Nowadays, governments are facing two main problems about electricity: resources of fossil fuels are running out and countries need to diminish their carbon emissions. Nuclear is seen as the most common alternative. Nuclear currently supplies 19% of the UK’s electricity and 11% in the world (NIA,2015). In the UK, all but one of the current nuclear plants are due to close by 2023. Should the UK replace their nuclear plants by a new generation of nuclear stations? Because of the accidents, costs and problems of nuclear waste, some people are opposed to this possibility. Their solution would be that Britain could achieve 85% of its power via renewable energy by 2030. This essay will examine if nuclear power is the best alternative to fossil fuels while continuing to supply the rising demand for electricity in the UK. It will be argued that there are advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power and that other alternatives should be considered. Climate change is one of the main issues of our current society. This problem is caused largely by human behaviour. Human activity increases the emissions of CO2 which causes negative impacts on our environment such as flooding, the increase of sea levels and precipitations. Burning fossil fuels emit a lot of carbons and other gases. These gases intensify the greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm and cause global warming. (BBC, 2014). In 1997, UK agreed to the Kyoto treaty which is an agreement between countries worldwide to
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.
Although it was predicted that one day nuclear power would make electricity “too cheap to meter”, instead now it is “too expensive too finance” (“Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities,” n.d., para.2). Although nuclear industry says that nuclear power is the cheapest compared to other methods of power, costs of nuclear power have been underestimated by almost a factor of three (Caldicott, 2006 p. 19). This is because a lot of costs related to nuclear power have not been accurately reflected in the figures shown to public, such as cost for the total nuclear fuel cycle, construction and running costs. Waste disposal and decommissioning are other expenses related to nuclear power that are ignored when figuring out the estimated cost of nuclear power (Karson, p. 26). Many groups argue that the cost of nuclear generation is at least three times the figure provided by the British Nuclear Fuels (McLeish, p. 36). Another reason, nuclear power costs are underestimated is due costs of new technology needed for the power plant are not taken in to account. Delay in construction is also an unnoticed expense (McLesih, 9. 37). It is unlikely to take the full cost of nuclear power into account. It is hard to claim that nuclear power is the more competitive price energy source compared to other energy sources because of its many hidden
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 disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.
Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.
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.
Nuclear power is on the rise as it is a cleaner alternative to other energies; nations are trying to increase the production of energy from nuclear power in order to go ‘Green’ and to save the environment and the ozone layer from greenhouse gases. Other energy resources utilize fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum and create large amounts of greenhouse gases. However, nuclear Energy is extremely dangerous as plants can suffer from catastrophic meltdowns and even explosions.
Due in large part to its high energy output, nuclear power is a feasible and practical technology for meeting the world’s energy needs. For example, global energy demand has been continually increasing, with a 66% growth between 1980 and 2007; this demand is expected to increase by 40% by 2030 (World-Nuclear.org). As a testament to nuclear power’s utility as an energy source, it currently provides a large amount of global electricity: nuclear power met 20% of the global demand of electricity as of
The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.
On this assignment we are going to research all energy sources and their drawbacks, we are also going to explore on some the negative ramifications that even the clean hydropower have, additionally we are going to weigh those against the possible consequences of developing nuclear power, a controversial alternative to fossil fuels. We will discuss the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in drawing conclusions about risk versus reward of nuclear energy use.
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.
Perhaps the main disadvantage of nuclear power plants, is the generation of nuclear waste. However, new technologies in 4th generation reactors are minimising the creation of waste and using old waste as their primary fuel., While the threat of a nuclear disaster like Fukushima is still “fresh in our minds”, fossil fuels have done more damage than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined. Additionally, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is decreasing with new technologies, that eliminate human error., Nuclear power plants can also be seen as a “beacon for terrorist attacks”,, since one bomb could result in another Chernobyl. Furthermore, while the cost of building a nuclear power plant is high, it is still cheaper than the rising prices of renewables (see Figure 7)., A common misconception is that “the transition from nuclear power plants would be cheap and smooth.” However, this is far from the truth. Nuclear power plants will always be needed to provide a baseload of electricity, since renewables are inefficient and incapable, regardless of the few negative