Replacing Nuclear Power Argumentative Analysis

Nuclear energy, which has historically been depicted as a dangerous and evil energy source, has recently seen renewed attention as an alternative form of energy and has been rehabilitated in the eyes of the public after rising concerns regarding global warming and a rise in the demand of energy (World Nuclear Association 2011). However, due to the March 2011 Fukushima accident,

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

While Nuclear energy may have been beneficial to the American government and its citizens in some ways, it reshaped the way Americans and the United States Government thought of the role of citizens in Nuclear America. Americans could not rely on their government to keep them safe anymore and the government, through misguided attempts at preserving and improving the citizens’ lives, were putting those very lives at risk.

Nuclear energy was likewise discovered to be useful in naval tactics and in sourcing electricity. As technology has significantly advanced and knowledge has expanded beyond measures, the realm of nuclear engineering has indeed achieved scientific milestones. In practice of modern times, nuclear energy is manufactured within power plants, capable of supporting an outstanding amount of electricity (World Nuclear Association). However, this limited method of energy production is thought to be dangerous. Nuclear engineering is certainly one complex subject and is foreign to the majority of the world population. Within a nuclear power plant, reactors are employed to force uranium ions to undergo the process of nuclear fission; nuclear fission is the separation of atoms, the smallest unit of matter. This splitting of uranium ions releases energy, thus, producing usable heat. Heat is crucial to not only nuclear energy production; rather, heat is necessary in all power plants. Such will then become the steam that gyrates turbines. These turbines are coupled with electromagnets which, finally, yield electricity (How Nuclear Reactors Work). One foremost flaw of nuclear power is the consequential radioactive waste that must be monitored for a long while following disposal. Nevertheless, as resources upon this planet are surely depleting, original forms of energy production are mandatory. In consideration of such, nuclear power plants have proved to be both efficient

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

After the World War 2 comes to an end, the US government formed together the Atomic Energy Commission to encourage the exploration of more peaceful alternative usage of nuclear materials instead of focusing on creation of weapons of mass destruction. Now almost several decades later, there has been one hundred and four nuclear reactors and counting built throughout the states that are harnessing a great amount of energy to meet the demand of one-fifth

Lastly, the lack of proper supervision and protection for the nuclear plants can potentially cause detrimental amount of damage to the environment and society. We need to take responsibility for the safety for our next

Background Information. In the past 10 years the usage of nuclear energy has become one of the most polarizing issues of the world. Especially in the Middle East when a country reveals information about its nuclear program, the west considers this country as a threat and tries all possible ways to stop this program.

More than 30 years ago, nuclear energy was poisoned in the eyes of most Americans after the partial reactor meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Anti-nuclear sentiment swelled while construction of new reactors stalled. Fears of nuclear power were further confirmed after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union, and later reaffirmed by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. The development of new nuclear power screeched to a halt after Fukushima, which froze Japan’s nuclear industry and caused hundreds of thousands of Japanese to evacuate the area surrounding the plant.

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

Large radioactive clouds also covered up the sky of Europe, resulting in the evacuation of thousands of families in various countries as well. As these accidents and their disastrous results suggest, nuclear energy is a threat and should not be used.

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.

The public effects of the Chernobyl disaster were far reaching. First of all, it negatively influenced a number of counties’ domestic opinions regarding nuclear programs. Although nuclear protests were common in the 1970s, by 1986 it had dropped from public scrutiny to the point

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.