Rethinking Nuclear Energy

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

The world is running out of fossil fuels and this decrease in supply is causing an increase in price for the consumer. There is a growing need to find alternative sources for energy. The World Energy Council predicts that the world will be using 50 percent more energy by the year 2020 (Morgan). Among the options for more energy are wind, solar, water, and nuclear powers. Nuclear power gives far more bang for the buck than the others. Although it can produce vast amounts of energy there is a lot of skepticism about the benefits of nuclear energy. Most of the critics say that nuclear power is far too dangerous for widespread use. At the present time nuclear energy seems to be the best alternative source over

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.

It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent of the power in the U.S. (Loewen 53). In addition nuclear has an exemplary safety record. The group of people who oppose nuclear and promote renewable power sources, hereafter termed environmentalists, do so for very sound reasons. However,

Throughout history, the source of energy that powers the world has advanced alongside technology. The power on which civilization thrives has to be in accordance to the demand at which it is required. As technology evolves, objects from which energy can be extracted can expanded exponentially. In the status quo, the United States is trying to limit the greenhouse gas emissions instead of just switching power sources which is the wrong direction they should be going in. [Thesis] Instead of wasting their time and money investing in burning coal as their main source of power, countries and their governments need to assist in the transition to a more cost effective and efficient form of energy in the form of nuclear energy.

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

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

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

Nuclear energy is the process of creating useful heat and electricity. The nuclear power debate is a controversy about the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate over the expansion of the nuclear energy program has been prominent over the last 4 decades. The debate really escalated during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries. It is important for the expansion of human life and improving life as we know it. I firmly believe that we need to keep using and expand the use of nuclear energy due to the fact that it eliminates fossil fuel pollutants, it is sustainable and cost effective, and it improves overall human quality of life.

The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights. If we hope to continue consuming energy on the scale that we currently do, we need to find a better way to produce it. Fortunately, the best contender is an energy generation form that the United States is already familiar with, albeit equally as uncomfortable with. Currently, nuclear power makes up 19% of our country’s power generation, and with community and government support, the industry could spread its wings further to help relieve the dependence we have on burning fossil fuels [3]. Many people have misconceived many ideas about nuclear power, believing that it is expensive, unsafe by its very nature, and a threat to a

As the demands for energy increases, the United States needs to determine how it is going to meet the need. A range of options is needed for future generations and nuclear power is one suitable option. As with any option, it comes with its strengths and weaknesses. Presently, sixty-six percent of the United States energy comes from fossil fuel, while only nineteen percent comes from nuclear power; however, fickle oil prices are a sign that the era of abundant and cheap transportation fuel is ending. As the global necessity for electricity rises, the United States needs to turn to nuclear power as their solution.

Nuclear power has been one of the largest contributors of energy for the past fifty years. With the end of World War II, research into nuclear energies shifted away from war applications to simply using it to power the world. Nuclear power was regarded as the never ending energy source that would bring an end to energy problems and power the whole world. For many years it seemed to work with no problems; however, that was a short lived reality. As problems with nuclear energy came to light, many believed it was a better investment for the future to research and develop new energy sources or just continue using fossil fuels. Many believe the risks and downsides of nuclear power outweigh the benefits. However, there are still many advocates of nuclear power that believe it is the best energy source for the world for reasons such as its large production of energy, their belief that it is not a major harm to the environment, and their belief that it is better than the other energy alternatives. However, in spite of these beliefs and facts, research into nuclear power opposes the belief that nuclear power should be the main contributor of power because they are expensive to build and can result in a catastrophic situations.

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.

The debate on nuclear energy and it’s potential stake in South Africa’s future has proven to be a contentious topic, with issues like transparency overshadowing the advantages the energy source could bring to the country. The prospect of nuclear energy as a primary source of energy is supported and questioned by various academics, researchers and NGO’s. The threats that accompany the thought of the deal are not just environmental. The nuclear deal has incited response from political, economical and ethical realms. In this essay, I will assume the role of an advisor to government, suggesting ways to promote and ‘sell’ the idea of bringing nuclear energy to South Africa. To form and provide a proper response to block threats and emphasise