Persuasive Essay

Dolls remain tucked away in their cribs. Doors sit ajar, and shop signs flap in the empty breeze. Somewhere off in the distance, a ferris wheel creaks and moans. Chairs are empty, bookshelves reside face-down, and gas masks are strewn about on the floors. It looks as though people just scrambled out of the area for some unknown reason. Off in the distance, an ominous, massive metal dome reaches towards the sky. This is not a scene cut from a movie or video game, but rather that of the 1986 Chernobyl incident, which was “the worst disaster in the history of nuclear power generation” (“Chernobyl disaster”). The people are gone; they fled decades ago as the sirens screamed and widespread panic ensued. One thing still remains and will continue to remain: radiation. A large dome like “sarcophagus” seals the burning reactor off from the rest of the world. Utterly terrifying, right?

​

 Nuclear power has a less than stellar history. Anything having to do with splitting atoms, starting with the atomic bombs in World War II, has been feared by the public, and understandably so. There is an incredible amount of energy possible, which, when mishandled, can be catastrophic. Accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have served as examples for why exactly nuclear power should not be used. This tarnished past has damaged nuclear power’s reputation. However, with modern safety measures and advancements, the industry has become substantially more stable, and thus the worries and avoidances of the past should no longer dictate the future of energy.

​

Before a discussion of realistic safety, it is important to understand that there is somewhat of a public bias regarding nuclear power. The “newsworthiness” of nuclear malfunctions “remains high in contrast with other industrial accidents,” as people are more attracted to its  “novelty value.” Incredulous assumptions were made regarding the possible results of a nuclear meltdown (when the core overheats), which became the focus of fiction and drama, such as hit movie The China Syndrome, which seemed to make every American wonder if a reactor would burn all the way through the planet into their living rooms. The Cold War and its constant “threat” of a nuclear apocalypse had many people questioning whether they should build a fallout shelter in their backyards. Regarding the topic of bombs, it is important to note that commercial nuclear reactors “cannot under any circumstances explode like a nuclear bomb,” as the fuel is not enriched to the point that atomic weapons are (World Nuclear Association). With these misconceptions cleared, it is more feasible to recognize the realistic causes and thus, the resulting modern safety criteria.

​

 Arguably, the three most “well known” disasters in the history of nuclear power are those of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. These incidents were the only “major” accidents to happen in more than 18,500 reactor years in thirty six countries (World Nuclear Association). Three Mile Island is the only of these to occur in America. The reactor “partially melted down” the morning of March 28, 1979, starting at around 4:00 am. A primary pump for transferring water from the reactor to the steam turbine would not draw liquid, which caused an increase in heat. The pressure relief valve (the valve designed to let off incremental bits of reactor pressure) became stuck, and the alarm system failed to warn engineers (Stockton) (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission). This incident was minor compared to the future incidents within the industry. As of September 2019, Three Mile Island was decommissioned after supplying power for more than four decades (Exelon).

The next accident, Chernobyl, occured on April 25, 1986. Technicians “attempted a poorly designed experiment” by shutting down the reactor and safety systems while removing control rods, and by roughly 1:00 am the night after, explosions around the core removed the lid of the overheating reactor and thus dumped highly radioactive material into the area. Accounts vary; some “state that two people were killed in the initial explosions, whereas others report that the figure was closer to 50.” The radioactivity was so strong that “it was spread by the wind over Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine and soon reached as far west as France and Italy” (“Chernobyl disaster”). Currently, the area around Chernobyl is open to tourists, but the radiation around the sealed reactor makes it unfit for permanent residency. Visitors can still explore the area with a guide for a maximum of 8-10 hours safely (Adams). 

​

 The final accident in the major timeline was the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which occurred March 11, 2011 on the coast of Japan. Three reactors on site were cooling, which meant utilizing backup generators, which a tsunami flooded soon after protocol began. The reactor, thus unable to cool, became very unstable and radiation became a threat (World Nuclear Association). Some 47,000 residents fled the area (“Fukushima accident”). After more than a decade, only 3 percent of the previously cordoned area remains dangerous for habitation (Japan-guide.com).

