Should Nuclear Power Be Implemented Nationwide As A Clean Sustainable Alternative?

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.

On April 26, 1986, a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant experienced a catastrophic meltdown that emitted radioactive material into the atmosphere, killing 31 people.

A huge part of why people oppose nuclear energy is because of the safety issues that come with nuclear reactors. The Hill is a news agency that has written an article on nuclear safety and the accidents that have recently happened. They also took a poll on how many Americans favor nuclear energy and how many favor it who live in cities with nuclear reactors. They state:

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).

Early in the morning of April 27, 1986, the world experienced its largest nuclear disaster ever (Gould 40). While violating safety protocol during a test, Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl power plant was placed in a severely unstable state, and in a matter of seconds the reactor output shot up to 120 times the rated output (Flavin 8). The resulting steam explosion tossed aside the reactor’s 1,000 ton concrete covering and released radioactive particles up to one and a half miles into the sky (Gould 38). The explosion and resulting fires caused 31 immediate deaths and over a thousand injuries, including radiation poisoning (Flavin 5). After the

To many times people talk about the negative side of nuclear energy, and how it can impact the environment around them, but too few talk about how nuclear energy had improved their lives. In truth nuclear energy is responsible for creating a fair amount of revenue in the local economy, state revenue, and federal revenue. For every dollar a nuclear power plant spends it generates an estimated 1.04 in the community, 1.18 in the state, and a 1.87 for the nation (Nuclear Energy Institute). With such a great revenue it would be detrimental to the nation if nuclear energy was disbanded, and deemed a great threat to national security. Nuclear energy generates roughly $16 million dollars annually for the state it resides in, and about $67 million dollars annually for the nation (Nuclear Energy Institute). That revenue generated for the state is used for the construction of new schools, improved state wide emergency response training and response times, and a whole multitude of things that just can’t compare. To add to this nuclear

There have been lots of nuclear accident around the world. One of the accident that had a major impact on the world was the Chernobyl disaster. The disaster took place on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. The disaster was caused by a reaction explosion induced by design faults and staff application errors. The accident took place in the course of scheduled tests to check the power supply mode in the event of external sources loss. Even after 10 days, explosions and ejections of radioactive substances continued. The release of radiation and radioactive substance polluted the places within 30 km of Chernobyl, and those areas have been closed for a long period of

The Chernobyl accident was a disastrous nuclear event that happened on 26th April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. The Chernobyl disaster is classified as a level 7 event according to the International Nuclear Event Scale (only two events have been classified this high in the past) and has caused damages that consist of the cost of 500,000 workers and 18 billion rubles, 31 deaths according to the Soviet casualty count (this is still being disputed) and between 4000-27000 affected future deaths due to radiation exposure [G1].

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 Chernobyl disaster was a result of human error, this accident resulted because proper protocols were not followed. The explosion caused a partial meltdown which resulted in the release of radiation levels ranging from 10,000 – 300,000 mSv/hr (Meyer, 2014). The mishap that took place on Three-mile-island was the result of an in-advert discharge to the soil and atmosphere (Meyer, 2014). Although the workers could stop the release immediately, the damage was done. Dozens of fatalities occurred, and many lost their lives subsequently due to acute exposure to the radiation. This

I am against building another nuclear power plant in East Pennsboro Township, Pennsylvania. I think that the risks nuclear power brings far outweigh the positives of it. There have already been nuclear accidents that have made a town completely poisonous, like Chernobyl. There have also been accidents that put the surrounding area at risk for radioactivity and scared thousands of people. Three Mile Island was an example of this. We do not want people who live near a nuclear power plant to be afraid to live in their own homes due to the risk of a nuclear accident. I think we should put a stop to nuclear power in Pennsylvania so we don't put ourselves at risk for an accident, because it’s not worth it.

The US Department of Energy showed that 75 US nuclear reactors had initially had a budget of $45 billion, but ended up costing $145 billion. (“counterpoint: The Risks of Nuclear Power Outweigh the Benefits”) Another example of expensive nuclear plants would be that a study found that out of all nuclear plants in the world, 97% went over budget. Only 3% have been able to stay on budget, but probably because they had a very high budget, to begin with. Also, those power plants don’t get much income. “According to British Energy, a provision of 3 billion pounds invested at a return of just 3% per year…” (Buchan 2) All of this shows that nuclear power plants are too expensive to keep. They cost a lot of money and they have to spend money to make only 3%. 3 billion pounds for 3% back. I don’t think so. There are a lot more environmentally friendly ways to produce energy, other ways to make power and make more money and spend less money. This is an issue and governments must stop spending a lot of money on wasteful nuclear

On April 26th, 1986, operators at the Chernobyl Power Plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine, ran what they thought to be a routine safety test. But fate was not on the side of these operators. Without warning, reactor #4 became unstable, as it had been operating at a low power for a possible shutdown and the reactor’s design caused it to be unsafe at this level of power. Internal temperatures rose. Attempts to cool the system produced the opposite effect. Instantly, the nuclear core surged with power. At 1:23 p.m., the reactor exploded. The first blast ripped off the reactor's steel roof. The second blast released a large plume of radiation into the sky. Flames engulfed the building. For ten long days,

My argument is that nuclear power may be the so called “safe” and “clean” source of energy that we are looking for, but can we really afford to continue to use this source of energy. Is it “clean”? One problem with nuclear power is that

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