Nuclear Energy Is Not Equal

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.

　　　　On contrast, opponents hold different conceptions, they do not regard nuclear energy as a green and clean source of energy. According to Ross(2007), a news director for the National Urban League, fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive and harmful gases to atmosphere, and it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. As a matter of fact, the essential raw material for nuclear nuclear power is uranium, which is a dangerous radioactive element. Opponents also claims that uranium tailing which is byproduct of the procession of getting energy are being inappropriately disposed, which make the situation even worse. On the other hand, after the tragedies of nuclear energy in Chernobyl, three mile island and other district, some people have become more and more impregnable to believe the nuclear energy is dangerous. Dr.

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.

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,

Storing nuclear waste is a political problem as no one wants it stored near them, so there is a dispute about where radioactive waste should be stored. But after all the advantages of using nuclear energy outweigh its disadvantages as nuclear plants emit less than one-hundredth of carbon dioxide gas compared to coal or gas-fired energy plants so there is a very little effect on the environment. Humans living next to coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear plants, where the former is harmful to human health and may be responsible for acid rain. On the other hand dependence on nuclear energy is now increasing in most countries as nuclear reactors use uranium as a fuel which is found everywhere on earth. It is inexpensive and easier to transport than other fuels which makes them less dependent on oil and foreign fuel from other countries.

Nuclear energy is the process of creating useful heat and electricity. The nuclear power debate is a controversy about the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate over the expansion of the nuclear energy program has been prominent over the last 4 decades. The debate really escalated during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries. It is important for the expansion of human life and improving life as we know it. I firmly believe that we need to keep using and expand the use of nuclear energy due to the fact that it eliminates fossil fuel pollutants, it is sustainable and cost effective, and it improves overall human quality of 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.

Throughout the time of nuclear power, scientist have been debating whether or not it was worth the risk for nuclear power. Most people agree that “[it has] the capacity to turn the earth into a desert or make the desert bloom” (4). Nuclear power is ideal in terms that it is efficient and cost effective, but it also has some downfalls. The process creates a lot of nuclear waste that is highly radioactive without a good place of disposing it, not to mention the inherently dangerous risks involved with nuclear power plants, such as explosions.

A massive amounts of heat produced during the fission process is used to produce electricity while releasing no harmful byproduct. Therefore, it is one of the cleanest and most ecofriendly ways to obtain energy and it should solve all our energy problems. However, there are a quite few disadvantages related to nuclear power generation that overcome its benefits. Building the nuclear power plant is very expensive due to longer construction times for radiation, insulation, security, and safety purposes. The waste from nuclear power plants is highly radioactive and potentially dangerous, if not handled carefully. The nuclear power waste can stay radioactive for thousands of years and must be stored deep in earth and away from the population, which is another very expensive and risky process. Because of the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl disaster and Fukushima nuclear accident, people have the biggest fear of nuclear radiation that has longer and real impact on life. All energy sources have some risk. The risks associated with nuclear energy are likely to be much less than those associated with fossil fuels. However, nuclear energy has a potential for devastating accidents, which surpasses everything that could occur with fossil fuels. It is also capable of destroying civilization the same way as nuclear weapons. Moreover, the long-term radiation danger of nuclear waste is a huge burden on humankind. Even though nuclear energy is a viable way to generate clean energy, it has grown more slowly than projected because of safety, security, and economic problems. The overall risks of nuclear accidents are much too high to overcome its benefits. Instead, we should improve and develop more on renewable energy sources to meet our energy

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.

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.

Thus, wreaking havoc on environmental safely on a global scale, intoxication, poisoning, and destroying ecosystems. Secondly, nuclear energy is considered non-renewable energy, rather an alternative energy source, since Uranium is non-renewable. Even though nuclear power plants produce the least amount of Co2. Consequently, Uranium is the biggest concern on pollution. The mining and refining process of Uranium hasn’t been a clean process to a certain degree because transporting it represents a pollution hazard during its transport to and from nuclear power plants. Besides, being radioactive and dangerous. On the contrary, Nuclear power plants only pose a minute threat to the safety of the environment by its transportation of spent fuel not during the actual operation of the power plants as opposed to the more outdated fossil fuel power plants. For instance, fossil fuel power plants contribute tremendously to pollution during their operation. Not only-but also, the methods of transportation from mining and waste. The ecological hazard is even greater. Fossil fuel power plants produce pollution just by operating them. On the other hand, Nuclear energy does not create pollution during electricity production. Therefore, reinforcing one of the major advantage nuclear energy retains over traditional fossil fuel methods is that, “nuclear power production releases no pollutants into the air. By contrast, a typical coal-burning power plant

Some scientists and engineers figure out that a better way to fight against the climate change and reduce the greenhouse gas emission is supporting “nuclear energy” (“Climate Change”). Nuclear generation is also one of the energy that is able to supply the world’s electricity. Additionally, the nuclear generation currently avoids the emission “over two billion tons of carbon dioxide each year” (“Climate Change”). It is an economic development and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Currently, many countries are planning to use nuclear generation because it is helpful to meet their emission reduction.

While nuclear waste may cause harm, it can be totally eliminated with up to date equipment, and nuclear reactors. An example of this is from writer Eric McFarland about the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Chernobyl, a nuclear power plant disaster in Russia, was caused by a power-failure within the reactor. The tragedy ended up killing around thirty people from short term radiation alone. There is no telling how many people were affected by long term because of Chernobyl’s radiation. While these were both very comparable there is one major difference between the two disasters. The simple fact that the Fukushima incident was caused by a large