A white fog settles along the ridge in the early morning, the sun engulfed by the white mass.  In a meadow, light white dust settles on top of the scraggly grass.  This white blanket covers the entire landscape, coating roads, roofs and trees for miles around.

Zhao Gang

As wind whips across the flat, white abyss, huge clouds of powder are picked up and thrown high into the air, juxtaposing the navy blue background, and perhaps even more unnerving, the mammoth industrial complex barely visible through the thick haze.  The slowly moving white sludge confirms the horrific; this powder is not snow, but rather, coal ash.

Zhao Gang

Hundreds of millions of tons of the gray-white powder cover the Shanxi providence in China, a disastrous result caused by the nation’s quick rise into industrialism via coal use (Gang).  While Chinese coal technology lags decades behind American and European, the catastrophic environmental and human toll of this dirty energy source most blatantly portrays itself in China.  Clearly, coal power must be replaced by a cleaner alternative, and engineering precedent coupled with societal benefit and risk assessment indicates that nuclear energy is the best candidate.

Replacing Coal

               Nuclear energy is the generation of electricity through the properties of unstable elements, namely, Uranium and Plutonium.  As will be outlined in the rest of this paper, generating electricity through these elements is inherently dangerous, with explosions and radiation damage always potential threats.  Despite these dangers, nuclear energy provides massive amounts of much needed high-voltage electricity, and does so with very little waste.  Throughout this blog post, I will explain why nuclear energy must replace current fossil fuel plants, as well as pragmatically assess the dangers of this form of energy.  
               For those interested in the technical aspects of electrical girds, continue reading.  Otherwise, skip to the "Nuclear as the Base-Load Replacement" heading.  From an engineering perspective, nuclear energy is one of the only power sources capable of substituting the functionality of coal on the electrical grid.  To understand why coal, nuclear, hydro-electric and geothermal energy are interchangeable only with each other and not with wind, solar and natural gas plants, one must understand the balance between base and peak electrical loads.

Base versus Peak Load

Power usage and generation over time, KCET

                                                                                

The base load of a power grid is the minimum amount of power the grid demands, as opposed to the peak load, which is the maximum amount of power the grid demands (KCET).  Peak load generators, which generally include natural gas turbines and solar panels, can be turned on and off quickly, allowing for power grids to draw from these sources during peak power usage.  However, unlike their base load alternatives, peak load generators are either time-specific, as with solar panels, or comparatively expensive to operate.  Base load generators lose the flexibility of peak generators, but in exchange, offer consistent and cheap electrical energy. 

Base Load Generators

A grid entirely powered through base load generators would be able to provide cheap electricity 24/7; however, lack of usage during certain times of day could damage the electrical grid through overload.  This phenomenon has begun to happen in some nations, such as Germany, that rely too heavily on base load generators, actually causing a negative market value of electricity when there is too little demand for it.  What this means is that utilities have been forced to pay electrical users during certain times of day in order to use up electricity that would otherwise damage the grid.

Peak Load Generators

In contrast, a grid of entire peak-load generators would be unable to generate consistent power, resulting in rolling blackouts and damaged equipment, much like what has occurred in post-Fukushima Japan after the shut-down of most of the nuclear power plants (BBC Staff).  Advocates of renewable energy, in particular, solar, point out that many residential houses are run at least partially off of solar energy, and the technology exists to power these houses entirely through this peak-load generator.    However, as Japanese industry has found, with only peak-load generators online, assembly lines are routinely ground to a halt and valuable equipment which requires constant electrical monitoring may be damaged.  In recent months, this phenomena has threatened to send Japanese manufacturers to China (Kubota).

Nuclear as the Base-Load Replacement

As the situations in Germany and Japan show, grids must have a balance between base and peak load generators, we cannot possibly replace coal with primarily peak-load renewable electrical generators.  Unfortunately, geothermal and hydroelectric generators are not sufficient either, as these require very specific natural conditions which are not present in enough places to be practical means of mass electrical generation.  This leaves nuclear and coal as the only two base-load generation techniques capable of universal application.

Coal versus Nuclear

                Coal and nuclear power have many of the same strengths.  They are both relatively cheap, both are excellent base load generators and perhaps most importantly, both are constructible in nearly every terrestrial climate.  The ills of coal power are well known and documented. Soot, ash and smog pollution have been a signature of industrialization since its infancy, and 1880’s London stands beside modern Beijing as a testament to this.  However, as its critics have pointed out, nuclear energy has its own environmental as well as societal issues.

