Nuclear Power : The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear 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).

Nuclear power plants are a safe, clean and reliable source of energy production. They are uniquely qualified to meet the growing demand for energy in the USA.

We can’t completely eliminate nuclear power without bad consequences. If they shut down all the nuclear power plants, there would be many blackouts and brownouts. It

Storing nuclear waste is a political problem as no one wants it stored near them, so there is a dispute about where radioactive waste should be stored. But after all the advantages of using nuclear energy outweigh its disadvantages as nuclear plants emit less than one-hundredth of carbon dioxide gas compared to coal or gas-fired energy plants so there is a very little effect on the environment. Humans living next to coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear plants, where the former is harmful to human health and may be responsible for acid rain. On the other hand dependence on nuclear energy is now increasing in most countries as nuclear reactors use uranium as a fuel which is found everywhere on earth. It is inexpensive and easier to transport than other fuels which makes them less dependent on oil and foreign fuel from other countries.

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

The use of nuclear power is risky, costly, and dangerous. The chances of having it leak are great, and if it ever does manage to leak somehow, it will take millions to clean up the mess. Nuclear power plants are also expensive to maintain and build. The money that goes to building nuclear plants only to have them taken down again could go to greater causes, such as funding other sources of renewable energy. For example, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power (“Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.” Green America.). Overall, the cons of building and using nuclear power (plants) outweigh

Nuclear power plants provide a substantial amount of electricity, but could also have catastrophic consequences if put in dire situations. These power plants are often built in countries like France, where there is more opportunity and less risk. The idea of constructing a nuclear power plant, is not one that is very advisable at the time. The proposal was taken into consideration, but brought about some interesting factors. Building a nuclear power plant is too dangerous, way too expensive, and burdens too much of a risk to build one in our city.

Any positive attributes nuclear reactors and energy have can only be realized once the reactors have been built. This is one of the main problems with nuclear power. Nuclear reactors are very expensive to build and up keep. Not only

A large contributor to those arguments are the environmental effects. The plants require a large amount of uranium, which have to be mined from other countries, stripping them of one of their natural resources. As far as the water collecting goes, the filters only prevent large fish from being sucked up. Many tiny animals such as plankton are sucked up with the water. Larger wildlife such as seals and sea turtles can become entrapped in the filters and drown. The plants also produce nuclear waste, which takes up a ton of land and water space to store. And to top it off, the area where the power plant is can’t be used again. Economically, there are also many issues. It is very costly to build a nuclear power plant, and the cost to maintain and run one is extremely high, due to all the security, workers and technology needed. The nuclear waste that comes out of the plants is very expensive, due to the length of time it needs to be stored, and all the materials required to store it. Ethically, it also has many risks. Although safety is large priority, workers still die from being exposed to radiation. Also the radioactive water can go into the ground, contaminating the ground and water sources around it. These arguments are just the very basics of all the reasons why a nuclear power plant shouldn’t be built.

nuclear does produce waste. Also, one of the unique things about solar energy is that it is

So the topic today is about building a nuclear power plant in East Pennsboro Township, which is very close to the capital and three-mile island which poses a giant target for terrorism. There are not that many nuclear power plants in the world so that makes TMI and the power plant we build a really big target, plus it is near the capital so that can kill hundreds of thousands of people. But there are some pros and cons to building a nuclear power plant in East Pennsboro Township.

Nuclear accidents are another big reason why we should not have a power plant. Randomly out of the ordinary a nuclear accident may happen and it will end up harming people and making them move out of town. Therefore the town’s population will decrease and less people will live there and the point for the nuclear power plant is gone. Also it could end up killing all of east pennsboro and possibly even more.

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.

Not only it leaks and spills it threatens the environment. But still there isn’t any satisfying solution for the nuclear waste storage or disposal. Even though is waste it highly toxic and dangerous. Nuclear waste can harm people and the environment. However nuclear waste can be used to make weapons but this type of

Countries everywhere rely on nuclear energy to power their electricity, but many people are scared these huge reactors. Should they be? Nuclear power plants are safe with the correct safety precautions and designs put into place and they are the most proficient means of producing energy. To put it bluntly, we need nuclear energy from these power plants and as far as technology goes nuclear power plants are the best ways of producing this energy. Despite a few negatives the positives of using nuclear energy greatly outweigh the negatives.