Cross 1

Kevin Cross

Atomic Energy

May 5, 2010

On April 12th, 2010 President Barack Obama called for a nuclear security summit. The

primary reason for the summit is the fear of “the potential nuclear ambitions of non-state actors
 Cross 2

or terrorist groups.” President Obama, as well as many other of the world’s top leaders, are

concerned about the spread of nuclear technology because of the potential for catastrophic

destruction. The concerns about nuclear proliferation have existed long before the 21st century.

These concerns go back to the middle of the previous century, and their roots are grounded

before that

Nuclear reactions were first observed when Ernest Rutherford observed that highly

radioactive elements were converting into other elements (Heilbron 34). In 1917 Rutherford put

the world into a nuclear era when he split an atom of nitrogen to discover the untold energy

hidden within the atomic world. The power that he found with that fateful test would come to

drastically shape the course of human history. James Chadwick later discovered the neutron and

Enrico Fermi bombarded uranium, continuing the Rutherford’s research. This atom splitting was

eventually given a name: Nuclear Fission. Later on in 1932, Mark Oliphant observed the

opposite nuclear reaction. It involves the joining of lighter atoms to create a larger atom and is

known as nuclear fusion, the very process which powers the stars in the universe (Braams 2).

These atomic ideas drastically changed the scope of physics, and led to the creation of quantum

physics to deal with these subatomic matters.

The world’s most powerful nations sought to harness this newly discovered force to

power their nations, but also to wage terrible war. Unfortunately, at the same time as this great

nuclear progress, the second world war was in full swing. This led to all of the resources being

diverted to nuclear weaponry. The United States, being the only nation in a relatively stable state

during the war, launched into full out atomic research after President Franklin Roosevelt

received a letter from Albert Einstein advocating it’s study. This research team would go on to be

called the Manhattan Project, headed by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. On July 16, 1945 the
 Cross 3

goal final came to fruition when the Trinty test led to the first atomic detonation (Rhodes 642).

The United States had finally created a weapon that could end all life on Earth. Oppenheimer

quoted a phrase from the Bhagavad Gita which signaled the weapons coming:“Now I am

become Death, the destroyer of worlds (Rhodes 676).” The world had officially entered the

atomic age. With nuclear weapons at the United States’ disposal, president Harry Truman

decided to drop an atom bomb on the Japanese. Two bombs were dropped on Japan, one bomb

known as Little Boy was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, August 6, 1945. The second bomb,

called Fat Man, was dropped on the city of Nagasaki three days later. After these attacks the

second world war quickly ended and the atomic bomb was known to the world (Rhodes 749).

The awesome display of power utilized by the United States showed the world that

nuclear reactions could successfully be harnessed by humans, but America was not so keen on

giving this information out freely. Due to fear of nuclear holocaust, the United States military

took control and decided to keep the nuclear research under the tightest of surveillance. This

paranoia lead to deep feelings of distrust between the Soviet Union and America, which were

further deepened when the Russians managed to detonate an atomic bomb in 1949 (Rhodes 772).

With two nations now possessing weapons of mass destruction the world was thrown into the

cold war, a period where political ties were either with the western world or the Soviet Union.

During this time frame though, nuclear research funds began to be diverted into using these

reactions to generate electricity. While the United States managed to first obtain electricity

through nuclear fission with their EBR-I station, it was the Soviet Union that created the first

plant to supply people with power. The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was completed on June 27,

1954 and produced 5 megawatts of electric power (Bodansky 42). The dream of cheap abundant

energy was finally becoming a reality, or so Lewis Strauss claimed in 1954 when he said “Our
 Cross 4

children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... (Bodansky 32)”

Ironically, the trials that the world would face concerning atomic power were just beginning, and

Strauss’ comment would be a source of misinterpretation, and later on distrust.

