Nuclear Power : The Realistic, Smart Choice

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).

For years, many scientists, environmentalists, and energy experts have been studying how human’s creation and use of energy has impacted our environment. These experts have discovered some troubling facts. Most of our country’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. But there’s a safe and effective solution to this problem: nuclear power. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

John Paul Jones states, “It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” The controversy regarding the utilization of nuclear energy focuses upon the assessment of whether the hazards involved are worth the potential benefits. Throughout the progression of mankind, advancements in energy and power production have consistently transformed all lifestyles. Such advancements have, in addition, provided extensive information pertaining to the sciences. Regrettably, resources scarcely exist, and destruction of the planet is inevitable. Innovations for power source fabrication, ones that prove to be renewable, are not optional projects. Such requirements are demanded on every continent. Despite

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

Some may say that nuclear energy is bad solely based off of what they know about the infamous Chernobyl. However, Chernobyl should never have happened. In a rush to provide power and test nuclear energy, the Soviets made a poorly built excuse for a nuclear power plant. Due to human error and lack of a containment center, Chernobyl was an exception to a rather safe way of producing energy.

Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island — all known as major nuclear power disasters. Nuclear power might be a good source of power, but in the long run it can be a real hazard and should be banned. If we rely on nuclear power to be our primary power source, it will cause major problems to humans and the environment. Nuclear power is hard to dispose of, expensive to run, and the reactors can easily be disrupted and cause the release of massive amounts of radiation.

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.

It is not safe for the environment or to the people that work at nuclear plants. There have been many accounts of nuclear power plants fail or even imploding because of the usage of nuclear energy. For instance the Chernobyl disaster that had occurred on 26 April, 1986 in Russia. It is said that, “The Chernobyl accident dominates the Energy accidents sub-category, of most disastrous nuclear power plant accident in history, both in terms of cost and casualties. It is one of only two nuclear energy accidents classified as a level 7 event (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011. The struggle to safeguard against scenarios which were, at many times falsely, perceived as having the potential for greater catastrophe and the later decontamination efforts of the surroundings, it involved over 500,000 workers and cost estimated to 18 billion rubles (308658382.05 US Dollars). During the accident, blast effects caused 2 deaths within the facility and later 29 firemen and employees died in the days-to-months afterward from acute radiation syndrome.”-Wikipedia. Another disaster is the Three Mile Island Accident. In 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was destroyed because of a cooling malfunction. According to the plant operators that, “After a radiation leak was discovered on March 30, residents were advised to stay indoors. Experts were uncertain if the hydrogen bubble would create further meltdown or possibly a giant explosion, and as a precaution, Governor Thornburgh advised ‘pregnant women and preschool age children to leave the area within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility until further notice.’ This led to the panic the governor had hoped to avoid; within days, more than 100,000 people had fled surrounding towns.”history.com

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 can be very beneficial to people. One reason why they are helpful is because it will bring more jobs to southern Indiana. Another reason why they are beneficial to our community is that it will decrease the Co2 emissions in the air. The third reason that Nuclear power can be beneficial is that it will it will save many lives for various reasons. This is why Nuclear Power can be beneficial.

Now when people think of nuclear power plants their first idea to come into mind wouldn’t be safety, and in fact events such as the first nuclear meltdown in Chalk River, Canada and the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl, Ukraine would scoff at such a suggestion; however not only is nuclear power a safe option for energy, it can be considered a safer option that Coal, Fossil Fuel, and most surprisingly hydroelectric energy. In what I dubbed the “Worst Dam Disaster in History” the Banquio Dam of China flooded, and eventually was destroyed, in August 1975, killing an estimated 171,000. The most liberal estimates of the deaths at Chernobyl are around 4000 deaths. In addition since 1952 there have been 33 meltdowns, less than 1

Humanity is at a critical point in its history. Sea levels have risen by around three millimeters per year since 1993 (“Sea Level"), and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are measured at 399.3 parts per million (ppm) as of November 2014 ("Carbon Dioxide"). This is particularly shocking when one considers that over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide fluctuations have stayed between 180 and 300 ppm (Smol). Global average temperature, the central focus of climate change, has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. In fact, the current century has seen ten of the warmest years on record ("News and Features") These and other statistics are all commonly attributed to human activity and industrialization. Furthermore, the world population will continue to grow, and third-world countries will begin to develop in the coming years, thus adding millions more people in need of electricity. Progressions such as these emphasize the need for a cleaner and more sustainable source of energy to replace fossil fuels.

With any large energy producing facility there are risks. The truth is that accidents do happen at nuclear power plants and at other facilities all the time. An example of this was the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania where there was a partial meltdown in March 1979. More recently was the worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Statistical data for 1995, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency early in 1996, indicated that there were a total of 437 operational nuclear power stations in 31 countries with years of experience. Chernobyl was the only plant that injured the public. Thus, judging by the data, that is a good record for a source of energy.

Nuclear power is complicated. A nuclear power plant provides energy that does not contribute to global warming. Climate concerns have seen a rise in the construction of new reactors to address growing demands of electricity worldwide. Currently the United States and Canada receive 20% of their electric power from nuclear plants. The rest of the world is at 6% but rising. The benefits drive the nuclear energy movement and continue to do so and the proponents of nuclear power see this as an indispensable solution in reducing the consumption of conflict-ridden fossil fuels. Opponents of nuclear power also make a strong case citing cost, safety and justified global concern of waste storage and the potential for nuclear weapons in areas

It is frequently said that nuclear energy is cheaper, safer and more efficient than fossil fuels, and without the effects on air pollution, so it is often seen as a solution to the energy crisis. In 2000, approximately a sixth of the global electricity power was provided by nuclear power. (Boyle, G et al 2003) However, over the last year, there has been the serious accident with a nuclear power plant in Japan, which has draw attention on the nuclear issue once again, as it recalled the devastating disaster of Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. It needs to be asked whether it is safe enough to be