Nuclear
Bombs and Nuclear Energy
1st
Year Bachelor of Business Management, Singapore Management University
Executive Summary
Nuclear technology, especially those involving nuclear weaponry and
nuclear energy, has always been a highly contentious subject. This paper will
look at some of the biggest moments of nuclear technology so far. Historical
events will be looked into to comprehend the continued usage of nuclear weapons
today. Contemporary developments such as recent disasters and news will be
covered to better understand the nature of nuclear energy. Overall, this paper
seeks a balanced perspective on the continued use of both nuclear weaponry and
nuclear power in today’s society.
Why I chose this topic
Recently there was of
commotion created when North Korea initially tested its nuclear weapons (Payne,
2013). The South Koreans were worried. The United States of America and the
People’s Republic of China were among the many that publicly condemned North
Korea's actions (Payne, 2013). What makes nuclear weapons so desirable? Are
they really that much of a trump card that it allows people to enter some sort
of exclusive Nuclear Club? One of the key points of this paper is to look at
the global implications of nuclear weapons.
Fukushima and Chernobyl
are two grim reminders of the potential disasters waiting to happen should
nuclear power plants face problems. Defenders of nuclear power report that
health hazards are not really linked to these incidents but most of these
defenders could have a stake in the industry and therefore be biased. In this
paper we will briefly look at the brighter and darker sides of nuclear power.
The paper will touch on some of the historical events centered on nuclear
developments and seeks to evaluate their effects on the past and what they hold
for the future.
1.0 Introduction
For a matter to be
considered world-changing it must have been disruptive to a certain industry or
a way mankind gets something done. Nuclear energy is one example of such a
technology. From changing the way and sometimes reasons as to why nations get
involved in conflicts to becoming one of the ways the world is powered, nuclear
energy has seen the world through many changes. However, nuclear technology
carries with it a taboo: its power that brought death and destruction and the
infamous nuclear accidents that occurred throughout history have cast nuclear
technology in a bad light. The question asked here is: if the world dislikes
nuclear technology so much, why are we still keeping it? This paper will look
at the two major fields of nuclear technology: revisiting World War II and the
Cold War to discuss nuclear weapons and revisiting events surrounding nuclear
power to shed more light on nuclear technology's role and effects in today's
society.
2.0 Historical Perspective
Nuclear power is derived
from the energy released from splitting the atoms of certain elements (World
Nuclear Association, 2012a). Initial research on nuclear power was centered
around creating nuclear bombs during World War II before research focused on
using nuclear power to provide energy for the country (World Nuclear
Association, 2010). Nobody would forget the devastation that the two nuclear
bombs: Fat Man and Little Boy wrought on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of
World War II (“Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles”, n. d.). Among the notable
nuclear-armed political powers of today are the United States of America,
Russia and China (Kimball, 2013). Submarines and aircraft carriers also run on
nuclear power from on board nuclear generators (World Nuclear Association, 2013d).
2.1 Warfare
Scientists in the
1930’s discovered nuclear fission and learned of the vast amounts of energy
released from such a reaction (World Nuclear Association, 2010). Research in
nuclear physics would then be influenced by the outbreak of World War II (World
Nuclear Association, 2012). Many of the developments causing and caused by
nuclear technology would then be centered around fear. World War II was a
desperate time when both the Allies and the Axis forces were trying newer and
more creative ways to gain advantages on the battlefield. In an effort to
create a bigger explosion and gain an advantage in the war, the United States
of America began Project Manhattan (World Nuclear Association, 2012).
The result of Project
Manhattan was the conception of nuclear bombs. Fat Man and Little Boy are the
names of the two bombs that would forever be etched in mankind’s history: Little
Boy was dropped on Hiroshima and Fat Man on Nagasaki (“THE FIRST ATOMIC BOMBS: Little Boy
and Fat Man”, 2006). The effects were devastating. By
December 1945, the estimated dead in Hiroshima was 135,000 and in Nagasaki the
estimate was 64,000 dead according to the Manhattan Engineer District (1946).
To put things in
context, a comparison between the nuclear bombs and another powerful bomb made
in the United Kingdom will be made. The United Kingdom had also developed a
powerful bomb called the “Grand Slam”/ Tallboy bomb which was capable of
driving itself into the ground, detonating to cause a camouflet - a cavern
underground, shifting the ground to undermine the opposition (“Grand Slam
(bomb)”, 2013). Germany had been the victim of many such Tallboy bomb attacks
but continued resisting the Allies until its eventual demise in 1945 (UK Bomber
Command – Campaign Diary, 1945). As for the Japanese, after facing the horrors
of the two atomic bombs, they lost the will to continue fighting as they would
face a “rain of ruin” as warned by President Henry Truman if they continued to
resist (Shalett, 1945).