In a contrast to what the United States felt was the “evil Soviet Empire”, president Dwight

Eisenhower commissioned the Shippingport nuclear power plant on May 26, 1958 under his

Atoms for Peace program. The Atoms for Peace program called for America to peacefully spread

it’s knowledge of atomic power throughout the states, and to nations around the world. In order to

ensure that the atomic weapons were not used again, information concerning it was divulged

more freely (Bodansky 517). With the Atomic Energy Commission being established, nuclear

power had then become deeply intrenched into the American conscious. Popular culture depicted

the new atomic age, and there was a certain trepidation about it, but certainly a sense of

excitement. The government funded the creation of several more fission plants with the hopes of

creating a nation gone nuclear. Again, fission is the breaking down of larger atoms to form

smaller ones. This power was used in factories by using the element uranium 235. After this

material is mined it is then enriched to create the unstable uranium 238 atom, the true ingredient

in nuclear fission reactors. The uranium 238 is used to create plutonium which breaks down into

other elements, thus creating heat energy used to heat water and create steam used to rotate

turbines similar to most other electricity generation factories (Bodansky 141). After the uranium

is all depleted it leaves behind a radioactive waste, but at the time the Atomic Energy

Commission believed that over 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by the year

2000 (Bodansky 33). These impressive ambitions were dashed after the Three Mile Island

incident occurred. The Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station located in Dauphin County,
 Cross 5

Pennsylvania experienced a partial core March 28, 1979. Over five days the public was uncertain

about what the outcome of the plant would be. There were talks of a complete melt down but the

situation was taken care of and a catastrophe was avoided. After the fear and anxiety caused by

such an accident the American public immediately shifted to an anti-nuclear stance. The citizens

were not willing to risk radiation poising and so nuclear energy was placed on the outskirts of

public desire. The government decided to cancel all forthcoming plants that were scheduled for

construction after the accident.

Now while the United States was dealing with their own nuclear situation, other powerful

nations were realizing a nuclear potential. Along with the Soviet Union a handful of other nations

reached this potential, among them include the United Kingdom, France, China, India, and later

on Pakistan (Bodansky 42). With the world now fully coming to grips with atomic power, a

nuclear future seemed likely. A catastrophe in Chernobyl, Ukraine revealed how unmanaged

nuclear power could seriously harm those who use it. On April 26, 1986 the Chernobyl Nuclear

Power Plant experienced a complete meltdown, and the most severe nuclear power plant accident

up to the present (Bodansky 372). The meltdown created a radioactive cloud which spread

throughout Europe, but did most of it’s damage in the areas surrounding Chernobyl. The after

effects experienced after were catastrophic. Increased radiation in the air caused the cancer and

birth defect rates of the area to go up. Thousands of people today are still dealing with the cancer

they inherited from the Chernobyl disaster.

After the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island situation the worlds populace had become

somewhat skeptical of nuclear power, and began to investigate the negative aspects that came

with nuclear energy. One of the most glaring disadvantages of nuclear power is the inability to
 Cross 6

handle the waste produced by it’s reaction. These fuel rods emit radioactivity that is highly toxic

to human beings and the environment. Not only are they highly radioactive but they remain so for

thousands of years, and scientists are still unsure of how to deal with them (Bodansky 231). The

process known as vitrification seems to be the safest, as it transmutes the waste into a stable state

and is stored. Vitrification is extremely expensive and so companies often look for cheaper means

to dispose of the waste. Burying the waste underground, known as geological disposal, seemed

likely, but possible sites for such disposals are hard to locate (Bodansky 266). In the United

States the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository was recently deemed inadequate by Energy

Secretary Steven Chu who stated “the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for

storing reactor waste (Hebert).” Along with the disposal crisis, critics claim that new nuclear

fission plants cost far too much, with each plant costing billions of dollars to build, and that

decommissioning a plant is highly expensive as well. The greatest argument against the plants

still remains the effects the reactors can have on people and the environment. Scientists are

concerned that the temperature pollution reactors are causing to the waters are having drastic

effects on the ecosystems, and individuals are afraid of the possible increases in cancer rates and

birth defects (Bodansky 377). While the mining of the necessary uranium is causing drastically

negative health affects for those mining it. Uranium prices are also currently on the rise, and to

meet current demands countries are dismantling their nuclear weapons to obtain uranium. Unless

better methods to obtain uranium are developed than nuclear fission will be out of the question.

Even though there is a large deficit of confidence that many people have regarding

nuclear fission reactors, there are many people who are strong supporters of it as a viable, and

even necessary means of securing energy. As of 2009 there were 435 nuclear reactors worldwide
 Cross 7

accounting for 6.3% of the world’s energy consumption, being used for 16% of the world’s

electricity usage ("World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements"). These numbers

indicate that nuclear power is still a contending force. People who champion nuclear power claim

that the energy potential possible from fission reactors could outmatch any other possible means

of energy production, and should be the primary means of generating electricity. Nuclear power

has been seen to be successful in France where it is the primary means of electricity production.

