Nuclear Energy Disadvantages

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).

Throughout this world, we use various equipment that need certain energy requirements in order for them to run properly. Two of the utmost imperative sources of energy in our world today come from coal and nuclear power. Still, a great deal of citizens of this world are unaware of the impacts of nuclear power whether it be positive or negative due to the fact that nuclear power has not existed as long as coal power has. However, as nuclear power becomes a major resource of energy, we as citizens must determine which is more fitting for not only us, but our environment. As this report continues on, you will come to find the history of each of these resources along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Concluded from this research was the concept that nuclear power is worthier for America as a whole. Included below are the specific points as to why nuclear power is far superior for American citizens and our environment. However, the main notion to be taken from this report is the view that we need to become further educated on the energy resources present in this world and be able to determine how we can become more efficient and contribute less to climate change in the long run.

As we know, greenhouse gases have been one of the major causes for climate change. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the primary source of greenhouse gas emission is from electricity production which is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels. Over several decades, mankind has spent countless amount of resources, trying to find a suitable energy substitute for fossil fuels in order to stabilize climate change. Unsurprisingly, due to its powerful nature, nuclear energy has been one of the most popular and developed technology around the world. In this paper, I am going to discuss the fundamental flaws in nuclear energy, and the potential danger it could bring to not only the mankind today, but also tomorrow. In addition,

Nuclear power plants provide a substantial amount of electricity, but could also have catastrophic consequences if put in dire situations. These power plants are often built in countries like France, where there is more opportunity and less risk. The idea of constructing a nuclear power plant, is not one that is very advisable at the time. The proposal was taken into consideration, but brought about some interesting factors. Building a nuclear power plant is too dangerous, way too expensive, and burdens too much of a risk to build one in our city.

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.

Although waste disposal is one of the bigger problems, the cost to keep nuclear energy running is also a problem since it is not yet competitive with coal and natural gas(1). Many costs are attached to nuclear energy including capital, plant operating costs, and external costs. The capital costs include the cost of the site, manufacture and labor, and the financing of the nuclear power plants. Building the nuclear reactors needed to generate electricity involves thousands of workers, huge amounts of materials, such as steel and concrete, and several systems provide electricity, ventilation, information, control and communication. The cost of the construction of the plant and the cost of the manual laborers make up most of the capital cost. Operating the plant is expensive too. Operating, maintenance, and fuel are all included in operating costs. Fuel management and final waste disposal are included in the fuel cost. The external costs are the costs that come environmentally and health wise. Any effects that the plant has on the environment, any effect that has to be fixed or payed for is included in the external cost. However, the external cost of nuclear power is much cheaper than the cost of fossil fuels, which the World Nuclear Association explains, “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average”. (4)Although nuclear energy has many costs, the effect on the environment is much less than other forms of power, other than wind. Nuclear power is the only energy producing industry which takes full responsibility for its waste and cost, according

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.

Fossil fuels have been the main source of energy for many years. Nevertheless, because of the pollution they cause, people are seeking new sources of energy every day. As many believe, nuclear power is the power of the future. However, while many people are excited about nuclear power, there are certain drawbacks. Although there are possible benefits to nuclear power, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

As each year passes, more and more electricity will be made as a result of increased nuclear power plants around the world. The economic benefits of nuclear energy are equally advantageous as the environmental aspects.

When clean and renewable sources of energy are discussed, the focus is usually centered around energy productions like solar and wind. But an important source of energy is often overlooked, nuclear energy. The viability of nuclear power plants has been a topic of debate since their inception, with many both for and against it. Many countries are broadly opposed to nuclear energy with poor public opinion resulting in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in their country. With the potential dangers of nuclear energy and the historical disasters that have accompanied it, many are resistant to continuing its development. For my paper I will be addressing why even with historical catastrophes, forgoing nuclear energy would be a mistake.

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.

Nuclear energy should not be the solution for our energy crisis problem because of the catastrophic possibilities it may cause. About 20% of our nation’s electrical use is supplied by nuclear power per year. It is a main source of energy because of how cheap and effective it is and the government has declared it “safe”. Several countries are starting to increase their dependence on nuclear energy because of its high energy output and the power to bring electricity to everyone’s home. Although nuclear power has conveniences like this, the dangers brought by it are eminent. The probability of another accident like Fukushima or Chernobyl are present in any nuclear plant and increase the risk of causing severe harm to those that live in a close range to these plants. Millions of people would die not only from the initial explosion, but also the after effects like nuclear fallout that would cause radiation sickness. In conclusion, nuclear energy should not be used because of the hazardous waste it produces, the unsafe storage of the hazardous waste, the possibility of fatalities, and the cost to produce these plants.

Energy crisis and climatic strain are two sides of one coin. You can never handle one without affecting the other considerably. The world is in search for more efficient and climatically friendly ways of producing electricity. However, we cannot say that we have achieved it all yet. Nuclear energy is one of the most reliable means of generating electricity. It is efficient with the number of kilowatts a nuclear plant can produce in a day. On the other side, accidents at a nuclear plant are way beyond fatal. Side effects are too lethal as well if safety measures are not taken into account. Health, safety, and environmental concerns are some of the most issues that make nuclear plants delicate. The radiations emitted from these plants can be adverse health wise. With all this summed up, the cons of nuclear energy overweigh the pros. Let's delve into its details and determine the same.

Energy is an integral part of our modern-day lives, but do you ever stop to think about the consequences of our constant energy use? The production of energy from fossil fuels, and even alternative energy sources, has numerous downsides from air pollution to the use of copious amounts of land and even the death of energy workers. Nuclear energy has a prominent effect on reducing these downsides of energy production. Despite this, the use of nuclear energy has stagnated or even diminished in parts of the world. Nuclear energy should be utilized more often because it is better for the environment, as it produced less air pollution and uses up less land, and also leads to fewer deaths than other sources of energy.

Nuclear Power is, in the timeline of history, relatively new and as such many do not understand how and why it works. Nuclear power creates energy using the process of nuclear fission, the releasing of energy creates steam, which then rises up from the reactor, turning turbines in the process and generating electricity for use. For example, one kilogram of coal produces 8kWh of energy, one kilogram of uranium 235 produces 24,000,000 kWh of power. This allows for much more power to be produced over time compared to other energy sources. This cost would lead to an overabundance and therefore the price of power would decrease, allowing those who previously went without power to have it. According to Steven Fetter in the article, “How Long Will