The development of new
weapons is nothing new in the context of war. The typical reaction of other
warring factions that fall victim of these new technologies is to adapt or find
new technologies to compete with their enemies. However, few have been so great
as to force entire nations into submission as is seen in the aftermath of World
War II. The Japanese are shown to be fiercely loyal to their emperor and are
even willing to sacrifice themselves literally through Kamikaze Plane crashes
(DiGiulian, 2013). Seeing such a proud nation bow down to the devastation of
such a weapon truly is a turning point when it comes to warfare technology.
2.2 Politics: The Cold War
“I begin to believe in
only one civilizing influence, —the discovery one of these days of a
destructive agent so terrible that War shall mean annihilation and men's fears
will force them to keep the peace"
Wilkie Collins, 1870
From a political
perspective, the sheer potential carnage that could be caused by a nuclear
bombing suggested that countries that wielded nuclear weapons should tread
carefully around one another out of fear that the slightest affront would set
off a nuclear war. This could be evidently seen in the Cold War.
The Cold War saw the
world being split into Eastern and Western blocs, one bloc being aligned to the
Communist Soviet bloc and the other to the United States of America (“Cold War”,
n.d.). The role that nuclear weapons effectively played in this war was as the
catalyst in an international game of chicken. This fear was eventually known as
the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as both sides armed with
nuclear weapons would effectively eradicate the other should the need to
retaliate ever arise (“Mutually Assured Destruction, n.d). The Doctrine of MAD
was based on the belief that if both sides ended up completely destroying each
other, it would function as a deterrent from starting a war in the first place.
(“Mutually Assured Destruction”, n.d)
As if nuclear bombs
dropped from planes weren’t bad enough, the development of the Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile had the warhead deliver itself to you. Multi-stage rockets
would carry the warhead between continents, making an already deadly threat
deadlier (“Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles”, n.d).
Tensions peaked when
the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in 1962 (“Cuban Missile Crisis”, n.d.). In
exchange for economic and military aid, Cuba allowed Russia to place nuclear
missiles in their country (History.com, n.d.). The US laid a naval blockade to
stop the delivery of the missiles in response.
The confrontation between the America and the USSR saw the two blocs
just a hair’s breadth away from sparking a nuclear conflict. Instead of opening
fire, both sides came to an agreement: the US will not invade Cuba and the USSR
will remove said missiles (May E.R., 2011). Subsequently, the US removed its
missiles from Turkey as well. (May E.R., 2011) We can see here that nuclear
weapons played a crucial role in the war. First, its existence was the basis
for preparation for retaliation and eventually that same fear would be the
factor that prevented the conflict from brewing any further.
2.3 Today’s Concerns for Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear weapons
represent power. The power to cause massive damage at the push of a button
guarantees a fear and respect that can be used for international power-play.
The nukes will continue to be used to threaten and pressure other countries to
their will. Another point to consider from all of this is that if any country
tries hard enough, they too can be nuclear armed. These days, as shown in the reaction to North
Korea’s recent nuclear tests (Payne, 2013), the world is trying all it can not
have any more nuclear armed countries. Unless the world sees no more need for
nuclear bombs will there be an end to their manufacturing.
This same behavior also
could be the spark of potentially bloody conflicts. Reactions to the recent
North Korean Nuclear tests were one of expectant retaliation, with South Korea
and America performing military exercises close to North Korea following the
tests (Aljazeera & Reuters, 2013). The world has seen enough war and
especially with the current state of the global economy, cannot afford another
one.
2.2.4 Possible Future Consideration for Nuclear Weapons
Despite the world's
efforts to disarm nuclear weapons through the Treaty of Non-proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, it appears that nuclear weapons are here to stay (Ricking,
2013). Nuclear weapons’ symbolism of power and its proven ability to deter
nuclear attack make it a viable option for most nations.
The fear is still quite
tangible and the benefits of owning such a weapon appear to be motivation
enough for these countries to endure intense international pressure. As long as
people see the value and need for something, nothing it seems, can stop them.
Signs Pointing Toward
it:
Hans M. Kristensen
(2011) stated on the Federation of American Scientists Strategic Security Blog
that the American government had plans to modernize its nuclear arsenal. This
includes a $6.3 billion dollars’ worth of expenditure on the warheads in the
stockpile through to fiscal year 2016 (Kristensen, 2011).
