Argument Against Nuclear Energy Research

　　　　On contrast, opponents hold different conceptions, they do not regard nuclear energy as a green and clean source of energy. According to Ross(2007), a news director for the National Urban League, fuel rods at every nuclear plant leak radioactive and harmful gases to atmosphere, and it is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. As a matter of fact, the essential raw material for nuclear nuclear power is uranium, which is a dangerous radioactive element. Opponents also claims that uranium tailing which is byproduct of the procession of getting energy are being inappropriately disposed, which make the situation even worse. On the other hand, after the tragedies of nuclear energy in Chernobyl, three mile island and other district, some people have become more and more impregnable to believe the nuclear energy is dangerous. Dr.

Presently, nuclear fusion and nuclear fission are being studied, and even used in some countries as a power generator. The enormous energy produced by nuclear fission and fusion could light up a big city for a hundred years or more and we do not have to worry about it polluting our environment because nuclear energy is a green energy. Moreover, in a long term, the cost to generate power using nuclear is far less than the cost of generating power using fossil fuel.

In today’s society, we have an almost immediate demand for an alternative source of energy. This is due to the gradual depletion of our finite sources of fossil fuels as well as due to the damage of the burning of fossil fuels to our environment. All of these alternative sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear power come with their upsides and downsides. The most controversial of which, nuclear power, also manages to have the most potential in the near future due to its lack of a carbon emission output.

The environmental impacts of nuclear energy are disputed by Diesensorf (2005) and Was (2015). Diesendorf believes that pollutions of nuclear energy are serious while Was (2015) describe it as clean though there are environmental risks. Lenzen, 2008 (cited in Diesensorf, 2005) states that greenhouse gas emission of nuclear energy which based on high degree of uranium mining is 60g/kWh, which is much higher than wind power (10-29g/kWh). He further explains that the decrease of ore grades would increase the use of diesel, which would skyrocket the demand for mining process. Consequently, carbon emission of nuclear energy rises to 131r/kWh in low-grade uranium. Diesendorf (2015) describe this phenomenon is unacceptable. Was (2015), in contrast,

Also, what if a nuclear meltdown occur what will we do then? However, according to World Nuclear Association states, “worker are supposed to work not too long and work at a bare minimum time so they won’t be expose”. Also, workers wear protective equipment so they won’t get exposed based from World Nuclear Association. If a nuclear meltdown would happen then the people who built them are responsible, in the meantime, nuclear power should be used to produce electricity. The reason, for this is because this world need electricity to power everyone and everything, if not use uranium, then we will miss on using the top efficient energy. In the article, “Sub-Seabed Burial of Nuclear Waste: IF The Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?” by Amal Bala states, “As of January 2014, 435 nuclear reactors were operational in thirty nations around the world with seventy-one reactors under construction”(Amal). Uranium is a top resource in our possession and we use this to provide electricity to the people, if people say that no if a nuclear meltdown could happen, if a polluted area with no wind and water power source then I say nuclear power is a way to

It is estimated that at today’s rate of consumption, the earth has about fifty years left of fossil fuels. In contrast, due to the very small amount of uranium needed to create a huge amount of energy, the supply of nuclear energy is almost infinite [Jiskha].

As each year passes, more and more electricity will be made as a result of increased nuclear power plants around the world. The economic benefits of nuclear energy are equally advantageous as the environmental aspects.

One nuclear power plant with a footprint of one square mile provides the energy equivalent of 20 square miles of solar panels, 1200 windmills, or the entire Hoover Dam. All of this power comes without any greenhouse gas emission although they do produce nuclear waste. Unfortunately most nuclear energy comes at the risk of a potential nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl or Fukushima. While nuclear meltdowns are rare there does exist a potential nuclear fuel that promises even cheaper energy, with no chance of a nuclear meltdown, and significantly less nuclear waste. Thorium is a radioactive element close to uranium on the periodic table, named after the Norse warrior god Thor, which promises large amount of safe nuclear energy. The first thorium reactor was the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) constructed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in 1964. “In place of the familiar fuel rods of modern nuclear plants, the MSR used liquid fuel—hot fluoride salt containing dissolved fissile material in a solution roughly the viscosity of water at operating temperature” (Hargraves 304). It operated from 1965 until 1969 without issue before it was decommissioned (Hargraves 304). It was determined that uranium used in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) was the quickest easiest way to power a nuclear submarine. Also the waste from the uranium LWR can be used to make bombs. While both of those reasons made sense during the

Throughout history, the availability of a reliable, safe, and efficient source of energy has dictated what humans can and cannot achieve. The use of Thorium as a next generation fuel gives us the opportunity to become a wealthier and a more environmentally conscious species. Thorium also presents us with the ability to do away with virtually every other form of energy production. In a world that is completely dependent on energy, the reliability of the resource is of the utmost importance. But perhaps even more important than that is it’s safety. This is why we chose to model how the reactor handles catastrophes that could possibly put the reaction in turmoil such as earthquakes and

Nuclear power plants provide the most economically efficient, safe, and sustainable source of power generation available to our generation; however it comes with it’s own set of issues that must be dealt with to mitigate any potential harm to the environment or population. One of the larger issues is that once the reactor has attained initial criticality, it is never truly “off”. The reactor will still produce heat due to decay of non-stable isotopes within it caused by fission.

a healthier, cheaper, and safer alternative to uranium, and is essential to the future and success

In fact, yes, we can avoid such catastrophes. Instead of using fuels like uranium-235 that are greater risk to events like a meltdown, a thorium based reactor is the logical choice.

To illustrate, the amount of pollution that is created as a result of using nuclear energy is detrimental to the environment. Since, “there is still no safe reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produce” (www.greenpeace.org), the waste produced by nuclear power plants will remain hazardous eternally. All current commercial nuclear power plants function through the process of nuclear fission. There are a tremendous amount of nuclear power plants and commonly they all convert energy into

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a type of molten salt reactor which will generate electrical power through nuclear fission. LFTR’s are a hypothetical and innovative solution to the future of power production which are a viable replacement of the current flawed uranium reactors.