critique_tanooja

Why nuclear power is not really a better option than renewable energy

Tanooja Rai A0082986L

In “Why renewable energy is a worse option than nuclear” (Kenny, 2012), Andrew Kenny

concludes that renewable energy has served as a double edged sword and it may not necessarily

be always beneficial to us unlike nuclear energy. He postulates that while renewable energy does

have its forte given its usefulness in various applications, it disappoints in its ability to generate

grid electricity and has detrimental effects on both the environment and economy. Firstly, by

emphasizing on the comparative disadvantage in the utilization of wind energy -- a form of

renewable energy, Kenny argues that wind energy is ineffective and inefficient in electricity

production as compared to nuclear energy, substantiating it with the vast disparities in the

electricity production between Koeberg Nuclear Power Station and Darling Wind Farm.

Secondly, he claims that the credibility of electricity production by wind energy is far weaker

than nuclear energy based on a study by John Muir Trust which highlights unpredictable

fluctuations in wind electricity production. Although his reasons seem convincing, the false

assertion planted by Kenny that nuclear power is the safest form of energy technology outweighs

this initial attempt on glorifying nuclear power. There are strong factual incidents where nuclear

power has induced great pandemonium and led to widespread devastation. Moreover, Kenny has

made a couple of questionable claims in the discussion of the sustainability of nuclear power and

non-toxic nature of nuclear waste.

Kenny highlights that nuclear power has by far the safest record of any energy technology. He

cites the Fukushima incident where despite the severe dilapidation of the nuclear reactors, the

Why nuclear energy is not really a better option than renewable energy

Page | 2

radiation from the accident produced no casualties. He places a blanket label on all future

accidental exposure to the radiation from the nuclear reactors by assuming they would not pose

as a deadly threat to the affected region, with no convincing substantiation. Inevitably, Kenny

has conveniently based his stand on merely one positive testimony accompanied by sweeping

generalizations. In fact, in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster that took place in 1986, 28

out of 134 severely exposed workers and firemen perished as a result of acute radiation

syndrome (UNSCEAR, 2000). Kenny has clearly downplayed the serious consequences of such

accidental radiation exposures. Furthermore, given nuclear power’s shameful safety record with

high radiation exposure issues still affecting countries like Japan till today - radiation readings

hitting as high as 2,200 millisieverts [mSv] per hour (McCurry,2013), Kenny has clearly

exaggerated his claims on nuclear power being the safest form of energy. In addition, in his

attempt to advocate that renewable energy is less safe than nuclear power, Kenny has made a

hasty generalization mentioning that thousands of lives have been lost in renewable energy

sources accidents recently.

Kenny also asserts that nuclear energy can be deemed as a long term solution to meet our energy

needs given that the earth’s minerals are rich in uranium and thorium. An important assumption

underlying his stance is that the rich amount of uranium and thorium, well required for the

production of nuclear power, is proportionately distributed to all parts of the world. However,

the global distribution of uranium and thorium is greatly uneven, with Australia having the

substantial part of the world’s uranium of 31 percent, Kazakhstan at 12 percent and Jordan and

Mongolia possessing only 1 percent of the world’s uranium (World Nuclear Association, 2012).

Having said that, Kenny has clearly failed to widen his perspectives to consider the rationale of

exclusivity on earth wherein such exclusiveness of earth’s minerals could entitle mineral-rich


Page | 3

countries disproportionate economic power in the use of nuclear power. Furthermore,

exploitation of such minerals may also ludicrously result in a monopoly of uranium and thorium .

In addition to that, if the whole world completely turns to nuclear power to meet their energy

demands, the supplies of usable uranium ore would deplete within a few short decades,

preventing countries from achieving self sufficiency in energy production. This clearly

contradicts Kenny’s claims that “nuclear power is sustainable for the remaining life of the

planet” (Kenny,2012).

Kenny also argues that nuclear wastes can be easily and efficiently stored, without causing any

negative externalities to the environment. On contrary, he mentions that wastes from wind are

highly poisonous, long-lived and deadly. However, he casually disregards the fact that nuclear

wastes can remain radioactive for thousands of years and render radioactive dumping sites

inhabitable. His argument that the mode of storage of nuclear waste has no serious repercussions

is myopic. Specialists have highlighted high potential of environmental pollution in countries

like Kyrgyzstan where high volumes of radioactive wastes are stored (IRIN Asia, 2008). They

have indicated several contributing risk factors such as natural disasters and structural

maintenance at dumping sites that could lead to radioactive leakages into transboundary river

basins, raising the potential of possible contamination spread across the Central Asian region. In

fact, more insidiously, to avert the high costs of preventing such adversities, the Fukushima

Diichi has resorted to dump radioactive wastes into the sea, affecting the marine lives

(Forbes,2013). Therefore, Kenny is clearly making an unjustified generalization.