There are still plenty
of fear that Iran may be creating a nuclear warhead. Their continued secrecy on
the matter only served to heighten the world's suspicion. The world is aware of
the power that a nation stands to gain by controlling one of these warheads and
Iran's possession of one would surely shift the balance of power in the Middle
East in its favour (Ricking, 2013). In the author's opinion, if the world
seriously is trying to stop my country (Iran) with sanctions that feel almost
draconian (Salehzadeh, 2013), it would not be a surprise if Iran decided to
shift development of civilian nuclear fuel to military application fuel.
North Korea is
continuing with the development of its nuclear program is continuing to spark
fear among the countries in the region (Payne, 2013). Despite global pressure,
even from China, it is unlikely to stop.
India has recently
tested its new Anti-Ballistic Missile successfully while Pakistan has tested a
new nuclear capable Hatf-5 ballistic missile (Auner, 2013). India's responses
here, the author feels, is because of the conflict that India has with Pakistan
and the fact that it has two nuclear armed neighbors, Pakistan and China
(Auner, 2013). Fear leads to preparation.
2.2.5 The Brighter Side of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Weapons, while
sparking fear in the hearts of many for various reasons, does have its silver
lining. While some may be in the belief that using the bombs on the Japanese in
World War II is wrong, it cannot be denied that using it helped to end the war
faster. What would the future be like if America had not initiated Project
Manhattan? For one, there may have been greater casualties for both sides. The
Allies would have had to fight all the way to Tokyo to force the Emperor of
Japan to surrender. The potential for greater loss of life, both military and
civilian, would be greater. In a trade-off that may sound calculating and cold,
use of the bombs helped to end the war against Japan with less cost of human
life and less loss of economic capital.
From the information
gathered here, it is safe to say that nuclear weapons could be a huge success
as a peace keeper in a certain respect. Nuclear weapons, thanks to the doctrine
of MAD actually managed to avert a potential world war. Despite being labeled
“Weapons of Mass Destruction,” nuclear weapons have not seen any actual mass
destruction outside its original use in World War II. In fact, it can be
deduced that due to the doctrine of MAD induced by the involved parties’ access
to nuclear weapons, the Cold War did not escalate to the likes of a third World
War.
From this perspective,
nuclear weapons have actually been doing the opposite of their intended effect.
It would be an interesting world indeed if most of the great powers of the
world had in their possession an arsenal of nuclear warheads. If these warheads
could strike anywhere in the world, literally, there would be no more reason to
have wars; anyone could trigger Armageddon and end the world. As no one would
intend on ending the world (it’s economically unfeasible at the very least),
the nations of the world would have to settle their differences diplomatically.
Perhaps if this became a reality, the human race would be able to advance and
make bloody and costly wars a thing of the past?
3.0 Nuclear Reactors Today
Introduction
Nuclear sabre-rattling
will continue so long as there is a country which believes that owning and
testing nuclear weapons is a valid method of getting attention. However, the
power of nuclear fission can be used for more than just genocidal purposes.
Nuclear reactors can harness the energy from the nuclear fission reaction to
generate large amounts of power for comparatively long periods of time (World
Nuclear Association, 2012a). Despite this fact, nuclear power has gained infamy
over the years due to accidents such as Chernobyl and The Three Mile Island
incident. The most recent accident at Fukushima has sparked many anti-nuclear
movements into action, continuing the vilification of nuclear energy. Is
nuclear energy’s notoriety justified? Are we unfairly accusing this technology
of crimes it may not be committing?
These days, 13.5% of
the world’s energy is provided by nuclear energy from more than 430 nuclear
power reactors across 31 countries (World Nuclear Association, 2012b). Nuclear energy is touted as a clean and
efficient source of energy as it does not release greenhouse gases during the
production of power as no fossil fuels are burned and uses less land space in
comparison to other energy production methods such as wind farms and solar
paneling (World Nuclear Association, 2012). However, seeing the long term
health effects of nuclear bombs, the nuclear waste produced from the power
production process would have to be disposed effectively or else, this method
may not be as “clean” as is advocated. Bearing all this in mind, this section
of the paper will look through some of nuclear energy’s impacts on the world
and see if nuclear energy truly is as bad as the activists claim it is.
