Introduction

According to the Energy Information Administration, nuclear power has provided the US with about 20% of its total consumption since 1990. Worldwide, nuclear power produced 392 gigawatts of electrical power in 2019, a number which is projected to rise to 475 gigawatts by 2030[2]. But before 1954, no nuclear power plants existed, the same year Bell Labs developed the first photovoltaic cell, and with wind and hydro-electricity having been around since the 19th century. So how did nuclear power become such a large source of energy, and how exactly does it work?

            Nuclear power plants produce power through the effects of controlled nuclear fission, a phenomenon first described on paper in 1939 by Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Robert Frisch. The process was named after cellular “binary fission” of biology because of the strong similarities in the splitting of bodies. In essence, nuclear fission occurs when a radioactive isotope (first done with uranium-235) is bombarded by subatomic particles, usually neutrons, which then turns the uranium fuel into an unstable isotope, splitting the atom and releases energy. Nuclear fission in said to transmute the atoms involved because when the uranium atom is split, it does so into two or more entirely different, lighter, elements, and, in addition to the fission products, gamma rays are produced.  The resulting elements can vary wildly in composition and are rather unpredictable due to a slew of quantum mechanics hocus pocus that no one completely understands, but are generally radioactive isotopes. While the reaction may seem like nothing special when written down, in practice it is known to release enormous amounts of energy. In fact, the fission of a single gram of uranium or plutonium releases the same amount of energy as three tons of coal, or 600 gallons of oil.

            As mentioned before, nuclear fission has its origins in a paper written by Lise Meitner and her nephew in 1939. But of course, in 1939, the primary intention for work with fissionable materials like uranium and other unstable elements was not power generation. In the late 1930s and early 40s, the main focus was the weaponization of this process, to be used infamously in nuclear weapons. The very first nuclear weapon was named “Trinity” and was detonated in the middle of the New Mexico desert in July of 1945. The explosion produced so much energy and heat that the sand and sediment in the surrounding area fused together into a green glass, a mineral found nowhere else on earth. A month after Trinity, the two first and only nuclear bombs to ever be used in war, Little Boy and Fat Man, were detonated above the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. So how could a technology have gone from being used as a weapons of mass destruction to powering thousands of homes across the world?

            It did not take researches long to realize that the immense amount of heat generated by a fission reaction could be used to generate power. After the war, development of weaponized fission was complete, so attention could then be diverted to more a more peaceful application of the technology. Although it was very inefficient, the first nuclear reactor to produce power was created and operated by Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho in December of 1951. In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched his “Atoms for Peace” program and diverted significant resources into the research and development of nuclear power generation. Similar ventures began in the Soviet Union as early as 1946. In the early 1960s, countries like France, Canada, the Soviet Union, and the United States began to bring commercial nuclear reactors online. Since then, around 440 nuclear reactors have been put into operation around the world. Major contributors to that number are the United States with 96 and France with 58.

Advantages

            To put things into context, how does nuclear power generation compare to other forms of power generation? Well, as previously mentioned, a single gram of nuclear fuel creates the same amount of energy as three tons of coal or 600 gallons of oil. Furthermore, according to the EIA, a single ton of coal burned equates to 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide produced. In addition to carbon dioxide, the burning of coal emits a plethora of other harmful pollutants, including, but not limited to, coal ash, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. In comparison, nuclear reactors, unlike coal plants, do not directly produce any air pollution while in operation, with the only waste product being the spent nuclear fuel.

            Other aspects of nuclear power that make it such an attractive form of power generation are its reliability, its high output compared to its relatively low cost, low carbon footprint, and its role in repurposing radioactive elements that would otherwise be used to construct weapons of mass destruction. To paraphrase President Eisenhower, nuclear power generation demonstrates the “power of the atom” to be put to good use for all of mankind. In the fight for nuclear disarmament around the world, power plants that use nuclear fuel are a perfect example for how dense elements can support populations, not just wipe them out. Furthermore, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear energy facilities provide nearly half a million direct and secondary jobs in the United States alone. The NEI also projects that the US will need 28% more electricity by 2050, and that nuclear energy will be crucial to help “fill in the gap” for future generations.

Drawbacks and Problems

            While nuclear energy may seem like a fantastic solution to everyone’s problems, there are still a great deal of drawback and developments that must be worked on for nuclear energy to be more viable in the future. For example, there is the problem of maintaining the worlds source of uranium, dealing with the waste, and convincing nations to switch to nuclear power in the first place.

While spent nuclear fuel, if dealt with and disposed of correctly, should not pose a threat to human health, a significant amount of stigma surrounds the pollutant, often with jokes of extra fingers or other disfigurements brought about by radiation coming to mind. While radiation does in fact damage DNA, defects can only be seen in the progeny of affected persons, and even then, are rarely so extreme. However, nuclear waste can be a serious problem if we are not prudent with it, mainly due to the ionizing radiation it produces and the heavy, toxic elements that make it up. Normally, such waste is sealed in steel drums and buried away, but if those drums were to corrode or break in some way, leaks can occur and contaminate nearby water sources, making its way into the biosphere when that water is consumed by animals or humans.

For many years, arguably since the detonation of the first atomic bombs, societal and media interpretations of the technology have been overwhelmingly negative. This negative perception extends to political views as well. Political perception of nuclear energy and its ties to nuclear weapons makes lawmakers and governments hesitant to expand it. Public opinion can also significantly impede progress into related fields. These opinions are likely, in part, due to the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 in Soviet Russia. The accident is widely accepted to have been caused by lack of training of personnel, inadequate safety measures, and poor reactor design. Two separate explosions at the reactor caused radioactive material to be expelled into the atmosphere, resulting in the evacuation of the nearby city of Pripyat. The explosions caused the immediate deaths of two workers, and a further 28 people died in the following weeks from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).

Furthermore, while a small amount of fuel can create enormous amounts of power, nuclear fuel is not renewable like wind or solar energy. Estimates say that the total amount of usable uranium will last the world about 80 years, clearly not enough to support humanity into the distant future. So, in terms of a lasting permanent solution, nuclear energy, as far as we know now, is not a viable option.

Potential Solutions

            Despite all these problems, nuclear energy is being entertained as a possibility for future power generations. Some 30 years after the Chernobyl incident, engineers have learned a great deal about fission and nuclear power plants and how to properly design them to avoid potential future accidents like Chernobyl. Safer and more efficient fuels are being developed and tested, safety measures are being implemented, and engineers are being better trained, all with the goal to further reduce the risk of a nuclear accident.

            Not only that, but new reactor technologies may be able to significantly extend the life of the world’s uranium supply. Firstly, extracting uranium from seawater rather than just the Earth’s crust could make billions of metric tons of uranium available for fissioning. Secondly, “breeder reactors” could potentially create fuel as they consume it. This is possible thanks to the fission products mentioned earlier and their ability to be fissioned themselves. While these technologies still do not make uranium renewable, they could certainly improve efficiency and longevity.

            As for waste management, a now famous paper written by Sandia National Labs gives a detailed look at several solutions and designs for waste containment plants. Their efforts became known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). In the paper, different groups of researchers brainstormed ideas or how to keep highly toxic radioactive waste out of the way, specifically, finding a universally understood lasting symbol of danger to keep future curious humans from digging up their doom. Forbidding blocks, a spike field, a rubble landscape, and a “black hole” of dark concrete were all potential ideas for protecting the site thousands of years into the future, for when language and society had fallen apart and written warnings meant nothing. The idea that long after our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren die, the waste these power plants produce will maintain their deadly properties is fascinating, if not a little ominous.