Essay Nuclear Power

Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has

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).

　　　　On contrast, opponents hold different conceptions, they do not regard nuclear energy as a green and clean source of energy. According to Ross(2007), a news director for the National Urban League, fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive and harmful gases to atmosphere, and it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. As a matter of fact, the essential raw material for nuclear nuclear power is uranium, which is a dangerous radioactive element. Opponents also claims that uranium tailing which is byproduct of the procession of getting energy are being inappropriately disposed, which make the situation even worse. On the other hand, after the tragedies of nuclear energy in Chernobyl, three mile island and other district, some people have become more and more impregnable to believe the nuclear energy is dangerous. Dr.

The loudest objection raised by the anti-nuclear groups is that there is "no safe level of radiation." It is also the phoniest. The major sources of radiation are natural and ubiquitous: we are continuously bombarded with radiation from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and from naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth. Compared with these background sources, the radiation from nuclear power plants is negligible.

The origins of nuclear power, in fact, should be enough to give one pause; fission reactions (albeit uncontrolled ones) were originally intended to be used as weapons: the weapon, of course, being the atomic bomb. The nuclear program began in earnest when Einstein himself, afraid that Hitler had a team working on such a weapon, wrote to President Roosevelt to inform him that such a weapon might be possible to build (Shrader-Frechette 7). The development of the A-bomb by the Manhattan Project, its use in Japan and the effect on World War II are all well-documented. (After the initial test at Alamagordo, New Mexico, one of the bomb’s major developers, J. Robert Oppenheimer, was rumored to whisper: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds,” when he saw the level of destruction his new creation had achieved.) Less well known are the recommendations made by a panel of Manhattan Project scientists about the post-war uses of nuclear energy. The panel’s report concluded, “The development of fission piles solely for the production of power for ordinary commercial use does not appear economically sound nor advisable from the point of view of preserving natural resources”; in other words, the first panel of experts on commercial nuclear energy and its resources felt uranium was too expensive to waste on

     The protest movement against nuclear power was already big after the Three Mile Island incident, but when the Chernobyl disaster happened, it was rocket-powered. The disaster put a stop to all construction of nuclear power plants nation-wide (Davis 315). The Three Mile Island accident, however, couldn’t have happened at a worse time. Americans need nuclear energy because the country is so oil dependent. But even back in 1979, people recognized that nuclear power needed to be part of our energy source (Readers Digest 72). The incident was responsible for the abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear Energy plant and opened the door to an escalation of protest activity (Davis 315).

Nuclear power has been around for a long time, and there are more nuclear power plants than you think. It takes a lot of materials to make a nuclear power plant, and there's a lot of things you don't know about uranium. You are closer than you think from a power plant. Nuclear plants take a lot of materials and manpower to build and run.

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.

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.

Provided that countries can acquire uranium, they can create clean and safe energy. Generally nuclear power stations are safe. The various barriers and numerous safety measures make it very unlikely for catastrophes to transpire. The most up-to-date plants have a reactor core failure 1 in 1 million years. The proposal of building a plant has to be scrutinized intensely so that the barriers and structure ensure a redundant job in

Many critics argue that due to the Three Mile Island nuclear incident that occurred March 28, 1979, in Pennsylvania resulted in a reactor meltdown, with no casualties due to a combination of equipment failure and a lack of operators understanding what to do to a faulty reactor. This incident has put the majority public to have safety concerns over not only the operators working in the plants but also the civilians in the surrounding area. Yet since the accident, the United States formed the National Academy for Nuclear Training to improve training the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations which reviews and accredits nuclear utilities’ training programs for all key positions at each plant. In addition, nuclear energy plants have proven the ability to produce clean electricity without greenhouse gas emissions and the reliability due to its increased efficiency and increased power output.

Before Chernobyl, the catastrophic accident which occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, nuclear power was viewed as a greater green energy which would save us all. But this has been proved to be false because of all the different nuclear disasters. Nuclear Power plants are often built

For over 50 years, scientists have been debating against whether nuclear energy is the ideal source to use. On one hand, the plant requires the use of less acreage than a solar or wind farm, thus preserving homes for plants and animals. On the other hand, the potential risk of radiation exposure puts the general population at stake. There are many pros and cons for both sides of the problem but I believe that there is more of a negative outcome when nuclear energy is used rather than traditional forms of extracting energy, such as, solar, wind or the use of fossil fuels. To have a better understanding of nuclear energy, one should know the basics of it. the process begins with small pellets of uranium placed into rods and stacked closely together. Then, a neutron is exposed to the first rod, causing it to break down or split and release two more neutrons that will hit the other uranium pellets and so on.This repetitive process is known as fission, “the action of dividing or splitting something into two or more parts”. In this case, that “something” represents atoms. The chain reaction produces heat that boils water, produces steam, spins turbines (fans) which results in the creation of electricity. As simple as the procedure may sound, its impact on the planet brings concern to many environmentalists.

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.