Nuclear power is one of the most modern and possibly dangerous forms of energy generation in use today. There were 439 commercial nuclear reactors reported in June 2001, principally located in the United States, France and Japan. Energy from nuclear power first started to become a major source of electricity in the early 1970s, and from 1970 to 1980 world consumption of energy from nuclear percent in the 1980s, and in the 1990s it fell to roughly 20 percent. Nowadays, only about 6 percent of the world’s energy comes from nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants also supply some 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States.

        Nuclear power is also the most efficient form of energy production in use today. A tiny piece of Uranium about the size of a golf ball has the same amount of stored energy as 2,300,000 pounds of coal! This tremendous amount of energy is released from the Uranium in a nuclear reactor through the physical process known as nuclear fission.

        At one time, the amazing amount of energy that could be released from a small amount of fuel seemed to be the answer to all our energy problems, but today, we are able to see the dangers in this kind of energy generation and nuclear power was on the decline. There are two main reasons for the decline in their use.

        The first reason is the expense to build the plant, which makes it prohibitively expensive. Taking into account its comparatively low fuel costs, nuclear plants, however, are relatively cheap to run. Including back-end costs such as the fabrication of uranium and the management of spent radioactive materials, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant are typically about one-third of those of a coal-fired plant and about one-quarter of those of a gas combined-cycle plant. But still, nuclear power is more expensive than coal or oil power. As gas prices rise and coal faces the prospect of economic constraints on its emissions, nuclear energy looks increasingly attractive. On the other hand, uranium can be stored for years, and the cost of generation is almost immune to fluctuations in fuel prices.

        The second reason is environmental jeopardy. The waste produced from the nuclear plants remains dangerous for thousands of years and there is no proven method to safely and easily store radioactive waste, even though some people claim that this technical problem has been already solved. There also is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, like the 1986 Chernobyl power plant disaster in the former Soviet Union that resulted in long-lasting radiation poisoning. This is also why no nuclear power has been built in the United States in decades, after the 1979 near-meltdown accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Even Japan might be rethinking his nuclear picture in the wake of a very recent accident in a nuclear fuel facility in Tokaimura (see story here). However, nuclear power is one of the few energy sources that results in no polluting side effects, especially carbon dioxide. Hence nuclear power has virtually no contribution to the menace of greenhouse gases, and can play a significant role in preventing catastrophic global warming, according to a controversial article published in the March 19, 2000 issue of Science. Of course there is likely to be some carbon dioxide produced at various stages in the front and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the amount depending on several factors including the source of that energy input, but the amount is trivial.

        After being shunned for years, nuclear power is on the verge of making a spectacular comeback! The main reasons for this new renaissance are the concerns over high energy prices, rising demand and ecological impacts of fossil fuels. Some people claim that there isn’t another option but to look to nuclear power to help meet our growing needs. After all, nuclear power is one of the most practical ways to create energy. But before that can happen, I believe that the unresolved and controversial issues of safety, cost, waste and proliferation must be clearly addressed, and the search for better and safer ways to generate electricity should be exhausted. If it is disinformation, about its dangers that sustains a climate of fearful barriers against the use of nuclear power, then it should be given the opportunity to make its case on its own without the externalities. The alleged claim that nuclear power is the only energy source that could be applied in time to offset the threat from accumulating greenhouse gases is not enough. How far nuclear power will have to spread to make a real dent in the problem of global warming? It obviously cannot reduce developed nations’ reliance on imported oil to power transportation. Besides, some analyses suggest that to make a real impact in slowing global warming, nuclear power plants would need to increase at least tenfold (one nuclear reactor would have to be built every week for the next 50 years) and spread widely around the world, a prospect that brings many challenges of its own. For instance, weapon proliferation risks.

        Increasing the use of nuclear power in countries that already have either the bomb or nuclear power plants might not be much of a danger with certain exceptions, but spreading nuclear power to additional countries, especially those with political and social instabilities, might be an unforgiving mistake. Recent explosions of nuclear devices in India and Pakistan (two neighbor countries in war) have heightened the concerns over the proliferation of nuclear weapons.