Nuclear Safety  

Although rare, major nuclear disasters generate global attention when they do occur, because unlike the localized pollution from coal plants, radiation contamination has the potential to travel hundreds of miles.  Furthermore, the infamous Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters demonstrate nuclear power’s catastrophic potential if managed improperly.  However, commonplaces regarding nuclear energy ignore the fact that 95% of the 435 plants across the planet have never experienced so much as a core anomaly (reference my map of all recorded nuclear incidents), much less a radiation leak (nei.org).  Perhaps the most convincing argument for the safety of nuclear energy is actually the aftermath of one of the worst nuclear ‘disasters’ in history: Three Mile Island.

3 Mile Island Incident

Reconstruction model of the melted down core, courtesy of the Smithsonian

                On March 28^th, 1979, nearly half of the fuel inside the second Three Mile Island reactor melted, leaving a gaping, molten hole in the heart of the newly opened chamber.  After less than a year of operation, massive failure of cooling pumps and a string of operator errors resulted in a week of fear for the leadership of the nation and the residents of near-by Pennsylvania.  Years later, the precise phenomena which occurred at Three Mile Island would result in the explosion of a plant half way around the world in Japan.  While the incident was no doubt frightening for residents surrounding the complex, the history of the Three Mile Island incident demonstrates the safety of nuclear power. 

From the perspective of nuclear scientists the world over, Three Mile Island is a disaster of epic proportions, a failure of nearly every safeguard espoused by the industry.  Ultimately, however, Three Mile Island was only a disaster for the company running the reactor—no radiation leakage, no employees injured, and no citizen exposed to radiation.

First entry into the reactor containment building, courtesy of the Smithsonian

Middletown Interviews

Middletown

               In the aftermath of Fukushima, a local Pennsylvania newspaper interviewed some citizens in a community surrounding the Three Mile Island reactor to gather their unique perspective.  As with any critical issue, there are conflicting beliefs, but remarkably, most of the community supports the remaining reactor at the Three Mile Island complex along with nuclear energy in general.  For example, a gas station attendant explained how he “believes that nuclear power is safe” (Klaus).  Another citizen, who was 16 at the time of the disaster, explains how she is “not worried” for her town of “Middletown.” She did, however, note that in light of Fukushima, “Japan needs more safety checks” (Klaus).  Given that the citizens of Middletown live next door to the worst nuclear disaster in the history of United States, they give testament to the safety of nuclear energy, even its uncommon failures.

Fukushima

A damaged Fukushima reactor building, The New York Times

                As pointed out previously, the citizens of Middletown were not interviewed in light of Three Mile Island, they were interviewed in light of Fukushima, one of the two worst radiological disasters in history.  Unlike Three Mile Island, Fukushima will have a real human toll, because the containment structure was breached.  However, critics of nuclear energy should note that to date, the UNSCEAR’s ongoing study of the Fukushima disaster has determined that “none of the six former reactor workers who have died since the catastrophe perished due to the effects of radiation” (Jahn).This is not to diminish the Fukushima disaster, merely put it into perspective.  Reputable radiologists estimate that even in the worse-case scenario for radiation induced cancer deaths is 1500 deaths, “only 10% of the immediate tsunami deaths” (Muller).  While Fukushima is, without a doubt, a terrible accident, the toll must be compared to the cost of coal, which contributes to an estimated 13,000 deaths annually in the United States alone (Zelman).  Given that this terrible loss is tolerated on a daily basis, even a disaster as tragic as the Japanese core meltdown is preferable to daily coal pollution.

The Wall Street Journal

Comanche Nuclear Power Plant and Safety Measures

                The Fukushima disaster was a result of poor engineering and poor management.  As many observers have pointed out, an unimaginably large tsunami triggered the Fukushima disaster, something we can hardly expect engineers and urban planners to anticipate.  And yet, across the world, those building and facilitating nuclear plants have done just that; constructed and maintained plants capable of remaining safe in even the most apocalyptic conditions.  Take, for instance, the Comanche Nuclear Power plant southeast of Dallas, Texas.  Engineers have rated the containment structures of the complex to be capable of withstanding 300 mile and hour winds, the highest ever recorded for a tornado (Weiss).  Officials and engineers are so confident in the construction of the Comanche plant that Dale Klein, previous head of the NRC, stated that “if there is ever a tornado around Comanche Peak, you want to be inside the containment structure because that building is robust” (Weiss).

