Is nuclear power the way to go?
Nuclear Power? What is nuclear power and why do so countries pursuit it or ask to be ban? According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency nuclear power is created through a process call fission where uranian atoms are seperate which leads to the release of energy (paragraph one, epa.gov, 4/22/2011). The first major investment on nuclear power was seen in the Manhanttan Project. The results of the Manhanttan Project were seen on the island Japan during World War Two, where two nuclear bomb were used to end the war in the pacific. Ever since that event, nations have put their best scientist to make create nuclear power, some invest on nuclear research for alternative method of energy or
…show more content…
Furthermore, the article suggest that reprocessing will lead to the construction of more low-level nuclear facilities (paragraph eight, ucsusa.org, 04/05/2011), which points more facilities are going to be builted unnecessarily, leading to the contamination of more land. The idea of nuclear power facilities to recycle their waste hurts the enviroment.
By recycling nuclear waste, it contributes to the contamination of the planet by adding more nuclear hazard. The waste that keeps on pilling on is that of uranium and plutonium which are two substance that takes a long period of time to stop being radioactive. In the article publish by the Union of Concerned Scientist, it is mention that after nuclear waste is recycle it produces differences types of nuclear waste and thus adding more twenty years to the present nuclear waste, plutonium being one those nuclear waste (paragraph eight, ucsusa.org, 04/05/2011) meaning that extra waste is being created by nuclear facilities which increases that amount of nuclear hazard that already exist. Furthermore, uranium is another substance that is being mas produce by reprocessing which leading to more contamination. In the same article, they mention that uranium is the substance that is mass produce by reprocessing which causes contamination (paragraph eight, ucsusa.org, 04/05/2011), it clearly shows that reprocessing it leading for this hazardest element to pollute more the earth. Lastly, in
Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.
Should nuclear energy be used? Throughout the article “Nowhere to go”, the author objectively reviews the use of nuclear energy, using the text and graphics to provide details that demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Nevertheless, the consequences of using nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. One of these consequences is that working with nuclear energy can cause many health problems. The text states, “Dangers include radiation sickness, cancers, and other health problems. High level radioactive waste can present hazards ‘for a million years or more,’ Kamps says.” This means that using nuclear energy can cause health problems for future generations.
• Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.
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.
Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.
Nuclear waste is a problem that is not going to just disappear so the idea of reprocessing nuclear fuel to control the waste that is left behind is a good way of dealing with it. Some opponents of reprocessing nuclear fuel say that doing this will create a risk of terrorists stealing the plutonium that is separated using this method. The problem with this theory is that the plutonium that is produced is not considered weapons grade plutonium. The other problem with reprocessing nuclear waste opponents say is transporting the material once it has been separated. This would be a vulnerable time for accidents or for someone to try and steal the plutonium for some type of nefarious purpose. Proponents of reprocessing the nuclear waste say
In the following, the benefits and drawbacks of generating electricity with the use of nuclear energy will be discussed.
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 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.
The nuclear power objectors call nuclear waste into questions, and the nuclear defenders argue that it is not a big thing. They argue that the technologies are developing, and through reprocessing technology 97% of raw materials could be recycled to produce more electricity. Left over three percents can be safely stored. If a typical French family spends nuclear energy in their entire life, then the nuclear waste is only size of golf ball. This is possible, because one gram of Uranium could produce the amount of electricity as one tone of fossil fuel, and also future technology may reduce more nuclear waste or eliminate them all (Comby, 2010).
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.
Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a
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.
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.
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?