Nuclear Power Should be a Critical Component in a Strategy to Deal With Concern About Global Warming

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).

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,

From the Article of “Nuclear energy Opposing viewpoints online collection”, many experts point out that, despite the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, nuclear power is still very safe. Indeed, one scientist has noted that the estimated number of deaths that might have resulted from Chernobyl is no greater than the annual number of deaths in the United States caused by air pollution from coal-burning power plants.

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.

Nuclear power requires high safety level as demonstrated by the commercial operation and accumulated experience of nuclear power plants. Over the years, three serious accidents, the Chernobyl in 1986, Three Mile Island in 1979, and the Fukushima leak 2011 have characterized the industrial use of nuclear energy

Tragic, devastating nuclear events occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima negatively impacting the environment and health of people in the surrounding area. As the result of oversight and human errors, these issues could be categorized as megadisasters caused by manmade catastrophe. This essay will highlight the issues with nuclear power plants that lead to incidences and horrific fallout, as is featured in both highlighted nuclear events. Through a comparison of the nuclear events at Chernobyl and Fukushima, this essay hopes to shed light on the value and dangers of nuclear energy. Through identifying issues with nuclear power, issues such as the lack of preparedness, contingency planning, and adequate public awareness can be challenged and

Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.

On December 2nd, 1942, the Chicago Pile-1 nuclear reactor was brought online. It was the world’s first, and the beginning of a movement that would come to shape the world’s energy resources for decades to come. Since that day, nuclear power has peaked at ten percent of the world’s total energy resources in 2011 (International Energy Agency), and has fueled not only power grids across the globe, but a heated debate about the viability, environmental impact, and ethical concerns of using nuclear fission and radioactive chemical reactions as a public energy source. The most widespread arguments against its use all revolve around a trio of disastrous reactor failures spanning the last three decades: the meltdown on Three Mile Island, the

Nuclear power has always been marked as a dangerous source of energy. It is not. Nuclear power accounts for 20% of our electricity production, yet only 5 deaths can be attributed to it, none actually nuclear related, with 4 deaths due to electrocution and 1 death from a falling object (World Nuclear Association). We have had only three nuclear power accidents that resulted in nuclear contamination in the 65 years we have been producing energy; Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl was the result of a fairly primitive, unsafe design and untrained operators (Chernobyl). The disaster happened during a special test that should have been safe, but the operators did not follow the safe procedures. Even so, after the problems had already arisen, the operators could had turned back on the automatic controls, that is, just let the plant control itself, the disaster would not have happened. Three Mile Island also was mainly a result

The fear of a nuclear power plants is reasonable, considering there were thirty-three accidents between the 1950’s and early 2000’s, (McInnes, Colin). Multiple incidents jeopardized the health of employees and near by citizens. Six of these incidents happened in the United States, five in Japan, and three in the United Kingdom and Russia. “Thirty-five liters of highly enriched Uranium solution leaked during transfer,” in the United Kingdom; more than 100 workers were exposed to one hundred and fifty millirems of radiation a day in Japan; reactors in

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.

When the term nuclear power or nuclear energy comes into conversations, often the first thoughts that come to mind are bombs, destruction, radioactive waste, and war. However, these four things occur the least in the nuclear power field. It is far more than just mass destruction and devastation, nuclear power is used to create electricity in a safe and eco-friendly manor. People have a high level of concern about the use of nuclear energy especially after past devastations such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Even with these accidents, society should not oppose the use of nuclear energy because of advancements in technology, it has become a very environmentally friendly and cost efficient energy source.

However, when looking at nuclear energy one need to consider the “two factors that impede the consideration of adoption of nuclear power - fear and expense.” (Easton, 2010, p. 221) If these factors could be overcome, we could gain the benefits of the this resource Reviving nuclear energy technology will help to reduce the need to burn oil, coal, or any other fuel that emit air pollution because nuclear reactor does not emit air pollution. Overall, it does not contribute to harming the environment. Furthermore, the use of nuclear energy as stated earlier will help eliminate the need for foreign oil and giving the country the much-needed national security and a green energy policy that will curve global warming.

The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.

As a whole, reliance on fossil fuels contributes to climate change, which will lead to disastrous consequences in the future. One of the many changes that can be made is to use cleaner sources of energy, of which nuclear is one of them.