by Nora Moncada
As someone who has been exposed to very little of the intersection between science and technology, I feel that my visit to the Indian Point Power Plant was illuminating, on multiple levels. For those of us who have devoted ourselves to subjects like literature and writing, the ideas and manifestations of science and technology can seem acutely foreign and menacing because of their profundity and complexity. That is not to say I haven’t had my fair share of scientific courses over the years, all of which have supplemented my knowledge of various specialties—in specific, biology, physics, chemistry. Nonetheless, I often feel very uneducated about the realization of the scientific principles that are relevant to current medical and technological discoveries. One of the most important aspects of scientific study, in my opinion, is exploring the link between science and its applications, and I often feel that, as a student, there are fewer opportunities to encounter the link between scientific principles and their practice than there should be. It was truly enriching to see the principles of nuclear power, which were discussed by the professor throughout the course (and certain students in their presentations), actualized during our class’ tour of the Indian Point nuclear power facility.
Nuclear power, in specific, has consistently been a source of misinformation for me as a student. I believe my own ignorance is due to the fact that, in the U.S., there is not enough advocacy or awareness about the reality (both the benefits and disadvantages) of nuclear power. The truth is, I feel that partaking in this science and technology course—and, of course, visiting the Indian Point nuclear power plant—was my first exposure to the truth of nuclear power. Prior to this course, I could claim very little in the way of an honest and comprehensive understanding of the principles and actuality of nuclear power; perhaps my greatest experience with the idea of nuclear power was watching Homer Simpson head to work on The Simpsons. Nor do I feel that blame assignation is necessary to establish and confirm the importance of devoting resources to developing a substantial nuclear power program. I believe, as a student, that knowledge is power; learning from errors is part of the maturation not only of the individual, but also of the collective. Understanding the issue of erroneous judgment and seeking to correct the dissemination of faulty information is far more valuable, in my opinion, than the allocation of blame. I believe that it can be widely agreed that time is more constructively spent when a solution is sought out than when errors and inaccuracies are picked apart. And time, as should be clear from the publicized urgency in increasing sources of renewable energy, is a luxury that the U.S. can afford less and less.
Nonetheless, I do believe it important to note that the U.S. remains hesitant to invest a significant amount of time and money in nuclear power, which has consistently proven to be a source of misinformation and contention. I mention this hesitance because I believe it has crippled popular understanding of nuclear power and, in fact, cultivated collective unenlightenment regarding the truth about nuclear power. By setting aside the scientifically verified information available or even (in certain cases) denouncing the usage of nuclear power, the political climate of the U.S. has directly impacted the receptivity of Americans to the potential of nuclear power. Throughout the semester, the question has been raised—by both my classmates and myself—as to why there is uncertainty, on the government’s behalf, regarding nuclear energy. It’s a difficult question, especially when the benefits of nuclear energy are considered.
If we consider the dilemma macroscopically, we should examine the promise of nuclear energy on an international level. Throughout our semester in this science and technology course, we have learned about countries around the world that are adapting to the energy demand by investing time and money to create new sources of energy. Japan and France are two countries in which nuclear power has become increasingly popular, and China, among other nations, has demonstrated its plans to expand the presence and usage of nuclear power. In terms of using nuclear power to address the energy crisis, France is a forerunner. France has consistently been a focus in our studies, since the country has developed a power program in which nuclear power is the primary source of energy and will undoubtedly secure their future when sources of fossil fuels are further and further depleted. Even environmentalists within France are encouraged by the fact that nuclear power plants produce very little waste, are not conducive to the greenhouse effect, and generate no contaminating gases. The fact that France was the greatest energy exporter in the European Union as of 2012 and that the country has some of the cheapest energy prices (commercially and industrially) within the E.U. is only further proof that the country is well equipped to tackle an uncertain, fossil fuel-free future.
Considering nuclear power on a microscopic level, here in the U.S., is equally telling. As Americans, there are several issues of which to take note, the first of which is the fact that nuclear power has already established a presence in this country. The trip to the Indian Point energy center demonstrated this and raised other key issues of which I was not previously aware. In fact, there are 6 power plants in the state of New York, and 65 commercially operating power plants with 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states throughout the country. It is clear that nuclear power already has demonstrated itself to be a considerable factor in the U.S., in terms of energy production and consumption. The fact that the Indian Point facility produces approximately 30% of the state’s electricity indicates that, despite many New York residents’ skepticism, nuclear power is viable and effective. Perhaps even more surprising to some will be the fact that the U.S. Navy has been using nuclear reactors on their ships for over 50 years without any major incidents.
The problem reveals itself when we consider the fact that the government, remaining open but tentative to a considerable nuclear presence in the country, has focused on expanding the presence of renewable energy by devoting time and resources to research solely for this purpose. Hydroelectric and wind power, with the greatest power capacity and greatest percentage of annual energy production, have emerged as key competitors in the renewable energy field. With this, I am not suggesting that renewable sources of energy be completely dismissed in favor of nuclear energy; instead, I am proposing a fair balance. In terms of my knowledge about renewable energy, I am most familiar with biofuels, since it was my responsibility in this fall’s science and technology seminar to research and deliver a 30-minute presentation regarding the past, present, and future of biofuels. I mention my study of biofuels because I believe it is pertinent to my understanding of the role that renewable energy, as a whole, should play relative to nuclear energy.
