Nuclear Technology As A Solution For Constantly Growing Energy Needs

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).

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

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

Throughout the time of nuclear power, scientist have been debating whether or not it was worth the risk for nuclear power. Most people agree that “[it has] the capacity to turn the earth into a desert or make the desert bloom” (4). Nuclear power is ideal in terms that it is efficient and cost effective, but it also has some downfalls. The process creates a lot of nuclear waste that is highly radioactive without a good place of disposing it, not to mention the inherently dangerous risks involved with nuclear power plants, such as explosions.

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.

For the most part, when people hear the word nuclear they instantly have images pop into mind. They think of atomic bombs, nuclear fallout, radiation poisoning, and sometimes the end of the world. These views have impacted the amount of nuclear energy in the United States it produces only 8.5% of the U.S. total energy. (IER, 2016) Though this is substantially more than other alternative sources of energy it is still quite minor compared to fossil fuels. These views appear to be generally shared across the globe with Nuclear power supplying only 11% of the world’s electricity. Though 13 countries rely on nuclear energy for over a quarter of their energy needs with France the highest at 72.3%. (NEI, 2017)

The world is in an energy crisis because humans solely rely on finite sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and oil. If humans consume these resources at status quo consumption rates, oil is projected to run out in 2051, gas in 2060, and coal in 2087. The evidence points to how the world is facing a huge problem that must be solved in the next half century. One possible method to solve this crisis is the rise of nuclear power. Nuclear reactors are a technology that has rapidly proliferated in the last half century while receiving both positive and negative reactions. The current status quo nuclear reactors in use are old light water reactors with many dangers, however the thorium reactor creates new possibilities for solving a multitude of problems.

On April 26, 1986 the entire world’s view of nuclear energy changed forever (Nave Chernobyl, n.d., para. 4). This was because on that day there was a massive explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine (part of the USSR at the time). Science can be applied to this event to explain why the plant exploded in the first place. Science can be used to look at how the plant was designed to work versus how it worked at the time of explosion. This event had massive health effects on nearby humans as well as animals and plants in the area. Radiation is very dangerous in high quantities and can have many detrimental effects. The radioactive material spread by the explosion can have continued effects many years after the event. The

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.

What comes to your mind when you think of nuclear energy? Most people think of nuclear bombs. However, nuclear energy can be used for so much more than bombs. In fact, if nuclear power did not exist, we would not exist! This is because the sun generates it energy from nuclear reactions of hydrogen nuclei into helium. Also, nuclear power could be the next solution for cheap energy for people and the radiation it gives off could even rid someone of cancer.

Worlds energy consumption has significantly increased in the 21 century and governments are looking for new and more sufficient sources of energy. Nuclear energy has drawn the global attention to itself recently. Nuclear energy is source of energy generated by breaking uranium atoms and releasing extremely large amount of energy (NEA 2014) (ENEC 2011). However, the question of should nuclear power be used or not arises when the worlds energy consumption is increasing at a significant rate. Some sources illustrate that nuclear power produces perilous radiations and it has harmful impacts on the environment and health while other sources claim that nuclear energy is not as dangerous as man-made radiations and it can be economically beneficial as it improves global employment infrastructures. An interpretation on both points of view clearly shows that nuclear energy should not be produed as the drawbacks of consumption of this type of energy overcomes the benefits.

Global demand and consumption of energy is at an all time high; the world needs a safe, efficient, clean, and high producing source of energy production. The solution is something we already use for energy production, Nuclear power. From the beginning of nuclear energy there has been concerns over the safety of the power plants and its impact on the environment. With climate change and more accurate information on nuclear power the tide is shifting in its favor. This paper will explore the positives of nuclear power, political change on nuclear power, safety of the energy source and new technologies associated with the nuclear power process. Most importantly are the risks associated with nuclear power worth it? Research suggests that nuclear power is safer now more than ever and has less of an impact on the environment than coal or oil. Public support and misconceptions over the years have been up and down due to political agendas and those who are misinformed about nuclear power. Individuals who are involved in the energy field are in favor of nuclear power and building more plants with newer technology.

During the early to mid 1900’s, scientists began research on a cheap energy source and successfully created atomic energy. This new form of power could supply millions of homes with electricity at the fraction of the cost of traditional supplies. However, the nuclear power could damage earth severely through nuclear bombs and nuclear radiations, killing tens of thousands of people and leaving the earth in shambles. Due to these dangers, on Earth, usage of nuclear power should not be permitted for any purposes.

The other side of this issue sheds a different light on the same subject. The expense of nuclear energy is measured differently. Financial expense is a factor but fear is the most major concern. Nuclear energy has no pollution or emissions but the by-products of the process namely waste, and how it is stored, transported and discarded is regarded by many as the downside of nuclear energy. The safety of power plants was the original concern but as these expanded across our country and the world, the waste has come to be a mightier concern from the holding and containing in plants, to the transporting over highways and ultimately the storage of these toxic materials, with a half-life of a thousand years. The potential harm of radioactive waste is to humans, wildlife and the

The environmental fears of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Fukushima power plant have yet to be seen. Three Mile Island harmed no one, Chernobyl had the Red Forest, where a whole forest of pine trees died and had to be removed, and the Fukushima power plant has yet to begin assessing the impact. At Chernobyl many food restrictions were put in place immediately on plant and animal consumption, and several of these remain today. More research needs to be completed. The fear of an accident, and concerns over waste disposal linger in the minds of many, restating the hazards and fears of nuclear energy on the environment. Rising health concerns about radiation and the relation to cancer is the chief concern posed by nuclear power, even though exposure to low-level radiation occurs daily the link to cancer and radiation are confirmed in a report by the EPA “There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure.... In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic (random) effects.” The result a nuclear accident can make on a nearby community proves the danger associated with nuclear power supplies. Nuclear power has proven to be dangerous with the possibility of radiation poisoning and high