Vogt 1

David Vogt

Sandra Riley

English 1201

October 25, 2021

Literary review

Nuclear energy has been around for many years and its effects on the world has been seen

with the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, each of these accidents happened over

10 years ago, is it time to reevaluate the stance on nuclear power? Nuclear energy comes from

creating steam with nuclear fission commonly using uranium-235 to heat up water and spin

turbines. Many countries in the world have switched over to nuclear energy as it is an abundant

source of electricity and the energy density of nuclear fuel is much greater than that of fossil

fuels, meaning that with the same amount of fuel nuclear fission will make more energy than

fossil fuels. With global warming becoming more and more of an issue, and the possibility of

fossil fuels becomes closer, what is the current nuclear energy controversy, and should more

countries implement the technology?

In 2019 a paper was published called “Limits to Deployment of Nuclear Power for

Decarbonization: Insights from Public Opinion” in it the researcher A. Abdulla and their team

look into how the public feels on nuclear power and also seeing if there is a way to eliminate the

dread associated with it. “Extensive research has consistently found that the public perceives

nuclear power's risks to be dramatically higher than suggested actuarially by its accident

statistics.” (Abdulla et al. 1340). They conducted an experiment where people were asked to

make an electricity portfolio for the US in 2050 with five choices of power sources. These
 Vogt 2

sources included nuclear, wind, solar, coal, natural gas, and coal css. For half of the experiment

the names of the power sources were hidden but key statistics were given such as carbon dioxide

emissions, cost of air pollution damage, and fatal accidents caused by those sources. The subjects

then had to meet the energy need while cutting greenhouse emissions by 50%. What they found

out in their results were this: “Respondents who were administered the blind survey instrument

opted to have nuclear power serve a 6.6%… larger share of total U.S. electric load than those for

whom technology labels were exposed.” (Abdulla et al. 1343). This lead them to the conclusion

that people are willing to have nuclear power but that the thing holding it back from being more

popular is the dread surrounding nuclear power itself. With the title nuclear power hidden, it was

chosen more than when it was revealed, even with the same statistics available. “the role that

dread plays in the opposition to nuclear power is large” (Abdulla et al. 1344). The main

takeaway from this paper is that the associated dread with nuclear power is large, and

diminishing this dread could lead to more support of this power source in the future.

While looking into public issues with nuclear power, Jonathon Baron and Steven Herzog

looked into whether the negative reaction to nuclear power stemmed from a reaction to nuclear

weapons and any connections between the two. They also looked into oppositions to nuclear

power plants that aren’t directly related to nuclear weapons. “Existing research on US public

opinion toward nuclear power points to three potential drivers of down trending support. First,

high costs of nuclear energy relative to fossil fuels… Second, negative perceptions of safety—

especially regarding accidents and radioactive discharges… Third, concerns regarding waste

storage may have ruled out nuclear energy as a safe, long-term fuel option.” (Baron and Herzog

2). These are the three main oppositions to nuclear energy that is stated in the paper. They do

explain that nuclear power plants do cost more than natural gas plants at the moment, however
 Vogt 3

the potential power from plants exceeds that of gas plants. To look further into the discourse of

nuclear power they conducted studies to try and find if there are inerrant connections between

nuclear weapons and energy. “Given the intertwined history of nuclear weapons and nuclear

power, it is imperative to dissect their connections in the US public consciousness” (Baron and

Herzog 3). They conducted two studies to try and find a connection. First, they asked opinion on

a scale from 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive) on nuclear energy, and weapons. Their

questions consisted of future R&D in the United States, living close to sites containing them, if it

an appropriate option for the US and environmental impacts. These questions were given in 2

separate batteries, each consisted of the questions above connected to either nuclear weapons or

nuclear energy. What they found through this study is that those who saw the questions about

nuclear weapons first, made more of a connection between nuclear energy and weapons and that

was shown through their table. Their second study was to solidify the findings from the first. The

subjects were given either pro- or anti- nuclear material pertaining to either energy or weapons.

They then answered the same questions as survey 1 and were asked for word association with

nuclear. What they found was similar to survey one, however they also noticed that reading pro-

nuclear energy material before answering the batteries made a more positive trend in questions

pertaining to nuclear power plants. However, the word association portion found that most will

still put a negative connotation to the word nuclear. “our finding suggests that perceptions of

nuclear weapons may drive this connection.” (Baron and Herzog 8). Their study focused on the

connection between how we perceive nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This would lead to an

argument to be used in the nuclear debate, since many see them as the same technology.

While looking into what the controversy is with nuclear power it is important to

understand what it is and the basics behind it. In the paper Nuclear Energy by Janna Palliser she
 Vogt 4

states “Worldwide, more than 400 nuclear power plants produce 16% of the world’s electricity”

(Palliser 14). As well as the other concerns about finding more environmentally friendly ways to

power our lives. Her paper goes on to state how nuclear fuel is produced and refined, as well as

the different types of nuclear power plants. “Commercial nuclear power plants in the United

States are either boiling water reactors (BWRs) or pressurized water reactors (PWRs).” (Palliser

16). She then goes on to state the basic pros and cons of nuclear energy, namely that it is very

efficient and that it is clean energy “One uranium fuel pellet contains the same amount of energy

as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.” (Palliser 16).