Biofuel production, my research demonstrated, is on the rise—and this reflects a general trend in the production of renewable energy. Its demand will increase over time as will its presence; it is estimated that worldwide production will increase from approximately 35 billion gallons as of 2013 to roughly 65 billion gallons in 2012. Worldwide demand will also increase across the map, also increasing by the billions. Not surprisingly, this can be seen as incentive for and an explanation of the increasing governmental efforts to investigate the promising field of renewable energy. I do not find this problematic, except in one respect: potential.
Renewables have great potential, and I do believe that the future will and should involve an investment in renewable energy. Nonetheless, the potential is limited. For example, last year alone, nuclear power provided the U.S. with over 180 times the amount of energy that solar power did. This one of several factors, all of which indicate that renewable energy cannot fully address the energy crisis. First and foremost, renewables rely on natural resources, which, as is common knowledge, can fluctuate in availability and even energy yield, and this directly impacts their dependability. Nuclear power, however, involves an invariable process, which consistently yields energy when protocol is observed. Secondly, an very much related to my first point, the cost to maintain a nuclear power facility is foreseeable, since operation, maintenance, and capital costs can be anticipated. Renewable energy costs, however, are not always as cut and dry. Thirdly, nuclear power plants can adjust their yield as necessary, while the power generated by renewables—such as solar and wind power—is sporadic. Fourthly and most importantly, renewable energy is largely inefficient; the cost necessary to create and maintain the plants for different kinds of renewable energy would be tremendous in order to successfully address the energy needs of the entire country. It should also be noted that, although nuclear energy receives fewer subsidies from the government than renewable energy, the latter is far more reliant on these subsidies than the former. These are a few key points, among various arguments, that demonstrate the limitations of the usage of a renewable energy program as a single solution to the energy crisis.
Renewable energy does show promise, however, as one facet of the answer to the energy crisis. Time and money should be invested in researching and harnessing the benefits of natural resources; they are environmentally conscious in the sense that they cater to regional, natural resources. Nonetheless, in a world in which natural resources have endured great abuse, it is important to consider renewables as only a single part of the solution to the energy crisis in order to keep renewable sources renewable (here, I refer to biofuels especially) and to maintain the efficiency of production. This increase in the research and usage of biofuels, however, must be paralleled by a growth in the construction of nuclear power plants. As I argued before, nuclear power is cheaper, more efficient, and more environmentally sound than renewable sources of energy, which suggests that more resources should be spent on expanding nuclear energy as opposed to renewable energy.
There are those who would argue that neither renewables nor nuclear power could address the energy crisis in the U.S. Arguments such as these favor the current, dominant energy sources—primarily petroleum, coal, and natural gas— and claim that they are capable of future sustenance. It is clear that each of these energy sources, however, lacks the capacity to address the long-term energy needs of the U.S.
Petroleum is a problematic source of future energy for various reasons. Arguments for petroleum include its compactness as a fuel, its ability to withstand high temperatures, its multipurpose functions (such as the fact that it can serve as a lubricant and function as a solvent), its relative affordability, and its considerable historical presence and usage (which, for some, is indicative of reliability). Nonetheless, a closer examination of the reality of petroleum production and consumption reveals a great deal about its capabilities as a future source of energy. First, petroleum has a charged history, as well as political implications today—as can be seen from current events—which suggests that it is not sufficiently dependable for future energy needs. Not only is petroleum in abundance in politically unstable areas but also importing it involves a complicated transportation process that, when it is not executed properly, can result in oil shortages or spills. It is also important to note that the international political climate will dictate future prices of petroleum, and this will undoubtedly affect future demand and consumption. Secondly, there are numerous environmental concerns regarding the continued consumption of petroleum, which generally focus on oil’s CO2 emissions. Other environmental concerns include the pollution of water due to oil spills, sulphur-contaminated air from oil, and the impact of strip mining (which entails widespread damage to the natural habitat). Thirdly and most importantly, petroleum supply is decreasing and nonrenewable. There is less and less oil available worldwide since resources have been depleted; in approximately 50-150 years, there will be virtually no petroleum left. Clearly, petroleum is not a viable solution to the slowly intensifying energy crisis.
Coal is equally problematic as a potential source of energy for the future. There are certain immediate advantages that should be noted: it does not have the political implications that petroleum does, it is easily accessible and very cheap, and it can be easily transported globally. Nonetheless, the long-term disadvantages outweigh the short-term benefits. Like petroleum, this fossil fuel has an environmental impact that cannot be denied. Its CO2 emissions, coupled with the fact that it releases various other pollutants—such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—that are responsible for harmful phenomena like acid rain, demonstrate the negative effects of coal usage. The fact that coal production relies on strip mining, similar to petroleum, is also concerning. Historically, coal has had a problematic relationship with health and safety, and this still exists, to a lesser degree, today. Mining for coal remains a dangerous job, despite the precautions that have been established, and one of the most prominent illnesses associated with this work is “black lung” (which is, essentially, coal dust accumulation in the lungs). Moreover, accidents occur yearly, including mine collapses and explosions, which render coal mining a hazardous occupation. The greatest drawback, however, for the usage of coal as a future source of energy is supply. Similar to petroleum, resources for coal are rapidly declining due to increased consumption over time and it is a nonrenewable fossil fuel. These concerns illustrate that coal, much like petroleum, is not a feasible explanation for future energy demand.