3.1 Social impacts
Nuclear power has been
seen as boon to some countries. During the oil price shock of 1973, many
countries were left reeling from the sudden price hike (World Nuclear
Association, 2013b). Many of these countries were reliant on fossil fuels to
power their countries and some of them did not have much in the way of local
fossil fuel deposits. To curb their reliance on a commodity that was subject to
volatile prices, countries such as France and Japan turned to nuclear power
(World Nuclear Association, 2013b).
France generates 75% of its power from nuclear plants thanks to
government policy that focused on energy security after the oil price shock of
1974. (World Nuclear Association, 2013b). Without nuclear energy, these
countries may have had an even harder time coping with the oil price shock and
may have even stayed economically affected for a longer period of time.
Another interesting
social impact of nuclear energy that is not frequently discussed is that
nuclear power has been shown to save lives. A study conducted by Hansen and
Kharecha (2013) has shown that nuclear power has actually prevented the
air-pollution related deaths of 1.84 million people thanks to the fact it does
not release greenhouse gases during the power supplying process. When put into
perspective, despite all the bad press, nuclear energy has been a silent
partner in slowing down the progress of global warming.
Some negative social
effects of nuclear power are attached to concerns over health and safety.
Anti-nuclear movements such as Greenpeace cite risks of nuclear accidents,
especially the Chernobyl incident, and nuclear waste disposal as some of their
reasons for disliking nuclear power (Greenpeace, n.d.). The Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and
Fukushima disasters all saw thousands of people being evacuated from their
homes due to the high levels of radiation found in the areas surrounding the
power plants (“Nuclear Accident”, 2013). From the research conducted, the
social impact of displacement seems the most prominent.
The relocation of the
people from their homes is could probably be one of the greatest challenges
that some human beings have to face. In Chernobyl, more than 330,000 people had
to be relocated after the disaster (“ Nuclear Accident”, 2013). Some of the
people who left their homes behind due to the accidents felt a sense of
injustice and also felt that out-of-place in society. The ones who choose to
stay behind ended up faring better psychologically (Deconinck, 2006). The
migration of the people also caused a distorted demographics curve, having more
elderly people and fewer professionals. This raised the death rates of the area
while hampering economic recovery (Deconinck, 2006). The author believes that
fewer things are worse than feeling like an alien in one’s own homeland.
After the accident at
the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant in 2011, which saw 160,000 people (McCurry,
2013) evacuating the surrounding area, Japan has seen a rise in anti-nuclear
demonstrations. Mari Saito and Sophie Knight (2013) recently reported from
Reuters that more than 15,000 people attended a protest urging the government
of Japan to reject nuclear power. A recent poll stated that 70% of Japanese
intended on eventually phasing out nuclear energy (Knight & Saito, 2013).
In conclusion, the
social impact of nuclear energy is reliant on the circumstances of the time.
People welcomed it for the benefits it brought and rejected it when the detriments
were brought to light. However, public perception is a fickle thing. Now that
the world is facing a grim reminder that nuclear technology is not 100%
fool-proof, we can expect there to be less public support for nuclear energy in
times to come.
3.2 Environmental Effects
Nuclear power has been
touted as a clean energy as it does not contribute to carbon dioxide emissions
during the generation of power (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).
Especially during a time when the world is aware of the need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power's carbon footprint has been taken into
account by powerful countries such as China (“China Set to Build 200 nuclear
power plants: report”, 2013). According to LiveMint (2013), China plans on
building 200 more nuclear power plants, reaching a pace of 10 new plants a
year. This is to counter the high amounts of pollutants generated by its
coal-fire power in its industries.
The need for a global
energy supply that does not add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has never
been more urgent. Global warming has been confirmed by experts Hansen,
Caldeira, Emanuel and
Wigley to be a threat to humanity in a signed letter
to environmental groups (Associated Press, 2013). In their letter, they argued
that the total amount of clean renewable energies would not be sufficient on
their own to stave off global warming, an effort combining both nuclear power
and renewable energy would be the recommended course of action (Associated
Press, 2013). The power to aid in staving off climate change seems to be
nuclear energy’s silver lining in environmental impact.
Nuclear power plant
accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster release large quantities of
radioactive material. For instance, nuclear fallout released from Chernobyl’s
explosion traveled and affects areas downwind, spreading its radioactive
substances to the neighboring areas. From Chernobyl, “(a)bout 4300 km2 are in the no-go zone” and another area of about
7000 km2 is considerably contaminated by 137Cs (Deconinck,
2006). In Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, a further 130.000 km2 were less severely contaminated. Similar levels
also occurred in 60.000 km2 in other parts of Europe.” (Deconinck, 2006) This
radioactive material had adverse effect on the wildlife in the vicinity, with
plants growing strangely shaped leaves and animals showing signs of mutation
(“Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions” (n.d.)).
