Kai Lewis-Yunus 

Physics 
Mr. Huston 
2-14-20 
 
 
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy 
 
 
 
Nuclear Energy was first discovered in 1934 by Enrico Fermi, and the first power plant was 
created in 1942, Chicago. Nuclear energy is generated from the nucleus of an atom that is split open. 
Because inside the nucleus of an atom there is a strong force and energy, this energy can generate 
electricity. There are two methods known to release nuclear energy, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion. 
Nuclear fission is much more common, as nuclear fusion has not been perfected yet. This harvesting 
process is done in a plant, and it works by using the element of uranium. When shooting neutrons at 
uranium they split open causing the nucleus to crack. This releases energy, also known as fission 
products, from the nucleus and also other neutrons that insert themselves into close-by uranium 
atoms. This is called the chain reaction. This reaction generates heat, which warms up the reactor’s 
colling agent, which is made from 
liquid metal or molten salt. The 
creates steam which turns those 
turbines by making a current. 
These drive the generators that 
therefore create electricity. 
Because of the climate change 
crisis caused by fossil fuels, 
generated by coal, oil, and natural 
gas, people are searching for 
better sources of energy. Nuclear 
is one very popular option, and 
like all forms of energy is complex 
in its behaviors, benefits, and downsides.  
 
There are many pros to nuclear energy which is why it is one of the main energy and power 
sources being considered by scientists today. Personally, it would have positive effects on the 
livelihoods of people. A big concern with renewable energy is the cost. To run nuclear power plants 
doesn’t come with a considerable price tag, and is in fact, cheaper than coal and gas. It would also be 
effective when used in daily businesses such as schools and homes, as it produces a large amount of 
energy to generate electricity. On a national level, it has many positives over solar and wind energy. A 
problem with sources like these is that they are environment-dependent and therefore can’t work on a 
global scale. However, nuclear energy is not intermittent. They have the ability to run anywhere 
without much-needed maintenance, making it more realistic than other forms of energy. These power 
plants can also be built in urban areas. In addition to this, it is proven that nuclear energy ranks last in 
death-per-energy unit produced. This creates more accessible energy and power for the population no 
matter where they are. There are also far fewer accidents or dangerous mishaps for people than that of 
coal mines. For these many reasons, nuclear energy is idealized more than others as if put into effect 
on a major scale it would benefit people’s daily lives.  
 
The thing that is most important and discussed is the effects on the environment. Because we 
are now forced to deal with the repercussions of oil and gas energy, which are detrimental to the earth, 
the wellbeing of the environment is of utmost importance. The main benefit of nuclear energy is that it 
doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. It is renewable, as it is sourced 
naturally and can be constantly reproduced. The byproduct of using nuclear energy doesn’t produce 
any methane or Co​2​, and in fact, reduces Co​2​ levels.  
 
Though nuclear energy comes with a lot of pros, there is an equal number of cons. When one 
hears the word “Nuclear” it is often not in good terms. Nuclear power and energy have been abused 
and caused much damage on this Earth. In addition to the evil intent of nuclear power, downsides 
come along with its benefits. For one, while it doesn’t require a lot of human intervention and money 
to run, the power plants are quite expensive to build. They are technically more complex than coal 
mines and need to be met with very specific designs. The construction of a plant requires advanced 
specialists, that take years to build and has large financing costs. A recent virtual test to estimate the 
cost was $6bn. This will eventually cost a lot of money in tax dollars which would negatively impact the 
population. On a more severe scale, there is the matter of nuclear waste. It has proven to be disastrous 
when released on people. The byproduct of producing nuclear energy is radioactive and has high levels 
of gamma radiation. This radiation can cause cancer, birth defects, other abnormalities, and even 
death when combined with different variables. While this can be stored, storage is also a concern. 
Nobody has been able to create a solution to long-term waste storage. There are three main options 
being discussed, onsight storage, long-term deep storage, and repurposing the fuel. While reusing 
sounds like the perfect solution, a consequence is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The byproduct 
of nuclear waste is plutonium (radioactive chemical by-product) which can potentially be used to build 
weapons. When it comes to weaponizing nuclear power we have seen terrible outcomes. In addition to 
this, only a little of reprocessed waste can be used again, which just leaves useless radioactive 
materials. It’s also expensive to recycle. Because of all the complications, long-term storage is the only 
reasonable answer. All countries, with the exclusion of Finland, do on-sight storage, which we already 
know is quite dangerous. In terms of life-threatening dangers nuclear energy has some of the most 
severe outcomes.  
 
When it comes to the environment there are many benefits, as it is antitheft of the common 
energy fuels we use today. It will not contribute to fossil fuels and therefore benefit climate change. 
However, as we know from history, a nuclear meltdown can occur. These meltdowns occur from 
gamma radiation,​ ​which destroys the surrounding environment. There are three dominant meltdowns 
in history, the “Three-mile island” in 1979, “Chernobyl” in 1986, and “Fukushima” in 2011. All of these 
incidents caused damage to the surrounding environment, 
Chernobyl being particularly tragic. Radioactive iodine 
contaminated much of the agriculture and grazing animals, 
aquatic animals, and land animals, which created defects and 
dying populations of living creatures. Not only were there 
radiation effects on the animals, but fires were created from the 
meltdown, and the outcome greatly impacted the agricultural 
resources in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.  
 
Overall, there is no single answer as to if the full-scale usage of 
nuclear energy is positive or negative. On one hand, where it 
doesn’t contribute to our impending doom of climate change, it 
has the power and potential to wreak havoc if not used correctly and perfected. One thing most people 
agree on is that we can’t continue to use the same harmful sources for energy. Whether the answer to 
that problem is nuclear energy, is up for debate. With further research, studies, and developments we 
hopefully will have a better understanding and most efficient. 
 
 
Bibliography 
 
 

National Geographic Society. “Nuclear Energy.” ​National Geographic Society​, 9 Oct. 2012, 
www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/nuclear-energy/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20is%
20the%20energy,in%20an%20atom's%20dense%20nucleus​. 

“Nuclear Energy.” ​Encyclopædia Britannica​, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 

Chernobyl 30 Years on: Environmental and Health Effects - Think Tank​, 

Unwin, Jack. “Nuclear Power: The Pros and Cons of the Energy Source.” P
​ ower Technology@2x​, 
15 Feb. 2021, ​www.power-technology.com/features/nuclear-power-pros-cons/​. 

André Gonçalves - Editor & Head Of English Market After studying and working in HR, et al. “Is 
Nuclear Energy Clean And Ecological?” 

​Youmatter​, 10 Feb. 2020, 

“Exodus from Kiev: Aftermath of Chernobyl Nuclear Accident - Archive, 5 May 1986.” ​The 
Guardian​, Guardian News and Media, 5 May 2020, 
www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/exodus-from-kiev-aftermath-of-chernobyl-n
uclear-accident-archive-1986 

“Chernobyl Nuclear Accident.” ​Chernobyl: 3. How Has the Environment Been Affected by the 
Chernobyl Accident?​, ​www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/3-chernobyl-environment.htm​.