75% of the energy used in France is from fission reactors and the cost of electricity there is one

of the lowest (World Nuclear Association). In the current environmental situation where green

house gases as seen as one of the biggest enemies, fission reactors are a welcome energy

producer, as there are zero green house gases emitted by the reactors. So the reactors can be seen

as an environmental aid to an extent. The world seems to be undergoing what is being called a

“Nuclear Renaissance” with interest in nuclear energy ascending. Companies such as Avera

Nuclear are hiring hundreds of people to be trained for the estimated “180 new plants to be built

in the following decade. (The Times)” For areas that are not rich in fossil fuels, fission offers an

alternative which does not require large amounts of fuel to maintain the energy creation, and so

developing countries that can afford the reactors will have a cheaper means of obtaining the

power they need.

While the method of utilizing nuclear fission to generate electricity is currently in place,

there has been another idea that has been around for almost as long, but the time has not yet

come for it to be implemented. Nuclear fusion is that alternative. The desire to use nuclear fusion

has been a dream of nuclear physicists since it’s discovery. The United States began it’s research

into fusion power during the 1950’s, which is the energy that Strauss claimed would be almost
 Cross 8

free if harnessed. With it’s massive energy potential, nuclear fusion seems like the possible

savior. Fusion, as stated before, is the fusing of two lighter atoms to create larger atom. Stars are

the universe’s natural fusion reactors, and so fusion is one of the primary energy constants that

exist. With each fusion reaction 17 MeV is released, which is far greater than any other chemical

reaction (Braams 6) . In order to start up a fusion reaction two ingredients are needed. First, the

fuel source for fusion lies in Hydrogen atoms, specifically it’s isotopes deuterium and tritium.

Secondly, heat needs to exponentially increase to millions of degrees celsius in order to start the

fusion reaction. In order to take care of the fuel source, deuterium and tritium, scientists have

discovered that deuterium is available in water and naturally occurs in 0.0154% of all bodies of

water (Braams 17). This may seem like a small amount, but because of the abundance of water

on the Earth’s surface it is ample. Tritium is unavailable naturally and so it must be manufactured

using a combination of deuterium and lithium and spark the reaction. Now, for the device which

generates the heat to start the reaction is where fusion power gets especially complicated. The

two types of fusion reactors most likely to be utilized are the tokamak design and laser inertial

devices. Tokamak reactors were the first reactors which attempted to harness fusion power for

electrical purposes. The basic concept behind the tokamaks is that plasma is pumped into the

donut shaped reactor which contains the raw materials and these atoms are flung around the

reactor at incredibly high speeds by magnetic induced inertia until they smash into one another,

causing the fusion (Braams 129). There have been many famous tokamak reactors around the

world including the Joint European Torus (JET), but none have managed to achieve an energy

output as high as the energy input. There are still plans for future plants, including ITER which

will be an international fusion system used to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion power
 Cross 9

(Braams 250). The other design, laser inertial devices seem to be a more hopeful alternative to

maintaining a fusion reactor. Laser inertial devices pump the atoms with high intensity lasers

until the fusion temperature is reached, and recent advancements in laser technology have

indicated that this may be the most feasible way to conduct fusion. A future project known as

HIPER is set to beginning construction in 2010 in the European Union and will study this idea of

fast ignition (HiPER Project).

With all the talk concerning nuclear energy most of the world has been championing all

of the benefits that it represents over conventional fission power. The first thing most fusion

advocates talk about is the vast energy difference in net energy created by fusion power compared

to any other source of power. Rising population is a huge concern for the present, and the only

way to support the vast expected increase on the Earth’s surface is to have something to provide

all of these people with electricity. Not only does fusion generate a great deal of energy, but the

raw materials necessary to start a fusion reactor are abundant on the Earth’s surface. As before

stated, deuterium exists in all bodies of water as a naturally occurring hydrogen isotope. The real

problem exists in getting the tritium, which is the most essential ingredient as of now. This

situation is solved by including lithium into the nuclear reaction to form tritium. With the current

stores of lithium and a worldwide energy consumption similar to today, it is estimated that the