The Comanche Plant, Dallas Morning News

Cooling Failure at Fukushima

                Fukushima’s containment structures were not actually damaged by the tsunami itself; it was rather the coolant pumps which were damaged and caused the slow meltdown of the cores.  If anything, the durability of the containment structures was demonstrated by its ability to weather a tsunami.  In the Fukushima incident, the tsunami destroyed the electrical network which would ordinarily power the cooling pumps, an event all nuclear facilities are equipped for.  Fukushima was no different—it had back up diesel generators on site to cool the reactor in the case of electrical failure (Weiss).  However, the Fukushima complex had one fatal design flaw; “the fuel for the generators was swept away by the tsunami” (Weiss).  Even at the Comanche plant, which is safe in the heartland of the United States, there are “several protected storage tanks that hold a total of seven days’ worth of fuel” (Weiss).  As an engineering student myself, it is unrealistic to expect engineers to completely prepare for some of the most unlikely and unpredictable events this universe has to offer, such as tsunamis.  However, in the case of Fukushima, the lack of foresight on the part of Japanese engineers and managers is primarily to blame for the Fukushima disaster.  Even at landlocked plants, fuel supplies are secured and the failure of the Fukushima plant management to secure these back-up cooling system assets prior to the tsunami would be considered criminal here in the United States.

Environmental Toll

                The human cost of nuclear energy is not the only one that must be considered, as the environmental toll is another important concern.  As far as the environmental toll of radiation, there are four primary ways of measuring radiation exposure, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: radiation released by a radio-active object, radiation traveling through an area, radiation absorbed and effective dose absorbed (“MeasuringRadiation”).  The first two measurements apply to all living creatures, but the second two are unique to the way a species absorbs radiation.  The measurement traditionally used to measure the aftermath of a radiological event, the rem, applies only to humans.  The broad concepts described in these human-based studies are applicable across most living things, but given the geographical entrapment of the majority of species, are also incredibly difficult to measure.  As a result, arguments regarding the environmental impact of radiation are best limited to its impact on mankind, using our species as a radiological barometer.  Measuring radiation in the context of mankind is not only an excellent environmental indicator; it is actually more sensitive than required, as shown in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident.

Chernobyl

The abandon city of Pripyat, with the Chernobyl reactor in the distance, Huffington Post

                For those unaware of the history of the Chernobyl incident, it occurred in April of 1986.  Only a few years after the scare at Three Mile Island, the Chernobyl incident epitomizes everything that could possibly go wrong with a nuclear reactor.  Until Fukushima, Chernobyl stood in infamy as the most horrific nuclear accident in the history of man, and given the prompt response of the Japanese government to Fukushima, will probably retain this position indefinitely.  A poor clean up, failure to publicize the meltdown and a hesitance to evacuate cities resulted in tens of thousands of deaths across the Ukrainian countryside in the next two decades.

Aftermath of Chernobyl

The Red Forest,  destroyed by radiation

                After the Chernobyl melt down, thousands of people and hundreds of square miles were quarantined due to high measurement for potential radiation absorption.  Without a doubt, these measurements rightfully predicted environmental damages, 40 hectares of Scotch pines were killed (Flanary).  However, a Birch and Aspen forest, which received nearly identical doses of radiation to the Scotch pines, flourished in the years following the incident.  This highlights that different species react radically different to radiation and that it is difficult to judge the radiological effects of a disaster until decades after the disaster.  With the exception of the Scotch pine forest, the Chernobyl disaster actually improved the “biodiversity and abundance of individual” organisms around the Chernobyl plant (Flanary).  The aftermath of Chernobyl shows that, if anything, the measure of radiation through its effects on man underestimates the environmental damage caused by said radiation.

Disposal of Radioactive Waste

                Apart from concerns over nuclear disasters, disposal of the radioactive waste is a serious but misunderstood issue.  For more information on the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste, visit this site discussing the proposed disposal site at Yucca Mountain.  Currently, all “high-level nuclear waste” is stored in “temporary storage, mainly at nuclear power plants” (Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal (NUREG/BR-0216,Revision 2)).  One of the common misconceptions of nuclear energy is the alleged lack of safety of “temporary” containers high-level waste is stored in now. In fact, the containers are designed to withstand “a 30 foot drop,” “immersion of the package under 15 feet of water” and the “exposure of the entire package to 1475 degrees F” (SectionTwo Packaging, Transportation and Storage of Radioactive Materials).    Additionally, even Level III (highest-level) waste containers are constructed such that they release less than 0.1 mrem/hr, which is next to no ambient radiation (Section Two Packaging, Transportation andStorage of Radioactive Materials).  There is little concern about radiation leakage from the waste containers currently used; the real concern is with the security of the containment facilities.  Short of nuclear weapons, no attack on the containment structure of a nuclear plant would be capable of inducing a meltdown; however, conventional attacks on current waste storage facilities are a risk.  Permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste is a distinctly separate environmental and governmental issue, separate from the proliferation of nuclear power.  It should be noted, however, that current storage systems, absent a malicious attack, pose next to no risk to surrounding populations or environments.

