Nuclear Energy As A Solution For Nuclear Power

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.

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).

America’s nuclear energy plants are — by a wide margin — the nation’s largest source of carbon-free power. They produce clean, reliable electricity as well as well-paying jobs. Although several dependable nuclear plants have closed in recent years for economic reasons, nuclear energy is getting a fresh look for its ability to produce vast amounts of power without emitting greenhouse gases. And with new reactor designs, both big and small, scientists and technologists are re-engineering the future of nuclear energy for everyone’s benefit.

The United States should use nuclear energy to help supplement energy demand because it’s cost-effective, safer for the environment, and a more reliable source of energy than any of the other types of fuel. Some of the topics of interest are cost-effectiveness, recycling options, long term storage options, environmental protection technologies currently being used, and a breakdown of how nuclear energy out performs other sources of power year round.

Nuclear power plants are a safe, clean and reliable source of energy production. They are uniquely qualified to meet the growing demand for energy in the USA.

“No one in the United States has become seriously ill or has died because of any kind of accident at a civilian nuclear power plant.” says Joe Barton. This is a highly controversial topic where there are many conflicting opinions. Some people believe that these plants are too dangerous to exist while other think that they are the edge of tomorrow. When analyzing it from a purely statistical and analytical standpoint, nuclear energy is clearly worth the possible risks they pose.

The responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear energy production throughout the world is in the hands of people. But, the layperson concept may be a bit askance because many consumers may view the issue of nuclear energy only in terms of price considerations. This is a discomforting notion considering the myriad of risks involved, especially in light of the consequences that have occurred at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. While no comparison exists in the United States (U.S.) that would enable U.S. citizens to understand the human and environmental toll that results when something tragically wrong occurs; it remains well past the time for us to consider real solutions to our energy needs that do not have the potential for such wide-spread devastation. Regardless of the various technologies and engineering acumen used to operate nuclear power plants, they are only as effective safety-wise as those who are charged with maintaining security.

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

From the electricity that kept my home warm and powered the lights at school to providing employment to both my parents for the past 30 years, nuclear power has been at the center of my life growing up. In Wadsworth, Texas, the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company has been a way a life thousands of people by providing nearly 1200 jobs and providing carbon-free electricity for over 2 million people. However, this is just one example in just one state in the United States. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 11 percent of the world’s energy comes from nuclear power plants and for 13 countries it provides more than 25 percent of their country’s energy. However, even though nuclear power has made its mark as a global competitor in the realm of green energy, incidents such as 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have created a global sense of uneasiness. On top of this underlying fear, the huge building costs of new nuclear plants has lead to a stunt in the growth of nuclear energy even though operation costs for nuclear energy at $0.0219/kW is less than that of coal ($0.023/KW) and almost half that of gas ($0.0451/kW) (IER). Even though nuclear energy has had some setbacks, it is still safer (short-term and long-term) than the carbon-producing alternatives. The question at hand is whether we should take an utilitarian perspective by giving more serious consideration to the long-term effects of the carbon-emitting energy sources and whether we can overcome our

On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, around 4 a.m., there was a failure in the water pumps at the Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania. This led to a partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all conducted particular studies of the radiological consequences of the accident. Approximately two million people were estimated to have received an average of one millirem of radiation, and there was a maximum dose to a person who was at the site of 100 millirem (“Backgrounder”). To put this into perspective, an exposure from a single chest X-ray is two to six millirem (“Doses”). However, this put fear into the minds of politicians and others all across the country. What the people do not know, though, is nuclear is better. Instead of using fossil-fuels and wind power, America ought to switch to nuclear energy to power the country because it is safer, cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable than the current ways of producing energy

This report is formed to examine the effects that nuclear energy has brought upon the United States of America. As over the years, local state government as well as the public citizens of America are having sceptical doubts on the long term effects that nuclear energy would bring to the states.

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 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.

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.