She states some of the cons as its cost to build a nuclear power plant site, and health risk of

radiation if not properly contained. The paper also states current storage for nuclear waste and

describes some of the more famous nuclear power disasters, such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and

the Three Mile Island incidents. The main points and theme of this paper is to spread information

about nuclear power and what is good and dangerous about it.

While looking into the nuclear issue it is important to see what other countries are doing

and how they are reacting to or implementing nuclear power. A paper published in June of 2021

talks about Poland and how it is implementing nuclear power as a future power source. This

paper starts by talking about the EU climate and energy targets of 2020 which is to help reduce

the impact we have on the environment and climate change around us. The way that Poland is

going about this is to start switching over to nuclear power versus mainly coal based power to

reduce the carbon emissions of the country. “A very important element of the Polish energy

policy is the introduction of nuclear power. In terms of the future Polish energy mix, nuclear

power plants could ensure the stability of energy generation with zero emissions of air

pollutants” (Gierszewski et al. 6). The paper then goes on to state how switching to nuclear
 Vogt 5

power would be beneficial to the country and discusses the main type of plant that would be

made, the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), and all of its benefits such as a competitive market

making it a cheaper solution, having no failures with releases into the environment, being a very

common reactor technology, common knowledge of what the technology is, and lower cost of

operating them compared to boiling reactors. (Gierszewski et al. 7-8). The paper then goes into

further detail about Poland’s energy consumption and production. The paper then takes a turn

and goes deeper into the cost of the plants and how that may affect the population around them

and the cost of electricity. “A nuclear power plant, as a stable generating source with a long

service life, generates a very low environmental and system cost, which may contribute to

suppressing the increase of electricity costs for consumers” (Gierszewski et al. 12). The paper

states that having these plants might even lower electricity cost in areas where the plant is used.

Overall the article goes into deep detail about Poland’s energy situation and how they plan on

introducing nuclear power into their country, and how other European countries are doing similar

things.

Lastly it is important to look at one of the more recent incidents and how it may still be

affecting the world today. The Fukushima accident happened in 2011 due to failure at a nuclear

site caused by a tsunami that caused the site to go critical, resulting in a meltdown. This drew

many away from nuclear power. “Four months after the reactor failure, the German parliament

voted to phase out nuclear energy altogether by 2022.” (Verma et. al. 200). However, some

countries started more research into plant safety such as the US. Today many people believe that

is the solution to climate change, and are presenting newer ideas such as Small Modular reactors

that could power up to 200,000 homes, but are much smaller than normal reactors, which could

reduce disaster potential. (Verma et al. 200). The paper then goes on to discuss how in some
 Vogt 6

cases the uranium mines leave surrounding land poisoned, and unusable by indigenous

communities. This paper also goes into detail about how the choice to go nuclear is in the hands

of the government, but needs public support to be properly implemented. The article as a whole

talks briefly on the history of nuclear power and the most recent disaster and how it affected the

world. The paper also talks about some of the steps being taken to reintroduce nuclear power as a

more safe power source.

Each of the sources listed and discussed above give insight as to what the controversy

about nuclear issues are. The first two articles “Limits to Deployment of Nuclear Power for

Decarbonization: Insights from Public Opinion” and “Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy and

Nuclear Weapons: The Attitudinal Nexus in the United States” both go through and demonstrate

how the public truly feels, and has conclusions that support their findings, with both coming to

similar conclusions that there is a negative connotation to the word nuclear and that there is some

connection that people make between nuclear weapons and energy. The next source directly

states many facts about what nuclear power is and the pros and cons of it. This gives great

background knowledge if this topic is unfamiliar. The last two articles “Nuclear Power in

Poland’s Energy Transition” and “Nuclear Energy, ten years After Fukushima” both talk about

nuclear power in the world and what is being done today in some countries about climate change

and nuclear power. Possible future research could be more into anti-nuclear power views, as

many the ones reviewed here were more neutral or pro-nuclear power.
 Vogt 7

Bibliography

Abdulla, A., et al. “Limits to Deployment of Nuclear Power for Decarbonization: Insights from

Public Opinion.” Energy Policy, vol. 129, June 2019, pp. 1339–1346. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.039.

Baron, Jonathon, and Stephen Herzog. “Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear

Weapons: The Attitudinal Nexus in the United States.” Energy Research & Social

Science, vol. 68, Oct. 2020. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101567.

Palliser, Janna. “Nuclear Energy.” Science Scope, vol. 35, no. 5, Jan. 2012, pp. 14–

18. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.udayton.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eft&AN=69926290&site=eds-live.

Gierszewski, Janusz, et al. “Nuclear Power in Poland’s Energy Transition.” Energies

(19961073), vol. 14, no. 12, June 2021, p. 3626. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3390/en14123626

Verma, Aditi, et al. “Nuclear Energy, Ten Years after Fukushima.” Nature, vol. 591, no. 7849,

Mar. 2021, pp. 199–201. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00580-4.