In conclusion, Kenny has adopted a generally biased positive view of nuclear power in contrast

to nuclear energy. While Kenny does provide some valid points on the reliability of nuclear

power, he has underestimated the negative repercussions of nuclear power. A more balanced


Page | 4

treatment of factual data could have made his argument more credible instead of basing his

conclusions on his own favourable observations. In addition, Kenny fell short of providing

substantial real life examples to back the absolute positive picture that he painted of nuclear

power in being a clean and safe form of energy. He should not have neglected the benefits

brought forth by renewable energy and instead examine its significance in greater detail for a

more holistic argument. All in all, his defense for nuclear power is imbalanced and by far

exaggerated.

(Word count: 907 words )


Page | 5

References

McCurry, J. (2013, September 4 ). Fukushima radiation leaks reach deadly new

high. theguardian, Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-radiation-deadly-new-high.

UNSCEAR. (2000). Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident(Annex J). Retrieved

September 5,2013, from http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

Kenny, A. (2012, August 14). Why renewable energy is a worse option than nuclear. Business

Day, Retrieved from http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2012/08/14/why-renewable-energy-is-a-

worse-option-than-nuclear.

World Nuclear Organisation . (2012, August ). Supply of Uranium. Retrieved September 5,2013,

from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-

Uranium/

IRIN. (2008, September 10). KYRGYZSTAN: Nuclear waste dumps threaten environment.

Retrieved September 5,2013 from http://www.irinnews.org/report/80271/kyrgyzstan-nuclear-

waste-dumps-threaten-environment

Worstall, T. (2013, April 9). Solving The Fukushima Radioactivity Problem: Dump It All Into

The Ocean. Forbes, Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-fukushima-radioactivity-

problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/.

http://reffor.us/index.php





Page | 6

Appendix 1

Tool’s Name Evaluation criteria

Google

Search

Engine

(theguardian

news

website)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-

radiation-deadly-new-high. A more detailed

overview of the

criticality of the

Fukushima

radiation leaks

The detrimental

effects of this

leakage on the

general public and

the environment

supported by

statistical figures

and factual

contents

Credibility of the

source

Relevance of the

source to my

argument

Under the

References

section of the

WNO

website

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

Credibility of the

report to address

the issue of the

Radiation of

Cherbonyl incident

and the mortality

rate.

Availability of

statiscal figures and

factual contents to

substantiate my

argument

Datas that oppose

the Kenny’s weak

arguments

Navigation

tool within

WNO

website

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-

Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

Availability of data

to illustrate the

disproportionate

distribution of the

uranium supply in

the world

Credibility of

source and author

Google

Search

Engine

http://www.irinnews.org/report/80271/kyrgyzstan-nuclear-waste-dumps-

threaten-environment

Souces to

substantiate my

argument that

nuclear waste is

still detrimental to

general public and

environment

despite its easy

storage.




Page | 7

Google

Search

Engine

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-

fukushima-radioactivity-problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/.

The severity of

nuclear waste

dumping and the

negative

repercussions


to substantiate my

argument

Crebility of source

and author


Page | 8

Appendix 2

Annotated Biblography

1) Reference: McCurry, J. (2013, September 4 ). Fukushima radiation leaks reach deadly

new high. theguardian, Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/fukushima-radiation-deadly-new-

high.

Summary: This news article addresses on Fukushima nuclear accident and highlights the

deadly nature of this nuclear power as well as the negative repercussions that come along

with the radiation leaks. The article also acknowledges the government intervention in

Japan in this dire condition of Fukushima Daiichi to salvage the situation.

Evaluation: The article reports some statistical datas to illustrate the severity of the

current condition of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its surroundings. The

article adopts a neutral stand and it is very analytical in its approach towards reporting the

incident.

Reflection: I believe the statistical datas and factual statements found in this article ,

would provide a strong framework to justify my arguments against Kenny’s claims.

2) Reference: UNSCEAR. (2000). Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident(Annex

J). Retrieved September 5,2013, from http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

Summary: This report established by UNSCEAR, provides a very thorough analysis of

the Chernobyl nuclear accident. It highlights on the physical consequences of the

accident on the general public and the environment, the amount of exposure of the

radiation in the affected regions, the short term and long term detrimental impacts on

health, induced by the accident.

Evaluation: The report is very analytical and detailed, addressing the various concerns

that resulted from the Chernobyl accident. Furthermore, the findings in the report are

strongly supporting by statistical figures, data, graph plots and factual statements from

credible sources.

