Nuclear Power: Dangerous Nemesis or Trusted Ally

For years, many scientists, environmentalists, and energy experts have been studying how human’s creation and use of energy has impacted our environment. These experts have discovered some troubling facts. Most of our country’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. But there’s a safe and effective solution to this problem: nuclear power. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

Nuclear energy is gathered by the process of splitting uranium atoms. By splitting these atoms, there is some mass loss, and this mass can then be used as energy. This process is called fission. The heat from this fission is used to turn water into steam, and this steam turns the turbine generator in a reactor, which produces energy. Nuclear power plants have many advantages when compared to other renewable energy sources.

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.

It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent of the power in the U.S. (Loewen 53). In addition nuclear has an exemplary safety record. The group of people who oppose nuclear and promote renewable power sources, hereafter termed environmentalists, do so for very sound reasons. However,

1b/process. “How do we harvest this lost energy,” you might be wondering? Well, nuclear energy receives its power from the fission, or splitting, of atoms in very dense radioactive metals. Once one atom is split, the halves separate into 2 or more less dense atoms, and remaining neutrons can be shot out at high velocities. If these neutrons slam into another atom and are captured by it, that atom has a chance that it too will undergo fission. This cycle of splitting atoms is a chain reaction. Nuclear fission requires power to start the chain reaction, and it needs a certain amount of Uranium, called a critical mass, before this chain reaction can support itself and create excess energy. This excess energy is released as heat, usually into water. This changes the water into steam and is used to turn turbines to produce electricity. According to an article written by the U.S. Dept. of Energy, the first successful attempt at a self-sustaining nuclear reactor was on December 2nd, 1942.

Throughout history, the source of energy that powers the world has advanced alongside technology. The power on which civilization thrives has to be in accordance to the demand at which it is required. As technology evolves, objects from which energy can be extracted can expanded exponentially. In the status quo, the United States is trying to limit the greenhouse gas emissions instead of just switching power sources which is the wrong direction they should be going in. [Thesis] Instead of wasting their time and money investing in burning coal as their main source of power, countries and their governments need to assist in the transition to a more cost effective and efficient form of energy in the form of nuclear energy.

John Paul Jones states, “It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” The controversy regarding the utilization of nuclear energy focuses upon the assessment of whether the hazards involved are worth the potential benefits. Throughout the progression of mankind, advancements in energy and power production have consistently transformed all lifestyles. Such advancements have, in addition, provided extensive information pertaining to the sciences. Regrettably, resources scarcely exist, and destruction of the planet is inevitable. Innovations for power source fabrication, ones that prove to be renewable, are not optional projects. Such requirements are demanded on every continent. Despite

Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear

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.

Nuclear power produces huge amount of energy through nuclear fission. 1 ton of uranium fuel, which is used as a fuel in generating electricity, equals to 50,000 tons of fossil fuels for generating the same amount of electricity. Since a small amount of nuclear fuel can produce a large amount of energy, it is powerful and efficient.

It is estimated that at today’s rate of consumption, the earth has about fifty years left of fossil fuels. In contrast, due to the very small amount of uranium needed to create a huge amount of energy, the supply of nuclear energy is almost infinite [Jiskha].

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.

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.

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.

Nuclear power has been around for decades and can be easily utilized to help meet America’s energy needs. With energy