Nuclear Power

Nuclear energy is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. "Renewables" like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale. The use of nuclear energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain. “Currently, there are 103 commercial nuclear power plants producing electricity in the United States, located at 64 sites in 31 states. They are, on average, 24 years old, and

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

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).

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,

While we have recently experienced a coal mine tragedy, a devastating oil spill and the deadly explosion of a natural-gas pipeline, there has never been a death from a nuclear accident at an American commercial reactor. There has never been a nuclear-related death aboard an American nuclear Navy vessel, either. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration reports that working in the nuclear industry is safer than working in the finance, insurance and real estate sectors. According to a Gallup poll in March 2010, 62 percent of Americans favor nuclear power — an all-time high. In communities that already have reactors, support runs even higher. (HILL)

Nuclear power, the type of energy that sits on the edge of humanity’s greatest hopes, and its darkest fears. With a country such as the United States continuing to expand its industry, housing, agriculture and commercial buildings there is a need for more and more energy each year. Nuclear power is one of the many ways the United States gets its energy. Nevertheless, it is one of the most controversial means of energy production. The main concern with nuclear energy is the nuclear waste that is produced along with it. The potential health and environmental risks posed by nuclear waste is what truly scares some of the American public. Therefore, is the amount of energy output by nuclear power plants outweigh the potential risks that nuclear waste can have on human health and the environment? Nuclear power plants should be kept as a means of generating energy for the United States, however, transportation and storage of nuclear waste needs to continuously be checked for safer alternatives.

More than 30 years ago, nuclear energy was poisoned in the eyes of most Americans after the partial reactor meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Anti-nuclear sentiment swelled while construction of new reactors stalled. Fears of nuclear power were further confirmed after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union, and later reaffirmed by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. The development of new nuclear power screeched to a halt after Fukushima, which froze Japan’s nuclear industry and caused hundreds of thousands of Japanese to evacuate the area surrounding the plant.

After Fukushima, the developing of Nuclear energy has been doubted. America proclaims that Nuclear energy is high in cost. Hence, speaking of not only maintaining the plants, they will also need to be inspected and made sure that there are no problems. This all cost money, America claims. It cannot be cost efficient if it need such high levels of management. Nuclear energy is not safe for the environment. Since the Fukushima destruction, America says that even though it may be a more reliable source but it creates hazard for the area because of the unknown damages that could partake. After the natural disaster that happened in Japan where three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi were hit, it caused a meltdown. Therefore, leading to many damages

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.

Nuclear power is one of the most controversial forms of energy in the modern world; the destructive power of nuclear armaments has led to a worldwide fear of nuclear energy in all of its forms. But as scientific communities continue to learn more about nuclear power, as well as ways to make it more practical in the competitive energy market, it may soon see an increase in use in the United States. This necessitates the consideration of possible improvements to nuclear power plants that would warrant an increase in their use. If the United States is to invest its money and time into nuclear power, it must first evaluate the potential improvements to plant efficiency, maintenance, and other factors,

With any large energy producing facility there are risks. The truth is that accidents do happen at nuclear power plants and at other facilities all the time. An example of this was the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania where there was a partial meltdown in March 1979. More recently was the worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Statistical data for 1995, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency early in 1996, indicated that there were a total of 437 operational nuclear power stations in 31 countries with years of experience. Chernobyl was the only plant that injured the public. Thus, judging by the data, that is a good record for a source of energy.

Well, we are here at the end of our journey, which it helped us to learn a lot more about nuclear energy and some the drawbacks that comes with it. We also learned about the tragic event that happened in Japan’s catastrophe the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. “What is going on with the Japanese nuclear reactors is, without question, a terrible event that can possibly add more hardship onto an already unspeakable tragedy. The explosions and the threat of a radiation leak are troubling, and Japanese engineers and scientists are doing everything humanly possible to contain the situation. (Turk & Bensel, 2011)

Global demand and consumption of energy is at an all time high; the world needs a safe, efficient, clean, and high producing source of energy production. The solution is something we already use for energy production, Nuclear power. From the beginning of nuclear energy there has been concerns over the safety of the power plants and its impact on the environment. With climate change and more accurate information on nuclear power the tide is shifting in its favor. This paper will explore the positives of nuclear power, political change on nuclear power, safety of the energy source and new technologies associated with the nuclear power process. Most importantly are the risks associated with nuclear power worth it? Research suggests that nuclear power is safer now more than ever and has less of an impact on the environment than coal or oil. Public support and misconceptions over the years have been up and down due to political agendas and those who are misinformed about nuclear power. Individuals who are involved in the energy field are in favor of nuclear power and building more plants with newer technology.