Environmental hazards arise
from the water used for cooling down the radioactive fuel. For instance, the
water pumped into the facility to cool down the radioactive fuel end up
becoming irradiated. Aljazeera (2013) reported that leaks from the power plant
have caused the radioactive water to seep into the ground and some of it may
even have reached the Pacific Ocean. Nicholas Fisher, a marine biologist at
Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y., told LiveScience that for seafood
caught 160 km away from the site would be safe but the same cannot be said for
the seafood caught closer than that; this pollution is affecting Japan’s marine
life (Lewis, 2013). All these
developments would lead to the increase of radioactivity of the site, delaying
cleanup efforts.
Nuclear power plants
must change their fuel every 18-36 months (World Nuclear Association, 2012b).
The spent fuel released from these processes form radioactive waste that must
be disposed of. Concerns arise as this radioactive waste is dangerous to living
beings as it releases ionizing radiation that may cause cancer (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency n.d.b). At the moment, most of the spent fuel
is kept on site at the nuclear power plants.
Seeing how these are dangerous, many people adopt the NIMBY (Not In My
BackYard) style of thinking. For
instance, in November 2010, an anti-nuclear group “Wiedersetzen” attempted to
block a shipment of nuclear waste from France to Germany that was to be placed
in a salt deposit in Gorleben. (Public Intelligence, 2010)
Nuclear power is a
double-edged sword when it comes to environmental impact. On one hand, it is
seen as one of the “cleaner” sources of energy as it releases no carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere during energy production. On the other hand, its nuclear waste
and waste water pose serious problems to the environment. Unless we are able to
develop a fool-proof way of safely disposing of the waste can nuclear power
truly be called a clean source of power.
Author’s Perspective of Nuclear Power Today:
We appear to be in an
interesting predicament concerning nuclear energy. The world is aware that the
social and environmental impacts of nuclear power are largely negative but
nuclear power does have its saving graces. Does nuclear energy really deserve
its highly negative status? A good analogy of this situation can be the boiling
frog example. A normal frog would immediately jump out if placed into a pot
water that is already boiling. Similarly, when people immediately feel and
suffer the consequences of a nuclear accident, they would react. The same frog
would continue sitting in a pot of water that is heated from room temperature
until it eventually dies when the water comes to a boil. It was only until
recently that people have come to start realizing that fossil fuel based power
supplies must go, but they don’t vilify it to the same degree as nuclear
energy. Both situations can be seen to be equally harmful in different time
spans but one just seems to have a worse image.
Seeing today that the
world’s global warming situation is becoming ever more desperate, perhaps the
world should reconsider its stand on nuclear energy. A lot of the effects
surrounding our current nuclear practices are negative but it is not the
technology that causes the problems but the way that technology is handled that
causes problems. As we have come to learn, people learn from their mistakes and
eventually a proper method to deal with the problems plaguing the industry.
With more perseverance, mankind may be able to solve the woes associated with
nuclear power and perhaps nuclear energy could actually be one mankind’s ways
forwards.
4.0 Future Considerations
for Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power’s infamy
mostly arises from the harmful effects of its radiation. To summarize,
Fukushima’s radioactive water leaks pollute the ocean and the area around it,
Chernobyl and Fukushima’s disasters caused the people to be evicted from their
homes which then caused numerous social effects. These effects have caused some
countries such as Spain, Germany, Italy and Japan itself to reconsider nuclear
energy (“International Reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster”,
n.d).
This may not spell the
end for nuclear energy as countries such as China and India have considered
nuclear energy as a viable alternative source of energy. China’s reason for
doing so is to begin reducing its carbon emissions from its coal power
dependency (Reuters, 2013). Just like nuclear weapons, as long as people see
good reason to apply such technology, that technology will continue seeing use,
regardless of public perception.
There may be a solution
to all these problems posed by nuclear fission if nuclear fusion's reasearch
comes to fruition. Problems such as
radioactive waste disposal and threats of nuclear accidents should the power
plants be damaged could become distant memories. Nuclear fusion promises a
sustainable source of energy, safer reactor environments, far less waste and
less complicated waste disposal than its fission counter part.
4.1 Fusion Technology
From the information
gathered here, it can be surmised that the best way forward for nuclear
technology is through nuclear fusion technology. Nuclear fusion technology is
based on the energy released when two particles collide at high speeds to form
a new atom (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). It has been touted as a clean
energy that generate power from inexpensive materials regardless of weather
conditions.