          Nuclear energy has inherent risks, but we can mitigate these risks through intelligent engineering and management.  Furthermore, since nuclear energy is competing with the coal industry, which has already demonstrated itself as a more deadly means of power production, the ills of nuclear power must be compared with the ills of coal energy.  When compared, it becomes very obvious that nuclear energy is the superior choice: less emission, less waste and less fatalities while producing the same amount of power at nearly the same price. 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Central California

Or

Coal power plants along the Ohio River

          In the next century, electrical demand across the globe will increase as developing countries begin constructing the same electrical grids as those now existing in developed countries.  It is wishful thinking to believe that energy storage technology will progress enough to allow grids to be powered entirely by renewable energy, and until such storage technology becomes a reality, the world needs a clean base load energy source.  History, health and engineering all indicate that this base load backbone must be nuclear energy.

Works Cited

BBC Staff. "Japanese firms in $2bn Liquefied Natural Gas deal." BBC 01 May 2012, n. pag. Web.

15 Oct.2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17904039>.

Bradsher, Keith, and David Barboza. "Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow." New York

Times [Hanjing, China] 11 June 2006, n. pag. Web. 2 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.

"Explainer: Base Load and Peaking Power." KCET. Web. 2 Feb. 2013.

<http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/explainers/explainer-base-load-and-peaking-power.html>.

Flanary, Will. "Environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident." The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2008.

<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_effects_of_the_Chernobyl_accident>.

Gang, Zhao. The devastating effects of coal ash pollution in China. 2010. theguardianWeb. 2 Feb 2013.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2010/sep/16/pollution-coal-ash-china>.

Jahn, George. "Fukushima Deaths Not Caused By Radiation, UN Says." Huffington Post 23 May

2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fukushima-deathsradiation_n_1540397.html>.

Joint News Release. "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident." World Health Organization

[Geneva] 05 September 2005. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html>.

Kubota, Yoko. "Japan small factories get creative to keep power on." Reuters 04 June 2012,

United States Edition. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/04/us-japanfactories-idUSBRE85301V20120604>.

Klaus, Mary. "Few living around Three Mile Island worry about nuclear power." Patriot News 28 March

2011, n. pag. Web. 2 Feb. 2013. <http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/few _living_around_tmi_worry_ab.html> 

Muller, Richard. "Comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl." Wall Street Journal [New York City] 17

August 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443324404577595221606754192.html>.

Muller, Richard. "The Panic Over Fukushima." Wall Street Journal [New York City] 18 August

2012, United States Edition C1. Print. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html>.

"Nuclear power: dirty, dangerous and expensive."http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/.

Green Peace, 01 2012. Web. 15 Oct 2012.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Japan, Under Pressure, Backs Off Goal to Phase Out Nuclear Power by 2040.

"New York Times 19 September 2012, Web. 15 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/japan-backs-off-of-goal-to-phase-outnuclear-power-by-2040.html?_r=1&>.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Former Prime Minister in Japan Elected to Lead Opposition Party" New York

Times 26 September 2012, Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/world/asia/japans-opposition-picks-shinzo-abe-asleader.html?_r=0>.

"The heat rises." Economist 21 July 2012, print edition n. pag. Web. 15 Oct. 2012.

<http://www.economist.com/node/21559364>.

"Three Mile Island." http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/. Smithsonian National Museum of American

History. Web. 4 Feb 2013.

United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Measuring Radiation. 2012. Web.

<http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html>.

United States. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, Disposal

(NUREG/BR-0216, Revision 2). 2002. Print.

United States. The Office of Health, Safety and Security.SECTION TWO PACKAGING, TRANSPORTATION

AND STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS. Print.

Weiss, Jeffrey. "Japan disaster offers another way for Texas." Dallas Morning News 17 March 2011, n.

pag. Print.

Westlake, Adam. “Nobel Prize-winning author Kenzaburo Oe speaks at anti-nuclear rally in

Tokyo.” TheJapan Daily Press 7 June 2012, Web. 29 Oct. 2012. <http://japandailypress.com/nobel-prizewinning-author-kenzaburo-oe-speaks-at-anti-nuclear-rally-in-tokyo-073648>.

"World Statistics." nei.org. Nuclear Energy Institute, 01 Aug 2012. Web. 4 Feb 2013.

Zelman, Joanna. "Power Plant Air Pollution Kills 13,000 People Per Year, Coal-Fired Are Most Hazardous:

ALA Report." Huffington Post 25 May 2011, n. pag. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.