Nuclear Power and Its Impact on Modern Society 

The discovery of nuclear power in 1895 revolutionized how power is harnessed and used in the modern era. Nuclear power is achieved through atomic fission, where atoms are broken apart by neutrons, releasing incredible amounts of energy. Initial interest in atomic power came in the form of military protection, the most famous of which was the atomic bomb used by the United States against Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. It was then later captured as energy produced in nuclear power plants across the world. The use of nuclear energy has become controversial for many reasons. After the devastation of World War II, citizens became hesitant to invest in a technology that was perceived as volatile and dangerous. Though vast technological advancements have occurred since then, many still reject it as a viable energy source. Nuclear power has proven to be one of the cleanest energies, emitting virtually no emissions into the atmosphere, yet social and political opposition still exists. Alternately, this ‘clean’ energy source might be offset by the incredible cost of plant construction, and the environmental impact of mining radioactive materials deep in the earth.

In 1939, Otto Frisch confirmed that energy released from nuclear fission produced 200 million electron volts from one atom; a concept theorized by Albert Einstein in 1905. This revolutionary practice involved splitting atoms through nuclear fission (separation), creating unprecedented amounts of energy. Materials used in fission were processed uranium, plutonium, vanadium, and other radioactive elements. Research in the field progressed slowly until WWII accelerated the need for national security. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii by Japan marked the United States’ entry into WWII, giving urgent rise to research in new military protection in the form of nuclear bombs. After the devastation of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the government rebranded nuclear defense. In 1953 President Eisenhower initiated “Atoms for Peace” which promoted nuclear research for electricity generation. The future was envisioned and idealized in terms of how inexpensive and liberating nuclear power would be for laborers. The Cold War led to more military efforts between the Soviet Union and the US, but interest eventually waned. After such disasters as Three Mile Island, Chornobyl, and Fukushima, public attitude towards nuclear power became weary. Today, a resurgence is taking place in many countries because of low environmental impacts versus high energy yield; a similar vision held by those in the 1950s.

It was anticipated by economic forecasters that nuclear power was to dominate the energy market, making power so incredibly affordable that a major shift in the labor market would take place. Fantasies were sold of shorter workweeks and improved lifestyles. A few factors have negated this vision. Because of the cultural mistrust of nuclear power, improvement in technological advancement and production of energy has been nearly halted. Mining of raw materials Uranium and Plutonium, and the construction of power plants are costly. There had not been a single construction of a new power plant for 20 years, until 2016, and the number has been steadily declining. Factors include the inability to compete in the energy market because of fossil fuel subsidies, market liberalization, and political campaigning against nuclear power. 

Because of staggering population growth and increased energy needs around the world, energy production has risen to a whole new level. Power plants previously conceived of, were not capable to handle the output needed to supply the energy needed by the entire world. Large populations such as India have struggled to keep up with population demand. Other sources include hydroelectric (dams), fossil fuels (coal, natural gas), and renewable (solar, wind), with fossil fuel dominating the output. Because of its use of coal and natural gases in energy production, an immense amount of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Greenhouse effects caused by increased CO2 particles in the atmosphere have caused global disruptions of climate and ecological environments. Over 99% of these discharges have been due to fossil fuel emissions. Continued use of these fuels causes great concern within the world community, who fears that climate change will render the earth uninhabitable. Because of these dire concerns, consideration of nuclear power has entered back into mainstream deliberation once again. Wind and solar power vary in interaction with natural elements, but nuclear power remains consistent and clean energy. Once utilized, energy generated from a power plant is virtually clean energy because of minimal emissions.

There has been much discourse about the safety of nuclear fission. It is known that electromagnetic radiation emitted by the fission of uranium produces gamma rays that re 100,000 times more energy that visible light. “Radioactive material can also emit highly energetic electrons (beta particles) and small clusters of protons and neutrons (alpha particles). This concentrated energy causes the molecules in our body to react in ways that can be extremely damaging, sometimes giving rise to cancer.” 

There are many arguments for the safety of modern-day plant maintenance and operation in comparison to fossil fuel plants, but the threat of a potential accident could negate any safety factors of day-to-day function. It is clear that although nuclear operation may be the safest alternative to fossil-fueled plants, disposal of radioactive waste is still an unsolved problem. While there are virtually no emissions from the actual creation of power, used uranium waste product must be buried deep underground, and stays dangerously radioactive for hundreds of years. The risk of soil and water contamination is highly likely because of unsuitable locations available. Because of political turmoil, only one disposal site for high-level radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, exists in New Mexico, with no alternative options available in the foreseeable future.

Social impacts of the existence of a power plant create perceptions of safety concerns. As stated in ‘Social Effects of Nuclear Power’, Elizabeth Peele speaks about how the perceived danger of radiation can affect social groups. “Though most assessments show very low levels of radiation from any commercial power plant, their perceived danger of radiation continues to rise amongst certain segments of the public. This phenomenon is a health and social concern with strong psychological overtones. Herein lies another story of interveners and public acceptance of new and poorly-understood technology.” Peele clearly sees the safety in the production of nuclear power but notes the hindrances of public perception in growing it as commonplace. Jordan Wilkerson blames this distrust in part on political sway. He sees relative problems with each energy production option, with nuclear unfairly being the outlawed outcast. “…Unlike its fickle counterparts, nuclear energy is subjected to hostile attitudes adopted by a number of governments in the world which restrict the building or continual operation of power plants. Fear for Chornobyl and Fukushima-type catastrophes exacerbate the unpopularity of going nuclear. The US, currently the world’s largest producer, relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its overall electricity generation. Yet there has historically been a strong anti-nuclear movement in the US, and the sentiment is still somewhat present today, as demonstrated by closures of nuclear power plants and stances held by prominent political figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.“

Although there is much scientific support for the safety and positivity of nuclear power possibilities, many see the hidden costs of nuclear. The Renewable Resource Coalition points out the up-front costs of building a plant, not to mention the cost of nuclear disposal, as well as decommissioning plants once they have reached their peak productivity. Allowing large amounts of radioactive elements to be present in enemy countries also poses a far graver danger of nuclear attack or war. The perception that nuclear energy is infinite is far from the truth. Uranium must be mined and is laborious and expensive to render usable. Langdon Winner offers a similar perspective criticizing ‘technological utopianism'. In his article, ‘Sow’s Ears from Silk Purses’, he criticizes societal obsession with the notion that new improved technologies will solve larger issues without any inherent consequences. “Histories of the nuclear period point out that many of those who planned the nuclear power system were aware of problems that eventually surfaced in unhappy ways. But persons in the industry who were concerned about what seemed to be erroneous projections about economic costs, safety, and waste disposal were encouraged by their colleagues to remain silent, to go along with the program, and hope that the problems would be solved in the fullness of time. An attitude of that kind is still the unspoken motto for today’s technological visionaries. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” This ‘utopian’ view that Winner mentions has proved to be, and could be detrimental for many future technological visions in the long run.

The future implications of nuclear power could be hopeful. The nuclear industry is still continuously improving new technologies in anticipation of increased energy demands, such as the pebble-bed reactor, and the use of different elements that emit less radiation. But with this forward gaze, it is important to remember the path nuclear power has taken. First invented for its energy production, it was soon turned into a volatile tool of war. Once the power of this science was unleashed on Japan and Chornobyl, as well as countless radioactive leakages across the world, its volatility has become undeniable. Despite its neutral impact on the environment, political sway and public perception have rendered this energy source too taboo to utilize under the public eye for now.