and drifted
through Scandinavia, but studies show that the spread was insignificant.
Greater problems existed in the immediate area which had to be evacuated and
cleaned, but even the local radiation lacked catastrophic effects. As of now, the
only clear health danger cited by the World Health Organization was an
were ten deaths (“Chernobyl”). The figures relating the liberated radiation to
deaths were seriously overplayed, and the fear of fusion that Chernobyl
Still, despite the relatively minor effects of the world’s greatest meltdown
had on health, nobody wants U.S. power sources to rupture and bombard
economic disaster. The site and surrounding area would have to be cleaned
word of encouragement is that the United States has never built a plant as
Schmitz 7
the sickle of the Union was willing to recklessly pressure technology to its
extremes in order to reap every last morsel of output. Soviet efficiency did not
encompass safety, but the U.S. disposition is quite different. Due to safety
concerns, it took the cautious U.S. seven years to restart the brother reactors of
the Three Mile Island Unit 2 after a meltdown in which all the radiation was
other Chernobyl reactors running again in mere weeks. They were restarted
violation of law in nearly every country of the world – and the area was polluted
with radiation. Studies have shown that U.S. containment structures would
extremely unstable conditions to see how long the turbines would run if the
main power were cut (“Chernobyl”). Seven automatic safety systems were
disabled, any of which, according to the American Nuclear Society, would have
As with everything, the benefits of nuclear power come with a price. The
costs nearly a tenth the price of coal, large sums must be spent to ensure its
Schmitz 8
more affordable than coal power, but coal is incredibly abundant in the United
States. Because of the plentiful supply, coal power remains cheap despite the
thousands of tons that must be processed each day to supply America’s power
(Wharton). However, while additional fees to clean up coal waste may amass,
power is that if the cost of fissile uranium rises, the overall cost would not
significantly alter (“The Economics of”). In contrast, the price of coal fuel is
about one- third the overall cost of coal power. If coal were to become scarce,
prices would skyrocket. In any case, it is inevitable that the world supply of
organization which advocates coal power, the States have two hundred and
fifty years worth of recoverable coal resource, and the World Nuclear
Association declares that the world has an equal amount of uranium from
length of the uranium supply sixty-fold, and other energy sources such as sea
water extracts, nuclear weapons, and thorium fuel could increase nuclear
Igniting fuels has provided mankind with warmth since the invention of
fire. However, it is time for humanity to advance and harvest the benefits of a
obtaining energy. They have discovered techniques to harvest the power of the
atom, the fundamental structure of the universe. If nuclear energy does not
replace the archaic procedure of coal combustion, the planet will sustain
Works Cited
“Abundant Supply.” CARE. 2002. Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy.
<http:/ /www.aynrand.org/medialink/enemiesofnuclearpower.shtml>.
34.html>.