Nuclear Energy: Energy of the Future or Imminent Disaster

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).

In this world, all of our natural resources are limited, which creates scarcity. However, this does not stop people from consuming them, forcing people to look for an alternative. Electricity needs a fuel source, which for the moment, we use fossil fuels. People are now considering the use of nuclear energy as an energy source that is a tradeoff for renewables. However, nuclear energy is still considered controversial due to its costs and possible effects; on the other hand, nuclear energy can be the revolutionary change that can help with the climate change. Nuclear energy, like anything else, has its pros and cons, but before making a decision, one must compare the costs and benefits in order to make

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.

Nuclear materials can create heat and electricity, as well as being used in the development of weapons and medical needs. Heat from nuclear materials typically comes from nuclear fuel; used nuclear fuel will emit high levels of both heat and radiation. Such nuclear fuels are also used to create forms of energy such as electricity in many areas of the world today. As a weapon, nuclear material can be devastating to any ecosystem which it may come in contact with. Most commonly, plutonium (known to be used in North Korea) or uranium is used in the creation of nuclear/atomic weapons. A product called a research reactor is the typical starter kit for most of the world’s nuclear bomb programs. This research reactor serves primarily as a neutron source and is also called a non-power reactor because it does not generate power, such as the “power reactors” used to create heat and electricity. Nuclear materials are also used for medical needs, such as the commonly known “X-ray”, or the isotope, technetium-99m and molybdenum-99 shortages addressed in the House of Representatives vote in 2009. In this vote, the House affirmatively decided to reestablish the domestic

While this is true, there are ways to fix that problem and make the investment in nuclear power more reliable. Now safety, the people opposing nuclear power say that its very dangerous, giving access to nuclear capabilities and blaring targets to possible terrorists: “Nuclear power provides the basic ingredients for nuclear weapons, dirty bombs and provides an obvious target for terrorists...” (Climate Change - Nuclear not the answer). These arguments, however, do not go without their flaws.

While demand for energy continues to rise due the continuous need of energy in developing and developed countries and the fast decrease of natural non renewable sources of energy such as oil and gas, many countries face serious challenges regarding the security of their energy supply. As Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo said “the oil is the evil’s excrement” therefore we can legitimately wonder what is the nuclear energy. For

With the ever increasing population, [energy demand, and the need for alternative resources continues to increase.] Nuclear energy comes up as a strong contender by being clean, sustainable, and more consistent moreover than others in the renewables category. Even though those in the energy industry argue that the use of nuclear plants provides a stable source of power in a clean and renewable matter, in areas where other resources are available, the potential threat of nuclear meltdowns outweigh the positive benefits of nuclear energy as cleanups cost billions because of decontamination and unusable land so the number of nuclear power plants should be restricted so the risk of national and worldwide economic damage is minimized.

Nuclear power is one of the most controversial issues of today’s society. This stems from the fact that although nuclear power holds vast amounts of potential, it currently has many problems. One of the main problems is figuring out what to do with the waste. The waste itself is too dangerous to dispose of in any conventional way, so presently, most of it is sealed in concrete casks and put into storage (in bunkers) until it stops being dangerous. This might not seem like a bad idea at first, but the problem with this idea is that the waste won’t stop being dangerous for many, many years. There have to be better solutions to this problem.

Nuclear energy has been a topic of world debate since its invention, with both clear upsides and downsides the topic of universal nuclear energy use has been subject to controversy and public scrutiny, but also scientific and economic praise. The field of nuclear energy and its driving forces were originally studied in the time around 1895 and the technology was mostly researched as a weapon for the military, around the time of 1935-1945 nuclear energy research witnessed a major boom. As most know, in 1945 nearing the end of World War II the United States gave nuclear energy its first public showcase by dropping two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, after that point the U.S. wanted to change the way that the world look at nuclear energy, Mitchell Waldrop a leader in the study of nuclear energy stated, “Originally developed in the late 1940s as a compact power source for nuclear ships and submarines, the light-water design was adapted and scaled up during the 1950s, when the United States sought to put a peaceful face on atomic energy by creating a commercial nuclear-power industry.” (Waldrop, 2012, pg. 27) Nuclear energy since the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan has taken a severe impact in the form of public ridicule which would lead to decades of establishing the technology as safe and beneficial. After this point, around the 60’s and 70’s despite lower public option scientists continued to make an effort to make nuclear energy a feasible

At the start of the mid 1950’s, the world was introduced to a new, alternative source of power that would revolutionize the energy industry; this power became known as nuclear energy. Since that time, nuclear energy seemed to pave the way in efficiency and supply power to countless cities around the globe. However, the past has shown that there are many major disadvantages to using nuclear energy. Today, many individuals believe that nuclear power plants are hurtful to the Earth and urge America and various other countries to use “green energy” instead and help preserve Mother Nature. Numerous individuals and groups from around the world are currently creating new ways

Accepting nuclear power as a valuable source of energy is impossible because usage of this source of energy can cause catastrophic issues. The first issue is that as the nuclear power plant operates to produce electricity, some extremely toxic materials are produced which are broken uranium pieces (Energy 2014). This means that inside the nuclear plant, uranium atoms are broken down by means of energy production but those broken pieces are intensely more radioactive than the

Energy renaissance versus worldwide destruction, these two theories present common views regarding the utilization of nuclear power. Few energy resources have been spoken with such notoriety by some and praised as the final energy solution by others than nuclear power. However, the United States must increase its use of nuclear power in order to cover rising energy demand caused by the global energy crisis. In addition, nuclear power is and will be an important factor in combating atmospheric increases in CO2 and maintaining economic strength.

Introduction: We live in a world that is crumbling and being destroyed all around us at an increasing rate. Humanity is now on a collision course with the natural environment. Using an alternative energy source can prevent all this, rather than the primitive methods commonly used now. After taking multiple classes that covered environmental issues in the world around us. Today, I will talk about the current problems facing our environment and generating energy and how nuclear energy can help fix those affects.

The choice of whether or not to use nuclear energy as a power source is admittedly a controversial one. When people think about nuclear energy it can often be from a negative point of view. People are concerned about nuclear energy, perhaps even rightfully so, because of the potential for deadly accidents to occur, the generation of toxic radioactive waste, and release of radiation into the environment if such waste is improperly stored. However, many consider these concerns to be overly exaggerated, particular given the advancements in nuclear reactor technology since its earlier days. The fact is nuclear power is a cheaper source of fuel than using coal or oil, let alone compared to other traditional alternative forms of energy. Also in comparison to current fossil fuel based power generation, it is significantly safer and cleaner. We should use nuclear power instead of other sources of energy because it can produce high levels of electricity at relatively low cost, it would significantly reduce the existing damage to our environment and atmosphere caused by more common forms of fuel, and it is relatively safe.

Moreover, thousands were affected by and still physically and mentally suffer from exposure radiation; the cost of vast evacuation and consecutive placement of hundreds of thousands uprooted people and live stock involved millions of dollars and caused immeasurable stress and hardships. It is hardly a surprise, then, that hundreds of millions worldwide expressed their strong opinions opposing nuclear energy. Further, an ongoing disagreement among scientists and internal governments about overall convenience of nuclear devices, led to the search and promotion of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and bio fuels.