4.2 Environmental Issues
When energy is produced
through fusion technology, no greenhouse gases are emitted. Furthermore, the
fuel consumption of nuclear fusion is stated to be very efficient. According to
the European Commission (2013), a nuclear fusion plant can produce energy the
equivalent of 1.5 million tonnes of coal yearly using 100kg of deuterium and 3
tonnes of lithium. This data shows that nuclear fusion would be a viable option
for an efficient and clean fuel.
Nuclear fusion
decreases transport of radioactive substances. The fusion reaction requires two
different hydrogen isotopes: deuterium and tritium. Tritium is radioactive but
is produced within the reactor from lithium, removing the need to transport
radioactive substances to the reactor (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). This
reduces the risk of radiation leaks should any accident occur during transport
of the fuel.
Nuclear fusion is not
completely free from radioactive waste however. One of the components for the
nuclear reaction, tritium, is radioactive but only has a half-life of 12 years
(World Nuclear Association, 2013a). The short half-life of the waste, coupled
with the low consumption of the fuel will ensure that waste disposal of nuclear
fusion will be less complicated and will not leave long lasting environmental
effects on the world.
4.3 Chances of Meltdown
The chances of a
meltdown happening should something go wrong are almost non-existent as the
requirements of a nuclear fusion reaction are very strict. The particles have
to be heated to temperatures of 10 million degrees Celsius before a reaction
can take place (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). Any breach of the
containment unit would result in the particles rapidly losing heat, meaning no
reaction would take place (European Commission, n.d.).
This is vital
information as human error is unavoidable. In complex enough systems, small
error would be overlooked as insignificant but they build up. At least when
problems do arise in these new fusion reactors, the most notable damage to the
public would be a blackout. If nuclear
fusion reactors become a reality, there would no longer be a threat of another
Chernobyl or Fukushima incident.
4.4 The Struggle of Fusion Power
Despite all the
promising benefits of nuclear fusion power, such a technology is seemingly
still a distant dream. Research into nuclear fusion technology had started more
than 50 years ago and has yet to achieve ignition - being able to produce
vastly more energy from the reaction than the fuel absorbs (Grant, 2013). In
the United States, the government is intending on cutting funding from nuclear
fusion due to the fact that years of funding and research has failed to produce
anything substantial (Grant, 2013).
However, there appears
to be a beacon of hope for nuclear energy in light of a recent breakthrough. At
the National Ignition Facility of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, a nuclear
fusion reaction that created more energy than was absorbed by the fuel was
finally achieved (Forbing, 2013). This breakthrough would finally enable
researchers around the world to focus on making nuclear fusion a viable clean
energy solution in the years to come.
4.5 Evaluation of Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear fusion seems to
answer many questions pertaining to our energy woes. However, research into
this still has not brought the technology to fruition. The author believes that
benefits of nuclear fusion far outweigh the costs of the research. With another
powerful and sustainable source of energy that is not dependent on the amount
of sunlight that hits it or the wind speeds, providing clean power could be
done anywhere. With electric vehicles gaining popularity we could be seeing a
zero-emission lifestyle throughout the world. This technology could potentially
save the world from the imminent threat of global warming without the issue of
nuclear waste disposal as well. With this in mind, the author reiterates that
nuclear fusion is a technology well worth looking into and funding for this
research should continue.
5.0 Conclusion
Nuclear weapons and
nuclear energy will continue being a part of our lives. This strain of
technology has seen many momentous moments in history originally in war and
later in accidents occurring close to home. Nuclear energy gives people many
reasons to fear and despise it, yet may even be one of the better solutions
offered in today’s challenges such as global warming. Perhaps nuclear
technology will continue to be part of the technology’s family, the black sheep
of the family.
References:
DiGiulian, T. (2013, June 20). Kamikaze damage to US and
British carriers. retrieved from:
http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm
Director General,
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) Implementation
of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council
resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Hansen, J. E. & Kharecha, P. A. (2013). Prevented mortality
and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 47.
Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es3051197
Ricking, C. (2013, February 19). The future of nuclear
weapons. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from:
http://www.dw.de/the-future-of-nuclear-weapons/a-16611159
Salehzadeh, A. (2013, August 22). A view from inside Iran:
what sanctions do to real people. PolicyMic retrieved from: http://www.policymic.com/articles/60541/a-view-from-inside-iran-what-sanctions-do-to-real-people