Australia has one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emission footprints compared to its population on earth. As of 2006, Australia's emissions were the highest of any OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) nation with 26.7 tonnes per person per year of equivalent carbon dioxide (Garnaut 2008). In comparison, the United States had just 20.6 tonnes per person per year of equivalent carbon dioxide in 2006 (Garnaut 2008). The largest contributor to Australia's emission footprint is the energy sector, accounting for 45.5% of emissions between 2005 and 2006 (Garnaut 2008). Further breaking this number down, we observe that ~79% of our electrical generation is done via coal (Garnaut 2008). Coal is a major cause of greenhouse …show more content…
The major focus will be on uranium based reactors, and to assess the potential of nuclear, it will also be compared to other renewable energy sources, for instance solar and wind. All information and figures used in this investigation were collected from reputable sources such as peer-reviewed journals, and intergovernmental organisation reports. References were carefully chosen that provide a non-biased investigation into their topic, and that the information quoted in them was sourced from trustworthy sources. Despite this, there is no guarantee that claims made in the papers will be genuine, and so care has been taken to ensure multiple sources for any information where …show more content…
In comparison, the only substance nuclear energy emits into the atmosphere is steam. However, once we view the entire nuclear cycle the environmental dangers of nuclear energy become clear. Once depleted, nuclear fuel remains dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and over that period it is important for it to be stored in a secure facility away from populated areas. The majority of Australia's population lives on the coastline, with the interior of the country being mostly inhospitable to humans. This barrenness provides the perfect location for a storage facility to be built in Australia. The alternative is to ship our waste to another nation such as the United States to be stored. The main danger with nuclear waste, however, comes from transporting it from the nuclear power plant to the storage facility. If we were to transport it by rail or truck, what happens if the aforementioned vehicle has an accident. What about if we were to transport the waste via ship overseas and it was to sink. It are these ‘what if’ scenarios that must be taken into consideration when deciding whether nuclear energy will be beneficial to our environment. In contrast, minimal environmental danger surrounds the use of solar and wind power, aside from the clearing of land for them
Famous actor Bruce Lee once said “Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.” The Inquisitor's Tale is set in medieval France, telling the story of three children. A peasant girl with healing powers named Jeanne, a young monk with superhuman strength named William, and a Jewish boy with prophetic abilities named Jacob. They set out on a mission to prevent the burning of holy books called the Talmuds alongside Etienne, who they meet later in the book after he confesses to originally planning to kill them. They highlight themes of friendship and overcome Louis of France declaring war on them.
Since its discovery in the late 19th century, nuclear energy has been used in a diversity of areas such as atomic bombs, medicine, reducing pollution and food irradiation (Gupta, 2012). However, one of the biggest outcomes since this discovery is nuclear energy generation. This subject is largely controversial as it has many pros and cons. It is considered to be a more eco-friendly alternative source of electricity, as it emits less carbon emissions than coal-fired power stations, for example. Yet there still an environmental risk provided by the radio-active waste and its inability to be disposed of for 100,000 years (Phillips, 2012). Today in Australia there are no active nuclear power plants but that is predicted to change in the
• Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.
Energy- Everyone needs it. The major challenge for the 21st century however, is generating this energy with the lowest impact on human and ecological health. A number of differing production methods have been derived in response to this, one of the most controversial of which is Nuclear energy supplied through Uranium mining. This is a uniquely topical issue in Australia, on account of the sheer amount of Uranium held in Australia’s borders (30% of the world’s reserves) and its potential impact on Australia’s economy (4), the politicised and partisan nature of nuclear debate, along with longstanding opposition associated with such striking international disasters as the Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima events (1). With such significant
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.
Approximately 23 percent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions were made by the national food supply chain. Coal fired power stations come after them.
I have researched about climate change in Australia and take this as an example for the same situation of other countries. Australia is a unique and diverse country in every way – in culture, populations, climate, geography, and history. It is home to more than one million species of plants and animals, many of which are found nowhere else in the world, and less than half have been described scientifically. However, Australia is an exceptionally large polluter. It is the highest per person greenhouse gas polluter among all developed countries, the 15th highest overall polluter and our emissions are still rising. Most of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels for energy about 72%. When oil, gas or coal burns,
Some scientists mind people that the South Australia Outback is the best, the safest, the most geologically and environmentally stable place on the planet to store the nuclear waste. (Valente,2016) However, as we know, Nuclear Waste is generally mixture of solids, liquids and gases which are produced during the generation of nuclear energy during fission, mining of uranium, nuclear research and weapons production. It is radioactive and that is the primary cause of the negative effects on human health and bodies. When humans are exposed to moderate radiation for a long time, it can lead to permanent problems and even lead to death. Nuclear waste radiation can damage or kill cells of people. Cancer is the primary health effect from radiation
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.
Nuclear has been in use for over fifty years and provides power to thirty two countries, manufacturing no emissions. Australia is one among the few developed countries without nuclear energy and therefore the solely G20 nation while not it. Why is that this the case? 2 reasons: worry and politics. Safety is that the issue cited most frequently by opponents of nuclear energy in Australia., however there has been only one fatal nuclear accident in nearly sixty years of generation worldwide.
Although nuclear energy has many advantages, their disadvantages that cause great concern to the general public. A common opinion amongst the public is the perceived opinion that uranium is dangerous and this has proven to be a major problem when there as has been any consideration of a nuclear alternative in Australia. Another concern is the long lasting radioactive material associated with the use of uranium as a fuel source, for example, the international nuclear waste dump possibility in Adelaide. Even if the South Australian Government could convince the voting public in its state, the plan would require federal approval and changes to the law. South Australia has about 30 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves. However, the strength
According to Nuclear Energy, one bad side to nuclear energy is radioactive waste, this waste happens when the nuclear reactors needs to dispose waste and these wastes are extremely hazardous. The waste can emit radiation over maybe ten thousand years and it can contaminate the sands and the water. In addition, nuclear accidents are a big negative because when a power plant blows up or has an accident, the area around it and more will be contaminated by radiation. To take a case in point, a place called Chernobyl, Russia had a nuclear accident in April 26 ,1986 and it left the city deserted and now it’s a wasteland which no one can even live or even get close. Moreover, another negative side is nuclear radiation, uranium contains radiation main reason for cancer, and when workers work a long time with radiation it will affect them. Effects of radiation is losing of hair, diarrhea, fever, and fatigue. Thus, the negative side on using uranium in nuclear power plants are the nuclear waste that emits when nuclear reactors disposed of waste, when a nuclear accident happens it doesn’t harm one person it harms a very wide amount of people and the area like Chernobyl, and then radiation uranium emits radiation and when workers work with uranium for a very long time it will affect them and cause many
Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.
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.
Should we be letting the rest of the world use our backyard as a dump for nuclear waste? South Australia is considering to build a nuclear waste dump which would ultimately hold 13% of the worlds high level nuclear waste. Currently this waste is being held around the world in different locations, i agree this is not a permanent solution but neither is burying it in the ground. I don't agree that we should be building a nuclear waste dump in South Australia but instead putting our time and money towards something more renewable would be a better investment. Nor is it necessary because in thirty years the world will run on renewable energy.