America Needs Nuclear Power Essay

Something always curious and provoking happens in science writing. Gwyneth Cravens is an author of five novels and many publications, and one who studies a topic in great detail. She creates an enormous work about nuclear energy for the last decade. Cravens’s research in her last published book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy has led her to do an about-face on the issue. In her article “Better Energy” which was published in May 2008 in Discover magazine, she disputes and claims that nuclear energy is currently best alternative and should be considered as our future energy source. At the beginning “Better Energy” she commences by introducing James Lovelock, who was greatly

However, now this concern of being exposed to these sorts of particles has waned and people are not as worried as in the past. Do to having stronger plants for this sort of energy to be produced, these plants have been going on for years and it just keeps improving with use. The 103 U.S. nuclear power plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate for 40 years, and can renew their licenses for an additional 20 years (Eser notes April 4th). To date, 30 have received license renewal and 40 more are expected to have their licenses renewed. Eventually, virtually all U.S. nuclear plants are expected to apply for license renewal (http://www.nei.org).

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

Debates about the use of nuclear power plants in New York City have received much attention in the last few years. Many scientists believe that the use of Nuclear Power would be beneficial for New York City, since an abundant amount of electricity is necessary to fuel the Big Apple; however, one primary argument espoused by opponents is that the use of nuclear power will bring about negative effects like radiation exposure, debt and may allow the power plant to become a potential target for terrorist attacks. This paper describes selected constitutional issues related to the use of nuclear power plants with a focus on the risks it poses and concludes with implications for alternative sources of energy.

The production of nuclear energy is not as safe and clean as some say that it is. The Oxford Research Group released a report providing evidence that supports this point. It is clear that nuclear power plants do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide when they operate, but it is the mining of uranium and the storing of waste that produces the carbon dioxide pollution.

To many times people talk about the negative side of nuclear energy, and how it can impact the environment around them, but too few talk about how nuclear energy had improved their lives. In truth nuclear energy is responsible for creating a fair amount of revenue in the local economy, state revenue, and federal revenue. For every dollar a nuclear power plant spends it generates an estimated 1.04 in the community, 1.18 in the state, and a 1.87 for the nation (Nuclear Energy Institute). With such a great revenue it would be detrimental to the nation if nuclear energy was disbanded, and deemed a great threat to national security. Nuclear energy generates roughly $16 million dollars annually for the state it resides in, and about $67 million dollars annually for the nation (Nuclear Energy Institute). That revenue generated for the state is used for the construction of new schools, improved state wide emergency response training and response times, and a whole multitude of things that just can’t compare. To add to this nuclear

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

Countless nuclear power plant accidents have been occurring quite frequently since its invention. Some accidents have even been underestimated,

Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.

Plants being constructed by today's standards are 1,600 times safer than early nuclear plants, in terms of the predicted frequency of a large radiation leak”(“Risk of Meltdown”). Would you feel safe living one mile from something than was constructed 1,600 times safer than previous construction? If you would, then you are going to support our debate, research, and presentation is for nuclear energy. Throughout this project we have been collecting data, some supported nuclear energy others didn’t. Recently we did a Geiger counter lab there, it’s shown how much radiation we are exposed to. The dangerous amount of radiation is 5 rems luckily the school only had .0001 to .001 rems per hour. An upside is we do not rely on fossil fuels, and we do

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

Nuclear power plants are considered far more dangerous than others because of their power source: the element uranium 235. When these atoms are split, they release an abundance of

Provided that countries can acquire uranium, they can create clean and safe energy. Generally nuclear power stations are safe. The various barriers and numerous safety measures make it very unlikely for catastrophes to transpire. The most up-to-date plants have a reactor core failure 1 in 1 million years. The proposal of building a plant has to be scrutinized intensely so that the barriers and structure ensure a redundant job in

Global demand and consumption of energy is at an all time high; the world needs a safe, efficient, clean, and high producing source of energy production. The solution is something we already use for energy production, Nuclear power. From the beginning of nuclear energy there has been concerns over the safety of the power plants and its impact on the environment. With climate change and more accurate information on nuclear power the tide is shifting in its favor. This paper will explore the positives of nuclear power, political change on nuclear power, safety of the energy source and new technologies associated with the nuclear power process. Most importantly are the risks associated with nuclear power worth it? Research suggests that nuclear power is safer now more than ever and has less of an impact on the environment than coal or oil. Public support and misconceptions over the years have been up and down due to political agendas and those who are misinformed about nuclear power. Individuals who are involved in the energy field are in favor of nuclear power and building more plants with newer technology.

It is frequently said that nuclear energy is cheaper, safer and more efficient than fossil fuels, and without the effects on air pollution, so it is often seen as a solution to the energy crisis. In 2000, approximately a sixth of the global electricity power was provided by nuclear power. (Boyle, G et al 2003) However, over the last year, there has been the serious accident with a nuclear power plant in Japan, which has draw attention on the nuclear issue once again, as it recalled the devastating disaster of Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. It needs to be asked whether it is safe enough to be