Should We Build A Nuclear Power Plant In Pennsylvania?

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

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).

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

Despite the fact the countries continue to increase the production of nuclear energy, my position is that new nuclear power plants should not continue to be built. The current use of nuclear power should be carefully evaluated with a plan to slowly decrease production throughout the world. The negative implications to the environment and economy support my position.

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

The loudest objection raised by the anti-nuclear groups is that there is "no safe level of radiation." It is also the phoniest. The major sources of radiation are natural and ubiquitous: we are continuously bombarded with radiation from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and from naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth. Compared with these background sources, the radiation from nuclear power plants is negligible.

There are many power sources that can be utilized for our everyday lives; to heat our homes , run our toasters, and light our hallways. Most of that power either directly or indirectly comes form the sun(such as solar energy and fossil fuels). But one energy source that derived by the pure ingenuity of man is nuclear power. As with all power sources there are positive and negative externalities. For example: the burning of fossil fuel releases SOX and NOX into the air which can cause harm to the health of humans ie. negative externality. But what is the the environmental effect of using nuclear energy? What is the cost of extracting all this energy from so little?

There are many different opinions on whether we should continue to create nuclear energy or we should stop it. Some of the positive aspects are there has been no fatalities at nuclear power plants. Another one is nuclear power plants generate 20% of today power. Also nuclear energy is a clean power source with no pollution. Some negative aspects are creating these plants cost a lot of money. Another problem is we are running out of places to store waste. The waste puts off nuclear radiation

On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, around 4 a.m., there was a failure in the water pumps at the Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania. This led to a partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all conducted particular studies of the radiological consequences of the accident. Approximately two million people were estimated to have received an average of one millirem of radiation, and there was a maximum dose to a person who was at the site of 100 millirem (“Backgrounder”). To put this into perspective, an exposure from a single chest X-ray is two to six millirem (“Doses”). However, this put fear into the minds of politicians and others all across the country. What the people do not know, though, is nuclear is better. Instead of using fossil-fuels and wind power, America ought to switch to nuclear energy to power the country because it is safer, cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable than the current ways of producing energy

Nuclear power is a much greener option than others, and can help prevent the devastating effects of fossil fuels on the environment. Burning fossil fuels releases thousands of tons of GHGs (greenhouse gasses) into the air that cause a variety of serious environmental problems. The emissions cause global warming which leads to the melting of polar ice caps and the raising of oceans. This also causes acid rain and air pollution which pollutes water sources, accelerates erosion and damages ecosystems (Pacific

Our argument is, should the U.S. invest in nuclear energy? My partner and I believe we should not. The United States has been thinking about the detriments and the benefits of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy is a strong demand by many countries. Nuclear power is good for saving energy and contains the greenhouse gases that are released into the air everyday. The atom, is where nuclear power is stored. In the 1940’s, the Argonne National Laboratory was assigned the lead role in developing commercial nuclear energy. They were assigned this by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Nuclear Power Plants most of the time, use fission to produce electricity. Despite all of this, nuclear power can also have a downside. This is the part we will be focusing

First and foremost Three Mile Island (TMI) is going through a debate on why it should close, or why it should stay open. In my opinion TMI should stay open for multiple reasons, all conclude with the Earth, and Money. When a small load is made in each Nuclear Power Plant makes it can generate 18 months of electricity for the area around it. This is wonderful for humans this means we will burn less Fossil Fuels and this means we can have them longer. It also means that we will not receive more pollution than we already have in the air. Another reason keeping this energy is that it saved 1.3 millions of lives. How does nuclear power save lives? Nuclear energy causes less air pollution, and this means 1.84 millions of lives are being saved, these

There is an energy company that wishes to build a nuclear power plant in the East Pennsboro Township. I am sure many would disagree with this after what happened at Three Mile Island and I understand how they feel but I think a new nuclear power plant should be built. For one thing, nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as you think. The “white smoke” coming out of cooling tower (the large column) is actually steam which has no negative effect on the environment. Nuclear power plants do not create or release any harmful gases into the environment and they have no effect on global warming. TMI was in a critical state to the point where people were evacuating but in the

Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.

This is due to the accidents and mishaps within some countries that happen and affect the whole world due to the devastating and large amount of damage to the ecosystem that these catastrophes cause. Some examples of nuclear accidents are the recent one in Japan a few years ago, and older accidents such as, Chernobyl. These accident cause great exposure to high levels of radiation for people in surrounding areas and can sometimes be carried around the globe under certain atmospheric conditions. There are other dangers as well. So you can see why there is a debate as to the efficiency and practicality of ongoing use of nuclear power.