Reflection: I believe this source would provide useful data and figures to address my

argument against Kenny’s claims that nuclear power is safer and cleaner form of energy.






Page | 9

3) Reference: World Nuclear Organisation . (2012, August ). Supply of Uranium. Retrieved

September 5,2013, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-

Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

Summary: This source illustrates the disproportionate distribution of the supply of

uranium across the globe. It also addresses the expenditure on uranium exploration, to

achieve mineral resources sustainability and salvage the situation of depletion.

Evaluation: The source has clearly depicted the disproportionate supply of uranium

across the globe through factual data and graph plots. It is also very analytical in his

approach towards addressing the concerns of mineral resources depletion such as

uranium and thorium.

Reflection: I believe this source provides much relevance to my argument against

Kenny’s claims earth’s minerals are rich in uranium and thorium, with the strong

illustration that these minerals are disproportionately distributed across the globe.

4) Reference: IRIN. (2008, September 10). KYRGYZSTAN: Nuclear waste dumps threaten

environment. Retrieved September 5,2013 from

http://www.irinnews.org/report/80271/kyrgyzstan-nuclear-waste-dumps-threaten-

environment

Summary: This source illustrates the detrimental impacts that nuclear waste dumping

induces on the environment. It also highlights the high potential for environmental

pollution via this dumping sites especially in situations of natural disasters, which serves

a contributing factor to radioactive contamination, rendering the land inhabitable.


Page | 10

Evaluation: The source sites compelling examples and credible sources to substantiate its

reports towards nuclear waste dumping.

Reflection: I find this source useful to act as a credible source to substantiate my

argument against Kenny’s claim that nuclear wastes are safe. I can utilize the factual

statements which can act as compelling examples to support my arguments.

5) Reference: Worstall, T. (2013, April 9). Solving The Fukushima Radioactivity Problem:

Dump It All Into The Ocean. Forbes, Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-fukushima-

radioactivity-problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/.

Summary: This source the solution that Japan had adopted to salvage the radioactivity

issue that resulted from the Fukushima nuclear accident. This solution of dumping the

radioactive nuclear wastes into the sea is highly criticized in this article as not being a

feasible solution to such radioactivity problems. The source also highlights the negative

repercussions of this action – loss of marine lives, degradation of habitat for these marine

lives as well as environmental pollution.

Evaluation – This source is taken from Tim Worstall’s perspective with the regards to

dumping nuclear waste into the sea to solve the radioactivity problem. It is generally

portraying a negative view of such an approach and critically analyzing it with substantial

evidences and statistical figures.

Reflection: I believe this source is useful in enabling to take into account a perspective

from a credible source and utilized its factual statements and substantial evidences to

generate a stronger argument in relations to the criticality of nuclear waste dumping.


Page | 11

6) Reference: The Times Editorial Board. (2013, August 25). Nuclear waste can’t wat. Los

Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-yucca-

mountain-nuclear-waste-disposal-20130825,0,3109839.story.

Summary: This newspaper article highlights that by seeing nuclear power as a solution to

the worsening climate change, President Obama is being critically oblivious to the

detrimental impacts of nuclear waste disposals which can further escalate the problem of

climate change. It asserts that although Yucca mountain is deemed to be the safest

medium for nuclear waste storage, the very transition of nuclear waste to this medium or

other repository can be seen as a menace to the environment due to the wastes’ deadly

radioactive nature. This report is being critical towards the President’s approach in

solving climate change.

Evaluation: This source, although providing convincing and logical statements, is very

generalized in its arguments with minimal compelling examples and substantial

evidences.

Reflection: This source may not be useful in writing my critique towards Kenny’s

claims. Although it does addresses the detrimental impacts of nuclear wastes and places

nuclear power in the bad light, the source does not provide any substantial evidences,

statistical figures or compelling examples to support my arguments against Kenny’s

claims.

7) Reference: Wikipedia (n.d). Nuclear Power. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power


Page | 12

Summary: This source provides an in depth explanation on nuclear power, highlighting

its origins,life cycle, the environmental issues that are induced by nuclear power as well

as the controversial debate on nuclear power

Evaluation: This source is too analytical. The contents of this source are too heavy with

too many referencing and evidences, some of which may be irrelevant to my critique on

Andrew Kenny’s claims.

Reflection: Given the vast amount of information and difficulty to source out relevant

information, I have reached to the conclusion of not utilizing this source in my academic

essay.

critique_tanooja

Documents

nuclear energy

nuclear kenny

nuclear reactors

glorifying nuclear power

form of renewable energy

renewable energy page

utilization of wind

koeberg nuclear power