Nuclear Power Plants: Sparking an American Debate for Decades

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

The production of nuclear energy is not as safe and clean as some say that it is. The Oxford Research Group released a report providing evidence that supports this point. It is clear that nuclear power plants do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide when they operate, but it is the mining of uranium and the storing of waste that produces the carbon dioxide pollution.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

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.

Since Cs-137 is primarily a product from fission reactions, countries such as Iran must be closely monitored not only from a nuclear weapon standpoint, but also from the angle of hazardous waste control. Iran and other states with like ideologies that sponsor terror use terrorist organizations as a proxy to further their ambitions both internally and internationally (Ray, 2006, p 111). If it is ever shown that Iran, or another country, is failing to control radioactive waste products either intentionally or through lack of oversight, international actions should be swift, with options including varying levels of economic sanctions based on the severity of the issue through physical destruction of nuclear facilities via surreptitious means. The monitoring of nuclear programs in these countries must have international backing, provide zero notice prior to inspection, and have for force of law behind them rather than a simple notice of non-compliance. Since ideology is not something that can be changed with military or social pressure, preparations closer to America should take place to prevent or minimize the effect from a radiological

Nuclear weapons have an effect on everyone in the world and even on the future generations. They affect everything from the soil to people’s genes. This research will make the reader more aware of a subject of a subject that is rarely talked about. America promotes non-proliferation but has more than 10 000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. In addition, America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons; twice during WWII on Japan. This caused the death of hundreds of thousands with the effect of the bombs still being seen today. America has a huge influence over the weapons and nuclear industry and change must start from

Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear

The responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear energy production throughout the world is in the hands of people. But, the layperson concept may be a bit askance because many consumers may view the issue of nuclear energy only in terms of price considerations. This is a discomforting notion considering the myriad of risks involved, especially in light of the consequences that have occurred at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. While no comparison exists in the United States (U.S.) that would enable U.S. citizens to understand the human and environmental toll that results when something tragically wrong occurs; it remains well past the time for us to consider real solutions to our energy needs that do not have the potential for such wide-spread devastation. Regardless of the various technologies and engineering acumen used to operate nuclear power plants, they are only as effective safety-wise as those who are charged with maintaining security.

Nuclear power plants or renewable energy power plants? Dirty plants or clean power plants ? Harmful power plants or secure power plants? All these things should come to Americans minds when they are trying to decide on what path they should go on to get there energy from. Although Americans could choose nuclear power plants, I believe they shouldn’t because they are expensive and not time efficient, harmful to people and the environment, and they’re susceptible to accidents.

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

Casks are double-walled containers, created from high-grade steel, which protect the waste and prevent radioactivity from escaping. These casks can then store the waste for over a century and can withstand harsh treatment such as surviving over 30 minutes in a fire at 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit or being struck by a locomotive traveling at 90 miles per hour. In both of these tests, the casks protected their load and prevented exposure. There have been approximately 24,000 casks used worldwide, and not a single time has a cask failed to contain the nuclear waste within (Transporting Nuclear Waste, 2018).

Even with access to nuclear technology, it is next to impossible for terrorist groups to acquire sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to make a nuclear bomb. The total of all the known thefts of HEU around the world tracked by the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1993 and 2006 was just less than eight kilograms, well short of the 25 kilograms needed for the simplest bomb… Therefore, even building, let alone detonating, the simple, gun-type nuclear device of the kind that was dropped on Hiroshima during World War II would be extraordinarily difficult for a terrorist group because of the problem of accumulating sufficient quantities of HEU” (Bergen, 2010).

The United States nuclear weapons program poses serious health risks to its citizens. A combination of secrecy, law enforcement, reckless neglect and an emphasis on production at the cost of health, safety and the environment created toxic

From a protective standpoint, the Department of Homeland Security plays a role in defending against and preparing for a nuclear weapon detonation or disaster. The Customs and Border Protection Agency monitors incoming and outgoing materials and people. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is responsible for disaster response in the event of a nuclear detonation. The US Coast Guard works along with the Customs and Border Protection Agency to monitor our borders from a maritime point of

The nuclear waste is a prime target for terrorists, as it has been weaponized in the past by the United States as an atom bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The storage of radioactive waste is one the most controversial issues in the production of nuclear power. The by-products of the production of the radioactive material, stays radioactive for thousands of years. This is not an empty concern. Critics believe that storage facilities have the ability to leak due to erosion, or cracks. The leaked radioactive material would result in contamination of groundwater and the soil around the plant, which would result in the potential threat of health risks and evacuation of communities in the vicinity of the leak. Negative public