Natural gas poses a somewhat different set of problems. There are various benefits to using natural gas as source of energy, but they are outweighed by considerable drawbacks. The greatest benefit is that natural gas is cheaper than other fossil fuels and even the electricity used by home appliances. Those in favor of natural gas usage emphasize the fact that natural gas does not emit any soot or sulfur dioxide when it is burned, and its overall emissions are lower than both coal and oil. The fact that it is a multi-purpose fuel is also advantageous because it enables the fuel to be used in homes (for example, for cooking and heating) as well as for generating power and powering vehicles, among other things. It is also abundant and available worldwide, which contributes to its affordability, and it is the cheapest fossil fuel source for converting hydrogen. Nonetheless, there are several complications to take into account. Environmental concerns are generally prevalent in the discussion of fossil fuel usage and natural gas is no exception; this fossil fuel emits carbon dioxide and monoxide (among other compounds), despite the fact that these emissions are much fewer than those of other fossil fuels. The contamination of drinking water also forms a significant part of the criticism against the usage and production of natural gas. The possibility of odorless gas leaks is also tremendously concerning because, when a large quantity of natural gas has accumulated, it can cause illnesses and even explosions. As with other fossil fuels, natural gas is a nonrenewable source of energy that will be depleted over time, indicating that it is not a permanent solution to the energy crisis. Clearly, the U.S. must look elsewhere if it wishes to address and resolve the problem of the decreasing supply of locating renewable, efficient, and affordable sources of energy.
Below I have included a chart, which is taken from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s website and portrays the history and projected future of primary energy consumption in the US. I have incorporated this chart into my essay as I conclude my discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of various sources of energy because I would like to present a realistic portrait of the “landscape” of energy consumption—both past and present. There are only a few differences between historical and future consumption, and the changes are that the consumption of oil and other liquids and coal will decrease, and the consumption of liquid biofuels and renewables will increase. Note that nuclear energy consumption will remain the same.
This chart is a forecast of the future and a reflection of current trends, and it is as much a demonstration of what the future holds for the U.S. as a reflection of the general mindset. Although it is encouraging to see that coal and oil will be used less, the fact that nuclear consumption has not varied over time suggests that nuclear power is not expanding its presence, as it should. By including this prediction of future energy consumption, I hope to urge my readers not to support this prognosis but to reconsider (and potentially alter) it by carefully considering the benefits and drawbacks of the energy sources I have discussed in my essay.
I have spoken little concerning my actual visit to the Indian Point energy center in order to fully explore and discuss the ideas and information that prepared me for that visit (and which were also reinforced during our visit). First and foremost, I very much appreciated the fact that a whole day, a Friday during mid-November, was devoted to the trip to the Indian Point energy facility. Although it took considerable time to arrive at the energy center from Lehman College (the trip seems especially long for me, since I already spend over an hour commuting to school), I was glad there was a full day set aside to learn more about the facility and its inner workings.
The facility itself was extremely secure and well kept. I thought one of the most interesting parts of the trip were the security checks, which occurred twice, and the presence of video surveillance and armed guards. This certainly established a feeling of security and confidence that was wholly different from what my years of watching The Simpsons had taught me to expect. Our tour guide, Patrick, remained friendly and talkative, and he repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to answer and encourage even the most elementary questions. He conducted a tour of certain parts of the facility, in addition to presenting a lecture on nuclear power and the Indian Point energy center itself, and made clear that o topic was off-limits, unless it involved disclosing highly classified information. Patrick touched on the history of nuclear power, as well as tragedies such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, with great sensitivity and understanding; he was able to provide considerate and intelligent explanations for phenomena like safety breaches and radioactivity to a group of curious college students, and this was immensely reassuring. His honest and thoughtful discussion of nuclear power—in particular, its promise and its safety (when the appropriate measures are adhered to)—encouraged me to truly assess the information I had gathered over the semester about nuclear power and reconsider its benefits. When I left the Indian Point, I realized that speaking to Patrick that day was the first time I had ever spent time speaking to and learning from an expert who had actually devoted the majority of his life to working in the environment of a nuclear facility. The information he dispensed came with years of experience, and its value was immense; it has no doubt altered my perspective and shaped the complexion of this essay, which I hope will not only accurately reflect my own appreciation for the value of nuclear power but will also encourage others to reconsider their own ideas regarding the nature and potential of nuclear energy within the U.S.
Works Cited
US Energy Information Administration. (2012). US Primary Energy Consumption, [chart]. Independent Statistics & Analysis: Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4690.