In order to properly examine modern nuclear safety, it is best to first try and understand where safety measures fell short, in simplest terms, with the pertinent historical examples. Three Mile Island was the result of three problems, mostly due to the “primitive” technology. These issues would be the malfunctioning pump, broken relief valve, and broken alarm system (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Chernobyl was a chain reaction set off by human error and “major design deficiencies” (World Nuclear Association). Within the “experiment,” staff did not run the plant with enough power, and simultaneously, control rods (a vital component) were removed. Ultimately, after the situation had become incredibly unstable, the lid was removed from the reactor in an explosion, and the surrounding area was poisoned with deadly radiation levels (“Chernobyl disaster”). Fukushima was primarily the result of a poorly sited plant location, as it was liable to tsunamis in the case of natural disaster, and thus the location was not suited for a plant (World Nuclear Association).

​

The location, or the “siting,” of plants is the first step towards both a safe and stable nuclear plant. Nuclear reactors cannot safely be built anywhere; there is a rigorous process that must be fully conducted in order to ensure the proper precautions. Siting is defined as the “process of selecting a suitable location for a facility,” and it consists of multiple, thorough steps. The first is the site survey, which is “is the process of identifying candidate sites for a nuclear installation after the investigation of a large region,” and most importantly, the denial of “unsuitable” locations. Afterward, comes the site selection, which is where the sites, that have been “identified” by the screening process, are cross examined “on the basis of established safety and suitability criteria to select one or more preferred candidate sites.” Afterwards, the evaluation occurs, which is the final assessment of all possible safety factors. The modern process of siting seeks to eliminate risk of natural disaster (earthquakes, floods, “geotechnical phenomena,” etc.) and “human-induced events,” such as the unfortunate risk of terrorism. Furthermore, the process allows adequate area for the “dispersion of radiation,” as well as the “feasibility of emergency plans.” After the location has made it through the examination process, the plant will be in the safest location possible, which would eliminate risk of an external failure, such as that of a tsunami (International Atomic Energy Administration). 

​

After siting, plant safety becomes paramount, which starts with the core. The most important safety feature regarding the reactor is a core degradation calculator, which determines the statistical likelihood of any possible meltdowns. This system serves as an insurance policy against any potential hazards. The American Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires modern reactors to be, at a minimum, a 1 in 100,000 meltdown level in “core years.” Most of Europe requires a one in one million level. Some of the best plants in the world stay at a one in ten million “core years” level. Plants are required to store their fuel in pressure-sealed steel vessels which can be up to thirty centimeters thick. After that, they are stored in a meter of concrete. Modern establishments also utilize a temperature regulating system called “negative temperature coefficient.” This system is designed to lower reactor efficiency as temperature increases past what is deemed “safe.” Furthermore, plants now utilize “negative void coefficient,” which monitors steam levels. When steam is in excess, meaning that there is too much heat, fueling and thus fission are slowed, which safely calms the reactor. Finally, extra backup cooling systems are set up to ensure, when all else fails, the reactor can be cooled (World Nuclear Association). As the World Nuclear Association states, “no industry is immune from accidents, but all industries learn from them,” and nuclear engineers and other regulatory sects have not overlooked safety for the future.

​

Public misconception has made the discussion of safety in relation to nuclear power rather difficult. It is important to understand that, in this modern age, the designs of reactors, fuel storage units, and plants as a whole have been redone in order to correct the previous shortcomings, and to ensure a safer future. The industry has brought forth the best possible safety standards and measures in order to ensure reactor stability and enhance reliability, as the necessity for clean and high-efficiency power will not dwindle in the coming decades. So no, not every plant will end up as Chernobyl did, and one should not expect the current and future of the industry to be defined by the past. The thoughts in response to this information should be that of the foreboding and destructive future without nuclear power, rather than one with it.

​

 Bibliography

​

Adams, Cathy. “Chernobyl: Is It Safe to Visit The Nuclear Disaster Site?” The 

Independent. Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

“Chernobyl disaster.” Britannica School, Encyclopedia Britannica, 23 Nov. 2020. 

Accessed 28 Oct. 2021.

Exelon. “Three Mile Island Decommissioning.” Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

 “Fukushima accident.” Britannica School, Encyclopædia Britannica, 4 Jun. 2021. 

Accessed 28 Oct. 2021.

International Atomic Energy Administration. “Siting of Nuclear Facilities.” 13 Apr. 2016, , 

Accessed 27 Oct. 2021. 

Japan-guide.com. “Fukushima Prefecture.” Accessed 7 Jan. 2022.

Stockton, Nick. “Nuclear Power Is Too Safe to Save the World from Climate Change.”
Wired, Conde Nast, 4 Apr. 2016. Accessed 27 Oct. 2021.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island 

Accident.”Accessed 27 Oct. 2021.

World Nuclear Association.“Safety of Nuclear Reactors.” Accessed 27 Oct. 2021.