Nuclear Power Plants

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).

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

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.

Being a supporter of nuclear power in today’s society could be potentially risky. So conveys author William Tucker who believes there is no other alternative, even after the Fukushima disaster (228). Tucker uses a plethora of examples and statistics to demonstrate how nuclear power could be the best alternative; moreover, he doesn’t specify which energy technology is most dangerous, but states that they all are in different ways. All alternatives have risks that determine how harmful they can be; however, it is up to the people to decide how much they are willing to risk. Progressing on from the risks, Tucker claims that we need nuclear power “if we are going to maintain our standard of living” (228). As others try to disprove this statement,

The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights. If we hope to continue consuming energy on the scale that we currently do, we need to find a better way to produce it. Fortunately, the best contender is an energy generation form that the United States is already familiar with, albeit equally as uncomfortable with. Currently, nuclear power makes up 19% of our country’s power generation, and with community and government support, the industry could spread its wings further to help relieve the dependence we have on burning fossil fuels [3]. Many people have misconceived many ideas about nuclear power, believing that it is expensive, unsafe by its very nature, and a threat to a

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

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

The steam spun the wheel of the turbine with a Whoosh. The ecstasy of finding a new energy source is ineffable, and when found, the discovery always immediately prompts a race to use this newfound source. In accordance with this behavior, many sought to integrate nuclear power into society upon its development. The difference being nuclear energy is far more complicated and powerful than anything the field of energy has dealt with thus far. There are two types of nuclear reactions, fission and fusion; working reactors only using fission currently. In fission a neutron reacts with Uranium-235 to produce energy, two fragment nuclei, and multiple neutrons to continue the reaction. Meanwhile, in fusion two hydrogen isotopes react to produce energy, protons, neutrons, and Helium. As a consequence of these processes ' complex and formidable natures, there is a hesitance to their utilization as it is difficult to discuss the complexities of the procedures with the public without some misinterpretation. Despite the benefits found in nuclear power, it still undergoes harsh debate as governments oppose giving money to such an unexplored area of science. Yet, an increase in funding for U.S. nuclear programs would prompt advancements that replace less effective energy sources, creating opportunities for specialization in the field.

Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.

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.

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.

On this assignment we are going to research all energy sources and their drawbacks, we are also going to explore on some the negative ramifications that even the clean hydropower have, additionally we are going to weigh those against the possible consequences of developing nuclear power, a controversial alternative to fossil fuels. We will discuss the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in drawing conclusions about risk versus reward of nuclear energy use.

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.

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?

Nuclear energy could be the future of energy and potentially solve the energy crisis problem. Nuclear energy is a sustainable energy source and it can provide millions of times the amount of energy output from a fixed mass of fuel than any other energy source, such as fossil fuel, for the same mass of fuel. Nuclear energy is also very clean for the atmosphere. It produces no greenhouse gases at all. However, nuclear energy can be very harmful to both people and the rest of the natural environment if not managed well. Nuclear meltdowns etc. can release