Peer 1:
Nuclear Power as an Alternative “Green” Fuel
Before doing this research, I already knew that nuclear power could produce a large amount of electricity without burning coal or natural gas. I also knew there were some risks with nuclear power, mainly nuclear waste and accidents. Because of that, I never really thought about nuclear power being considered a green energy source. Most of the information I knew came from school, news, and things I have heard over the years. After doing more research, I learned that nuclear power can produce electricity without releasing the same amount of carbon emissions that come from burning fossil fuels.
For the provided source, I evaluated the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, which published the article 3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable. I believe the source is credible because it comes from a U.S. government agency, but I also noticed some bias toward nuclear energy. The article mainly talks about the good things, such as low carbon emissions, less land use, and the small amount of waste produced. It does not really go into much detail about the negative side, like nuclear accidents, cost, uranium mining, and storing radioactive waste. Because the Office of Nuclear Energy supports the development and use of nuclear energy, I think that could have some influence on how they present the information. I would still trust a lot of the information, but I would also compare it with other sources before making my final opinion.
For my scientific research, I found a study by Ethan S. Warner and Garvin A. Heath called Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization. It was published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, and the researchers worked with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I think they are objective experts because they reviewed many different studies instead of only looking at research that supported nuclear power. Their research found that nuclear electricity generally produces much lower greenhouse gas emissions over its life cycle compared to fossil fuels. The researchers do not seem to have a direct financial gain from selling nuclear energy. Their benefit would mostly come from adding research to their field and building their professional work. This research changed my view some because I can see why nuclear power can be considered a cleaner option, even though it still has risks that need to be considered.
References
U.S. Department of Energy. (2022). 3 reasons why nuclear is clean and sustainable.
Warner, E. S., & Heath, G. A. (2012). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation: Systematic review and harmonization. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(S1), S73–S92.
Peer 2:
Honestly, I did not know much about nuclear power before this assignment. I knew that nuclear plants make electricity somehow and that they do not have smokestacks pouring out black smoke the way a coal plant does. Everything else I thought I knew came from movies and from news stories about accidents. Chernobyl and Fukushima are the two names I recognized, and both of those are disasters, so my gut reaction to nuclear power was that it is probably dangerous. I never went looking for information about it. It just came to me over the years from TV and from hearing people talk. So going into this, I had no real facts, just a vague feeling that nuclear is powerful and a little scary.
The first source I looked at was the article "3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable" from the Department of Energy website. The thing I noticed right away is that no person's name is on it. It was written by the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, so the group I am evaluating is the office itself. That matters because this is the part of the government whose job is nuclear energy. If nuclear looks bad, their funding and their purpose look bad too, so they are not a neutral party. I also checked where their facts came from, and a lot of the numbers came from the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the lobbying group for the nuclear power industry. Using the industry's own lobby as your proof is a warning sign. Nothing in the article struck me as an outright lie, but it left a lot out. It never mentions how expensive plants are to build, and it says all the nuclear waste would only fill a football field about ten yards deep without ever mentioning that this country still has nowhere permanent to put that waste. Leaving out the bad parts is still a form of bias, even when the good parts are true. Using the CRAAP test, it does fine on currency and accuracy, but it falls apart on purpose and objectivity, because the goal is clearly to sell you on nuclear.
Then I went looking for a real scientific paper. I found one called "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power," written by Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen. Both of them worked at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute. It was published in Environmental Science and Technology, a peer reviewed journal, meaning other scientists checked the work before it was printed. I think these two count as trustworthy experts because they are climate scientists at NASA and a university, not employees of a power company, so they do not make money if more reactors get built. The paper also includes a statement saying the authors have no competing financial interest. Their conclusion was that nuclear power has prevented around 1.84 million deaths from air pollution and 64 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions that would have come from burning fossil fuels instead. I will say that James Hansen is well known for speaking out publicly about climate change, so his reputation is tied to this topic even if his wallet is not. What made me trust the paper anyway is that the journal published other scientists' criticisms of it right alongside the authors' replies. That argument out in the open is the difference between real science and a government webpage that only tells you the good news.
The big takeaway for me is the same thing that showed up in my lab project. If you start with a source that has something to gain, you end up with a conclusion that has something to gain too. Checking who wrote it and who paid for it before you use it saves you from that.
References
Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(9), 4889–4895. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3051197
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021). 3 reasons why nuclear is clean and sustainable. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable
In your responses to your classmates, address the following:
- Please select two classmates to respond to who wrote on a different topic than you did.
- What was the most interesting thing about their post?