Nuclear Spring Peter Macoblic Analysis

Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has

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.

The first advantage of nuclear energy is that it is one of the cleanest sources of energy available to us now. The process of fission doesn’t emit any greenhouse gases or emissions that are linked to global warming. Nuclear energy is currently the largest clean air energy source. It currently occupies 63.3 percent of the emission free electricity in the United States, and this must continue to get expanded upon. With increased use of nuclear energy comes a decreased use in fossil fuels, which would result in a lower carbon footprint for the U.S. This would help slow down the impact of global warming and climate change.

“Nuclear Power is like the unloved child of renewable energy, it only gets noticed when it does something wrong, it has so much potential!” – Anonymous

We are in much need for places to store this nuclear waste. One of the places researches believe may be the perfect place but also the worst place is Yucca Mountain. I believe they should store nuclear waste inside the Yucca Mountain. It is far away

Nuclear power is a much greener option than others, and can help prevent the devastating effects of fossil fuels on the environment. Burning fossil fuels releases thousands of tons of GHGs (greenhouse gasses) into the air that cause a variety of serious environmental problems. The emissions cause global warming which leads to the melting of polar ice caps and the raising of oceans. This also causes acid rain and air pollution which pollutes water sources, accelerates erosion and damages ecosystems (Pacific

While reading Richard A. Muller Nuclear Waste a professor of physics from the University of California. I really enjoyed the reading and learning how nuclear waste “is one of the biggest technical issues that any president is likely to face”. In this chapter he also spoke of Plutonium which is a transuranic radioactive chemical element with symbol Pu and atomic number 94. Richard also went on to say that there is a “safe” nuclear waste disposal located in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In order to keep the waste disposal safe, it is buried in a storage room in which is 1000 feet below the surface.

Yucca Mountain is arid to semiarid today, 170 mm/year of precipitation directly over the repository block and more than 280 mm/year for higher elevations in the north. Due to the isolation, dry temperatures, and mountains, Yucca Mountain was found as a perfect site to hold long term nuclear waste. “Geologic disposal is the strategy defined in the NWPA of 1982, as it is the only technically credible, long-term option that can isolate nuclear waste without continuing active management. The fundamental concepts behind geologic disposal are that the waste can be isolated underground and that the geologic medium itself in conjunction with the waste form and other engineered barriers will isolate the waste” (Endres,2012). Ever since the 1950s residents of southern Nevada have been exposed to radiation due to atomic bomb testing. In 1996, scientists discovered that water was infiltrating Yucca Mountain far faster than they had thought possible, and a chemical called chlorine-36, which is an isotope introduced into environment from atomic bomb testing, was found in test tunnels drug in the mountain. With this new data it is believed that this can lead to many health risks and environmental concerns if nuclear waste spill occurs at Yucca Mountain. Exposure can potentially cause skin cancer, skin tissue damaged, and damage to DNA. With a nuclear

a) Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of green house gases and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little. . USA is currently responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions - an average of 40,000 pounds of carbon dioxide is released by each US citizen every year - the

If nuclear power production is banned, naturally, we will switch to the most reliable, proven, and popular source of energy: coal. This isn’t good because coal’s effects are worse than nuclear’s. Nuclear power production saves what coal would have destroyed. Without nuclear power, it will be harder to mitigate climate change and air pollution. Historical energy production data reveal that if nuclear power never existed, the energy it supplied would have been supplied by fossil fuels (overwhelmingly coal) which cause higher air pollution mortality and GHG emissions. Nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1979-2009. Nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2 globally between 1971-2009. Nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of coal power plants. Projected nuclear power could reduce the CO2 mitigation burden by as much as 16-48%. If nuclear power production was banned, we would be back to coal again. The wastage of resources and pollution of the planet that comes with coal cannot be allowed when there’s the alternative of nuclear power production which lowers mortality and

The proposed plan was to make tunnels through the Yucca Mountains. In 2010, President Barack Obama stopped the Yucca Mountains license review. He wanted a study commission to recommend a new policy for the long-term management of nuclear and radioactive waste (NEI). The president is looking out for the natives in some sense, but as you will see later in my paper, that is not true. Since 2010, the site has been abandoned because of the legal battles going on and no waste has been put there (ICTMN Staff). With the site for now not operational, there is still a chance that it could have waste in it soon.

Fear of the world continues with nuclear effects on the environment. Radiation from nuclear attacks would certainly result in a warmer climate. Although the possibility of eliminating harsh winter weathers sounds attractive, the manipulation of nature in the long term creates ecological damage. Radiation not only affects human, but nature as well. Nature is a vital component of life and survival.

Nuclear energy provides solutions to many concerns over climate change, energy resource availability, air quality and energy security. So far, electricity production through nuclear energy use has developed through three generations.

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.