Nuclear Power In Australia Essay

Fossil fuels are a primary source for providing energy throughout the United States. These sources of energy are causing many problems involving environment, health, and pollution. The solution? Nuclear power. Nuclear power is seen as a green energy that can improve global warming. However, there a more issues that can result from using nuclear power. Even though there are a lot of people who support it, nuclear power can result in world threatening problems. Nuclear waste, expense and time, and the threat regarding to war and terrorism are constant issues related to nuclear power.

Nuclear power plants are a safe, clean and reliable source of energy production. They are uniquely qualified to meet the growing demand for energy in the USA.

America’s nuclear energy plants are — by a wide margin — the nation’s largest source of carbon-free power. They produce clean, reliable electricity as well as well-paying jobs. Although several dependable nuclear plants have closed in recent years for economic reasons, nuclear energy is getting a fresh look for its ability to produce vast amounts of power without emitting greenhouse gases. And with new reactor designs, both big and small, scientists and technologists are re-engineering the future of nuclear energy for everyone’s benefit.

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

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

Nowadays, governments are facing two main problems about electricity: resources of fossil fuels are running out and countries need to diminish their carbon emissions. Nuclear is seen as the most common alternative. Nuclear currently supplies 19% of the UK’s electricity and 11% in the world (NIA,2015). In the UK, all but one of the current nuclear plants are due to close by 2023. Should the UK replace their nuclear plants by a new generation of nuclear stations? Because of the accidents, costs and problems of nuclear waste, some people are opposed to this possibility. Their solution would be that Britain could achieve 85% of its power via renewable energy by 2030. This essay will examine if nuclear power is the best alternative to fossil fuels while continuing to supply the rising demand for electricity in the UK. It will be argued that there are advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power and that other alternatives should be considered.

Australia has developed something of an allergic reaction to any mention of uranium or nuclear energy. With fears of its safety and impact on the environment again heightened by the devastating nuclear event that was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Blessed as we are with abundant reserves of coal, oil and gas, we have never had to ask the hard questions many other nations have had to ask – the answer for which has been ‘nuclear’. Yet with the looming spectre of climate change and greater calls for a shift away from fossil fuels, nuclear power is once again on the agenda. The South Australian government has even called for a royal commission to investigate the plausibility of nuclear power in this country (Wroe).

Due to this energy crisis, our society depends much too greatly on nuclear power for the greatest proportion of electrical power. The crisis is an extremely large and complex issue that deals with both socio-scientific and environmental issues. This generation and production of electrical power, known as nuclear power, uses a great deal of non-renewable fossil fuels to generate electrical power.

Nuclear power plants emit close to zero greenhouse gasses (Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), 2013), but it is currently illegal to generate domestic electricity using nuclear power in Australia, according to the (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998). There have been three highly publicised disasters from nuclear power plants around the world, and the majority of public opinion in Australia is that nuclear power is “unsafe, expensive, risks weapons proliferation and has intractable waste disposal problems” (ATSE, 2013, p. 5). However, scientists from the ATSE (2013) report that these beliefs are unsupported by evidence. This project will initially examined xplain how nuclear power works, then investigated the risks, benefits, and possibilities that nuclear power presents. Next, the environmental effects of coal-fired generation will be were discussed, and finally the environmental effects of replacing coal-fired generators with nuclear power plants in New South Wales (NSW) will be were explored.

I’ll start with the radiation problem within nuclear power plants. Nuclear radiation is an enormous problem for living organisms on land or in the water. In a nuclear power plant there are power reactors called breeders. These breeders produce plutonium, which is fissionable. It is a by-product of the chain reaction produced by the splitting of the atoms. If this element were to be introduced to wildlife, humans, or anything living it would harm the recipient. The high cost is another key component to the movement of not using nuclear energy. Power plants require high amounts of support and funding, such as wealthy investors, in order to produce large sums of the product. Therefore, small third world countries that are poor and struggling economically, would not have the payment necessary in order to gain the usage of nuclear power plants. Four years ago, in 2013, eight contracts for nuclear power plants were cancelled due to the immense expenses. Also, nuclear power plants take a lengthened chunk of time to be fully developed, consequently at that time, the country that spent their money on the power plant would be driven to manage without a large portion of their currency to the extent of five to ten years to earn a profit. Even, if everything turns out to be on schedule, what if the people in the area were to refuse the

New energy sources are invested in every year to produce heat and electricity for the citizens of the United States. However, nuclear power is becoming a much more urgent discussion topic. Nuclear power, or the use of nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity, contributes to nearly 20% of the electricity generated and used in America. According to the Department of Energy, the United States has invested 60 years of their time into nuclear power! But why have we done so? Well, the production of nuclear energy helps produce reliable, low-carbon energy, and supports national defense activities. Additionally, the Department of Energy also works to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of making magnificent contributions in

For the past 50 years, the United States has been using nuclear energy as one of it’s main non-renewable energy sources. The source of nuclear energy comes from nuclear power plants, which efficiently generates large quantities of energy and has low greenhouse gas emissions, compared to traditional coal power plants. Currently, there are 61 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. and using nuclear power plants as a main energy source has always been a controversial problem within U.S. society. By the time nuclear power plants bring people convenience, they bring more disadvantages instead.

The invention of the nuclear power plant was humanities greatest hopes but biggest fears. The energy is clean and frees us from using fossil fuels but it also screams disaster. There was an earth quake in Japan that caused a nuclear power plant to leak out radioactive steam. However there were 443 operating nuclear power plants in 47 countries in 2011 and in 2009 atomic energy accounted for 14 percent of the world’s energy production. In the United States alone 104 nuclear power plants supply some 20 percent of electricity.

Nuclear power is by no means a new technology, in fact research began in 1895 when Wilhelm Rontgen discovered ionising radiation (World Nuclear Association, 2014). Research progressed through different phases, firstly focussed on the development of the atomic bomb and then onto controlled use of nuclear power for ship propulsion and the production of energy by way of nuclear power plants (World Nuclear Association, 2014). There was a period of stagnation in technological development regarding nuclear power until recently, with scientists now again looking into molten salt reactors (MSR’s) as an innovative way to increase safety while also making nuclear reactors more economically viable and greener (Freed, 2014). This essay will provide a brief history of nuclear energy, as well as looking at the role nuclear power could play in future energy production, whilst also looking at societal implications of this controversial technology. It will also look at potential progress traps and progress experiments if this technology was to be pursued.

Nuclear energy was supposed to be the energy of the future. The ‘energy of tomorrow.’ It was to safely and cheaply meet all of the United States’ energy needs for years to come (Karl Jagers, Kullander pg. 1). Yet according to the World Nuclear Association only twenty percent of our nation’s power comes from nuclear reactors (Nuclear Power in the USA).