Argumentative Essay: Why Close TMI?

Although nuclear power cost the least for the amount of power it makes, it is still very expensive. To make nuclear power you have to build a nuclear power plant. To build a nuclear power you need millions of dollars. Not only that, you have to also run the nuclear power plant. To run a nuclear power plant you need to either mine the uranium and then refine yourself, or buy the uranium from another company. Once you have done this you need to run everything in the power plant, which cost money, and then pay your workers. Also when creating nuclear energy you create radioactive waste which need to be stored far away somewhere, under surveillance, to make sure that it does not ruin the environment. The owner of exelon, the one who owns Three Mile Island, said that they have lost around 800 million dollars in recent years. If exelon decided to change their mind they would end up losing even more money and eventually have to shut down.

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).

Nuclear power plants should not be built due to the biological effects it poses during a meltdown. Radiation is exposed to inhabitants during a meltdown but many people are not aware of the horrific effects. An example of this is explained in the article “Biological Effects on Radiation”. “The higher the radiation dose, the sooner the effects of radiation will appear…this syndrome was observed in many atomic bomb survivors in…1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident…of these, 28 died within the first three months from their radiation injuries. Two more patients died during the first days…” (2012).

Disposal of the high level nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power plants continues to be a big problem. It has been challenging and costly to find safe ways to store this waste. According to a report from the U.S National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the U.S. as of 1983 to decay to background levels (thinkquest.org). Who wants this amount of waste stored in the environment where they live? Currently in the U.S. nuclear power plants produce 3,000 tons of this high level waste each year (thinkquest.org). If nuclear power continues to be produced, this amount of waste will only continue to increase, causing a bigger dilemma as to what to do with the waste. As the waste is removed from the plant it still contains a high level of radiation. Exposure to radiation whether it occurs in the moving process or leakage from storage not only has a negative impact on the environment but also can pose a major health threat to humans. Based on the level of exposure, symptoms to humans can range from nausea and headaches to damage of nerve cells, loss of white blood cells and even death (think .org). The potential risk of exposure is not worth human life.

TMI would be so much better in the future than using fossil fuels. They are just really bad for our environment and nuclear energy is clean energy so it doesn't affect our environment unless an accident happens.The other really important thing is that if we shut down Three Mile Island then people will lose their jobs and maybe they won't be able to find a new home. There are so many reasons why we shouldn't shut down Three Mile Island and I hope you rethink the situation after you read this essay about to not shut down three mile

That is true, nuclear plant uses uranium to get energy, normally one gram uranium can generate 8000 times’ energy comparing to traditional fuel like oil or gas. According to Moore (2007), hydroelectric is largely built to capacity; meanwhile wind and solar power are unreliable to provide “baseload” energy especially in large city with huge demand. According to nuclear energy’s efficiency, proponents strong believe government should build nuclear plant to meet the increasing demand of electricity. Also, this group people say not only can uranium provide so much energy but also with no greenhouse emission.

The first reason it should be shut down is because of its high cost. The costs have been about 14 billion dollars just to make two new reactors and it is very difficult to make a profit. I understand that scientist are trying to fix the problem of pollution by using reusable resources, but the state will eventually be clean out of uranium to mine. This causes the state to fund the two nuclear plants producing no source of energy. On March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island had an accident that caused TMI-2, a generator system on Three Mile Island, to cease power production; however, TMI-1 is currently still producing power

There are many different opinions on whether we should continue to create nuclear energy or we should stop it. Some of the positive aspects are there has been no fatalities at nuclear power plants. Another one is nuclear power plants generate 20% of today power. Also nuclear energy is a clean power source with no pollution. Some negative aspects are creating these plants cost a lot of money. Another problem is we are running out of places to store waste. The waste puts off nuclear radiation

First and foremost Three Mile Island (TMI) is going through a debate on why it should close, or why it should stay open. In my opinion TMI should stay open for multiple reasons, all conclude with the Earth, and Money. When a small load is made in each Nuclear Power Plant makes it can generate 18 months of electricity for the area around it. This is wonderful for humans this means we will burn less Fossil Fuels and this means we can have them longer. It also means that we will not receive more pollution than we already have in the air. Another reason keeping this energy is that it saved 1.3 millions of lives. How does nuclear power save lives? Nuclear energy causes less air pollution, and this means 1.84 millions of lives are being saved, these

I think that TMI should not close because of how environmentally friendly nuclear power is. TMI is a good source of energy. it doesn't pollute the air and it produces less greenhouse gases. also it is cheaper to operate. A good thing is we have enough uranium to last for 70 to 80 years to keep it running. Nuclear power is more proficient than burning fossil fuels. It supplies jobs for people. It saved 1.8300,000,000, million people's lives.

The article is directly related to the debate is showing the pros about when the nuclear power plant shuts down due to winter storms it's still stable, safe, and there was no danger to the public. Then it tells us that the facility has fuel that can run emergency generators for ten days. How it connects to the project is by explaining what happens when a nuclear power plant shuts down. The nuclear power plant is stable and the systems worked like they were designed. Usually, when nuclear plants shut down or have a meltdown it's very dangerous and unstable.

Yet another problem with nuclear power is that people are just too scared of it. Many who have seen what the nuclear weapons can do or what a nuclear power plant disaster can do just will not let the construction or usage of a nuclear power plant or facility relating to nuclear power occur. In the film, “Living with Chernobyl” it states that both Yucca Mountain, a potential storing facility for nuclear waste and Rancho Seco, a nuclear power plant was shut down because of the people that protested against them. The people have the power and sure have the will to stop any nuclear power facilities and attempting to continue with a project may be risk in that it may never even get done. While some may believe that these people’s motives are ruled

Nuclear waste though, is not the only danger faced with this type of power production. Over

Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.

The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.