What Are The Pros And Cons Of A Nuclear Power Station In Heartlepool

Purpose: The purpose of this speech is to inform others about the production, utilizations and impacts of nuclear energy.

In both of the supporting articles over the use of nuclear energy, there is a proficient amount of strengthens and weakness in both arguments. Though the use of the background and prior information given in the preclude, it allows the reader to understand the basics of nuclear energy and the way both authors are approaching to present their ideas. Using this analytical preface most of the information presented, allows the reader to have an idea on which side is more appealing to their choosing. Allowing the reader to get a perspective on both sides of the argument will insight them on the information presented and will ultimately give a substantial amount of evidence to back their claims.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent of the power in the U.S. (Loewen 53). In addition nuclear has an exemplary safety record. The group of people who oppose nuclear and promote renewable power sources, hereafter termed environmentalists, do so for very sound reasons. However,

Nuclear energy was likewise discovered to be useful in naval tactics and in sourcing electricity. As technology has significantly advanced and knowledge has expanded beyond measures, the realm of nuclear engineering has indeed achieved scientific milestones. In practice of modern times, nuclear energy is manufactured within power plants, capable of supporting an outstanding amount of electricity (World Nuclear Association). However, this limited method of energy production is thought to be dangerous. Nuclear engineering is certainly one complex subject and is foreign to the majority of the world population. Within a nuclear power plant, reactors are employed to force uranium ions to undergo the process of nuclear fission; nuclear fission is the separation of atoms, the smallest unit of matter. This splitting of uranium ions releases energy, thus, producing usable heat. Heat is crucial to not only nuclear energy production; rather, heat is necessary in all power plants. Such will then become the steam that gyrates turbines. These turbines are coupled with electromagnets which, finally, yield electricity (How Nuclear Reactors Work). One foremost flaw of nuclear power is the consequential radioactive waste that must be monitored for a long while following disposal. Nevertheless, as resources upon this planet are surely depleting, original forms of energy production are mandatory. In consideration of such, nuclear power plants have proved to be both efficient

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

Nuclear power, the type of energy that sits on the edge of humanity’s greatest hopes, and its darkest fears. With a country such as the United States continuing to expand its industry, housing, agriculture and commercial buildings there is a need for more and more energy each year. Nuclear power is one of the many ways the United States gets its energy. Nevertheless, it is one of the most controversial means of energy production. The main concern with nuclear energy is the nuclear waste that is produced along with it. The potential health and environmental risks posed by nuclear waste is what truly scares some of the American public. Therefore, is the amount of energy output by nuclear power plants outweigh the potential risks that nuclear waste can have on human health and the environment? Nuclear power plants should be kept as a means of generating energy for the United States, however, transportation and storage of nuclear waste needs to continuously be checked for safer alternatives.

Being a supporter of nuclear power in today’s society could be potentially risky. So conveys author William Tucker who believes there is no other alternative, even after the Fukushima disaster (228). Tucker uses a plethora of examples and statistics to demonstrate how nuclear power could be the best alternative; moreover, he doesn’t specify which energy technology is most dangerous, but states that they all are in different ways. All alternatives have risks that determine how harmful they can be; however, it is up to the people to decide how much they are willing to risk. Progressing on from the risks, Tucker claims that we need nuclear power “if we are going to maintain our standard of living” (228). As others try to disprove this statement,

Nowadays, governments are facing two main problems about electricity: resources of fossil fuels are running out and countries need to diminish their carbon emissions. Nuclear is seen as the most common alternative. Nuclear currently supplies 19% of the UK’s electricity and 11% in the world (NIA,2015). In the UK, all but one of the current nuclear plants are due to close by 2023. Should the UK replace their nuclear plants by a new generation of nuclear stations? Because of the accidents, costs and problems of nuclear waste, some people are opposed to this possibility. Their solution would be that Britain could achieve 85% of its power via renewable energy by 2030. This essay will examine if nuclear power is the best alternative to fossil fuels while continuing to supply the rising demand for electricity in the UK. It will be argued that there are advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power and that other alternatives should be considered.

While, coal-burning plants release tons of ash into the atmosphere, which is a cause to acid rain (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). Additionally, coal-burning plants release a toxic gas, which has been associated with cancer; moreover, the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to cause the release of carbon dioxide and global warming (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). On the other side of the spectrum, nuclear plants have been known for their issues in the leakage of toxic wastes, creating a risk of harm to the individuals who live around the area (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). Moreover, nuclear reactors create toxic wastes and until now the plans for long term storage for these wastes have not been created, which leaves the question of if there will ever be a plan implemented (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015)? Illustrates that an investment in a nuclear plant might be riskier than making an investment with a coal-burning plant.

This nuclear power plant that was proposed, brought about the problem that it is too dangerous. A senior researcher at George Mason University states, “...let's hope that the current nuclear disaster

Nuclear power has been one of the largest contributors of energy for the past fifty years. With the end of World War II, research into nuclear energies shifted away from war applications to simply using it to power the world. Nuclear power was regarded as the never ending energy source that would bring an end to energy problems and power the whole world. For many years it seemed to work with no problems; however, that was a short lived reality. As problems with nuclear energy came to light, many believed it was a better investment for the future to research and develop new energy sources or just continue using fossil fuels. Many believe the risks and downsides of nuclear power outweigh the benefits. However, there are still many advocates of nuclear power that believe it is the best energy source for the world for reasons such as its large production of energy, their belief that it is not a major harm to the environment, and their belief that it is better than the other energy alternatives. However, in spite of these beliefs and facts, research into nuclear power opposes the belief that nuclear power should be the main contributor of power because they are expensive to build and can result in a catastrophic situations.

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.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?