Nuclear Power Facilities

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).

The use of nuclear power can have several negative impacts on the economy. The use of nuclear power can be costly. The building of the plants can cost between $12 - $18

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,

In this section we analyze various social impacts associated with the establishment and operation of nuclear power plants. The impacts of nuclear plants on nearby communities and people living there have been a controversial issue since long time. Nuclear power generation and utilization has several impacts on society which includes real estate, property values, employment, taxes, social services, physical and mental health, economic development and cultural parameters, etc.

In our society, nuclear energy has become one of the most criticized forms of energy by the environmentalists. Thus, a look at nuclear energy and the environment and its impact on economic growth.

From the electricity that kept my home warm and powered the lights at school to providing employment to both my parents for the past 30 years, nuclear power has been at the center of my life growing up. In Wadsworth, Texas, the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company has been a way a life thousands of people by providing nearly 1200 jobs and providing carbon-free electricity for over 2 million people. However, this is just one example in just one state in the United States. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 11 percent of the world’s energy comes from nuclear power plants and for 13 countries it provides more than 25 percent of their country’s energy. However, even though nuclear power has made its mark as a global competitor in the realm of green energy, incidents such as 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have created a global sense of uneasiness. On top of this underlying fear, the huge building costs of new nuclear plants has lead to a stunt in the growth of nuclear energy even though operation costs for nuclear energy at $0.0219/kW is less than that of coal ($0.023/KW) and almost half that of gas ($0.0451/kW) (IER). Even though nuclear energy has had some setbacks, it is still safer (short-term and long-term) than the carbon-producing alternatives. The question at hand is whether we should take an utilitarian perspective by giving more serious consideration to the long-term effects of the carbon-emitting energy sources and whether we can overcome our

Nuclear energy as a continual source of energy is risky. Author William Tucker explores the use of uranium for energy in his essay. Tucker explains that although disasters, like the Fukushima meltdown, are scary, every other viable source of energy is also inherently deadly. He tells about a natural gas explosion in Cleveland that leveled an entire neighborhood along with 130 casualties (Tucker 228). Next Tucker explores the benefits our environment can gain from nuclear energy. Nuclear fuel rods are used for 5 years, and can continuously power a city the size of San Francisco for the entire time, without creating any greenhouse gases of any sort (228). And for the negative effects of mining? In just two states there are 732 coal mines. In

The nuclear plant should provide innovative technical solutions and relief environmental burdens as well as addressing the difficult issues of equity for present and future generations. However, the negative issues that ought to be examined include the amount of greenhouse gases the nuclear plant would generate and elimination of radioactive wastes in order to minimize environmental impacts.

Although it was predicted that one day nuclear power would make electricity “too cheap to meter”, instead now it is “too expensive too finance” (“Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities,” n.d., para.2). Although nuclear industry says that nuclear power is the cheapest compared to other methods of power, costs of nuclear power have been underestimated by almost a factor of three (Caldicott, 2006 p. 19). This is because a lot of costs related to nuclear power have not been accurately reflected in the figures shown to public, such as cost for the total nuclear fuel cycle, construction and running costs. Waste disposal and decommissioning are other expenses related to nuclear power that are ignored when figuring out the estimated cost of nuclear power (Karson, p. 26). Many groups argue that the cost of nuclear generation is at least three times the figure provided by the British Nuclear Fuels (McLeish, p. 36). Another reason, nuclear power costs are underestimated is due costs of new technology needed for the power plant are not taken in to account. Delay in construction is also an unnoticed expense (McLesih, 9. 37). It is unlikely to take the full cost of nuclear power into account. It is hard to claim that nuclear power is the more competitive price energy source compared to other energy sources because of its many hidden

Secondly, the book points out that the collective cost of nuclear energy production is not economical, which is unfounded. Even under favorable assumptions for wind and solar energy plants, such as an increase in capacity factor, it is shown that the total net benefits of a nuclear plant (at $804,763 per MW per year) clearly outweighs wind plant (at $283,311 per MW per year) and solar plant (at $113,349 per MW per year).6 This implies that the benefits a nuclear plant derived from reducing carbon emissions and having a high capacity factor clearly outweighs the insurance and operating costs of a nuclear

Nuclear power has been one of the largest contributors of energy for the past fifty years. With the end of World War II, research into nuclear energies shifted away from war applications to simply using it to power the world. Nuclear power was regarded as the never ending energy source that would bring an end to energy problems and power the whole world. For many years it seemed to work with no problems; however, that was a short lived reality. As problems with nuclear energy came to light, many believed it was a better investment for the future to research and develop new energy sources or just continue using fossil fuels. Many believe the risks and downsides of nuclear power outweigh the benefits. However, there are still many advocates of nuclear power that believe it is the best energy source for the world for reasons such as its large production of energy, their belief that it is not a major harm to the environment, and their belief that it is better than the other energy alternatives. However, in spite of these beliefs and facts, research into nuclear power opposes the belief that nuclear power should be the main contributor of power because they are expensive to build and can result in a catastrophic situations.

Nuclear power is presently a key way of providing energy for our world. As of 2011, power plants generated about 14% of the whole world’s electricity (Cole). Nuclear power also does not use fossil fuels and therefore is a low pollutant. However, there are significant costs of nuclear power. Nuclear power plants emit radiation and can leak causing environmental damage and significant health risks. Nuclear power plants are also expensive to build and maintain. Terrorists can easily turn the nuclear fission in the plant into a deadly weapon. There are also better alternatives to provide our world with power. The sun is a natural source that many are starting to use as a source of electricity. Water and wind

As a result, numerous countries are creating more nuclear power plants. From the 1990s, the rate of nuclear power plants constructed increased because of technological and managerial, deregulation, and safety improvements.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the Fukushima Daiichi plant are a few of the many nuclear power plants around the world. At some point in time, these three plants have been more dangerous than predicted. The radioactive gases these plants contain have detrimental effects to the body and the environment. In contrast, while the radiation is contained, nuclear power plants are healthy for the environment. Nuclear power plants are considered to be environmentally friendly because they produce the least amount of greenhouse gases. However, even though these power plants are better for nature, they can also damage it. Nuclear power plants are a hazard to all living organisms on earth and should no longer be in use. They are unsafe because they can have a meltdown, crack, or the reactors could explode, which will release radiation. The radiation leak can do damage to people and their habitat located nearby. Abolishing nuclear power plants will prevent potential catastrophes in the future.

In sum, for the United States to continue to compete with other major international economies, the country must further prioritize the cultivation of low carbon energy from the nuclear and renewable industries. Still yet, expanding the country’s nuclear and renewable energy infrastructure necessitates successfully addressing the prohibitive costs of initial development in both industries. At various points, the federal government has taken steps to do just that through the implementation of tax incentives and/or loan guarantees. However, the nation’s leaders have failed to institute a comprehensive and stable fiscal policy that the nuclear and renewable industries can depend on to make manageable the cost of developing both energies into the future. If the country’s energy infrastructure is to be adequately modernized to keep pace with international economic trends, that must change.