lithium reserves could last for around 3000 years. A more expensive option exists in using

nothing but deuterium to start the reaction. This reaction is more difficult to achieve, but if it is

managed the deuterium reserves are estimated to last 150 billion years (Onega 4). To follow the

energy possibilities of fusion, the environmental impacts are also favorable. The only thing that

nuclear reactors emit besides heated water is the element helium, which is known to be harmless
 Cross 10

to the environment. This means that no green house gases are emitted, thus helping combat

global warming and the use of fossil fuels. With all of this energy abundance it is thought that

fusion could also stop the fresh water shortages that will be the after effect of rising ocean levels

and increased temperature. Much of the energy generated could go to desalination plants to make

the saline water consumable. Along with that, the cost of creating new fusion reactors is also

inelastic, meaning that the price of the plants do not go up because of unfavorable location.

These plants are not dependent upon the surrounding areas for it’s energy creation unlike sources

such as wind and solar power.

Even though there are many top physicists championing nuclear fusion as the next great

human leap forward there are those who believe otherwise. Most skeptics about fusion power

believe that it is science fiction, and that all the time and money being put into it’s development is

being wasted. More anxiety about fusion results from the idea that perhaps humans are not

supposed to have such power, that perhaps fusion power is to dangerous to safely be used be

people. The waste by product is also a continued fear. These concerns are generally unfounded,

and are the result of people not understanding nuclear fusion to the fullest extent. The reality of

fusion energy safety is that it is more dangerous to work at a conventional coal plant than it

would be to work at a fusion reactor (Onega 8). By product waste produced by the reactors is still

radioactive, but the amount of waste produced is far less than for fission reactors. The waste

remains radioactive for a period of time that is far shorter than what is produced by fission,

remaining dangerously radioactive for about 300 years compared to the thousands of years for

fission waste. Fears concerning a catastrophic melt down are also ungrounded, because if the

specific environment that needs to be maintained for the reaction is the slightest bit wrong the
 Cross 11

reactor shuts down (Onega 8). One concern that has yet to be addressed is that of local area

negative health effects. Since commercial fusion reactors have yet to be build it is unknown as to

how they will affect the environment in it’s immediate area. Aside from that fusion energy

appears to be a safer, more reliable, and far more productive means of generating electricity.

As of the new millennium, nuclear energy still remains a topic of debate. President

Obama has recently declared some 12 billion dollars in order to build more fission reactors

throughout America. While the United States and other nations still cling to the hopes of fission,

it is scientists in the European Union who realize the need for fusion power. By the year 2000 the

European Union had invested almost 10 billion euros into fusion research, and continues to invest

some 750 million euros a year almost as much as they invest in all other forms of alternative

energy combined. Unfortunately, fusion still remains as dream, but a dream that many people

truly want to become reality. It is estimated that in order for fusion power to begin to go

commercial there will need to be an estimated 60-80 billion euros invested into the research over

the next 50 years. This may seem like a long time, but the future of fusion looks bright.

Hopefully one day rather than investing time and energy into fission reactors and fossil fuels, the

world will realize the potential for fusion and fund it to become the door to the new atomic age.
 Cross 12

Works Cited

Braams, Cornelius Marius. Nuclear Fusion: Half a Century of Magnetic Confinement Research.
Philadelphia, PA: IOP Publishing LTD , 2002. Print.

Bodansky, David. Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. 2nd. New York, NY:
Springer, 2004. Print.

Hebert, H. Josef. "Nuclear waste won't be going to Nevada's Yucca Mountain, Obama official
says." Chicago Tribune 6 Mar. 2009, Print.

Heilbron, J.L. Ernest Rutherford: And The Explosion of Atoms . New York, NY: Oxford
University Press Inc., 2003. Print.

HiPER. HiPER Project, 2010. Web. 1 May 2010.

Onega, J; Van Oost, G. “Energy for Future Centuries: Will Fusion be an inexhaustible, safe and
clean energy source?” (PDF) 1 May 2010

Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1986.
Print.

The Times, . "Areva rushes to hire workers as demand for nuclear reactors explodes."
Times Online, 29 Sep 2009. Web. 1 May 2010.

"Nuclear Power in France." World Nuclear Association . World Nuclear Association, 12 Apr
2010. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.htm>.

"World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements." World Nuclear Association. Web. 20
April 2010. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html>.