Supporting the Expansion of the Darlington Nuclear Facility

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).

Currently, the energy (electricity generation) sector in Canada is facing a major crisis, which is the fear of running out of world’s natural resources to produce electricity. Even though the Canadian government is promoting renewable resources, it will take a long time to establish a network that is completely dependent on renewable resources. In the meantime, the population of Canada is growing drastically and cities such as Toronto is struggling to meet the rising demand for electricity due to urbanization.

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

William Tucker, author of "Why I still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima" explains, "It's not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days"(Tucker 228). Tucker questions why there is use of harmful nuclear energy when there are better technologies available; in contrast, he then provides examples that prove there are no better alternatives and other energy technologies are equally not without risk. In a five year period, uranium rods sit in a reactor core and transform six ounces of its original weight into energy and as a result obtains the ability to power a large city similarly to the size of San Francisco for five years (Tucker 228). Tucker shows how natural gas, wind mills, solar collectors, and hydroelectric dams are

Nuclear fission is a cost-effective, and relatively clean way to generate power. Since, the mid-1940’s, with the formation of the first atomic bombs, engineers have worked on improving nuclear power. In the 1970’s and 80’s nuclear power plants were built in cities to provide power for homes, workplaces, and other facets of life. Nuclear reactions were not well understood by the general public and therefore nuclear engineers inherited a certain status. Also as a result, nuclear power plants raised concerns for many Americans. The chances of a nuclear reactor failure were very slim, however, the consequences were devastating. Engineers feared that if the general public knew of the possible consequences that there would be massive amounts of unnecessary fear. As a result, operators of nuclear reactors were not informed of procedures to follow in the event of an emergency.

The responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear energy production throughout the world is in the hands of people. But, the layperson concept may be a bit askance because many consumers may view the issue of nuclear energy only in terms of price considerations. This is a discomforting notion considering the myriad of risks involved, especially in light of the consequences that have occurred at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. While no comparison exists in the United States (U.S.) that would enable U.S. citizens to understand the human and environmental toll that results when something tragically wrong occurs; it remains well past the time for us to consider real solutions to our energy needs that do not have the potential for such wide-spread devastation. Regardless of the various technologies and engineering acumen used to operate nuclear power plants, they are only as effective safety-wise as those who are charged with maintaining security.

Being a supporter of nuclear power in today’s society could be potentially risky. So conveys author William Tucker who believes there is no other alternative, even after the Fukushima disaster (228). Tucker uses a plethora of examples and statistics to demonstrate how nuclear power could be the best alternative; moreover, he doesn’t specify which energy technology is most dangerous, but states that they all are in different ways. All alternatives have risks that determine how harmful they can be; however, it is up to the people to decide how much they are willing to risk. Progressing on from the risks, Tucker claims that we need nuclear power “if we are going to maintain our standard of living” (228). As others try to disprove this statement,

One nuclear power plant with a footprint of one square mile provides the energy equivalent of 20 square miles of solar panels, 1200 windmills, or the entire Hoover Dam. All of this power comes without any greenhouse gas emission although they do produce nuclear waste. Unfortunately most nuclear energy comes at the risk of a potential nuclear meltdown like Chernobyl or Fukushima. While nuclear meltdowns may be rare there does is a potential nuclear fuel that promises even cheaper energy, with no chance of a nuclear meltdown, and produces significantly less nuclear waste. Thorium is a radioactive element close to uranium on the periodic table, named after the

“No one in the United States has become seriously ill or has died because of any kind of accident at a civilian nuclear power plant.” says Joe Barton. This is a highly controversial topic where there are many conflicting opinions. Some people believe that these plants are too dangerous to exist while other think that they are the edge of tomorrow. When analyzing it from a purely statistical and analytical standpoint, nuclear energy is clearly worth the possible risks they pose.

First, nuclear reactors have destroyed many lives. Though Quinson argues in support of building more

Nuclear energy as a continual source of energy is risky. Author William Tucker explores the use of uranium for energy in his essay. Tucker explains that although disasters, like the Fukushima meltdown, are scary, every other viable source of energy is also inherently deadly. He tells about a natural gas explosion in Cleveland that leveled an entire neighborhood along with 130 casualties (Tucker 228). Next Tucker explores the benefits our environment can gain from nuclear energy. Nuclear fuel rods are used for 5 years, and can continuously power a city the size of San Francisco for the entire time, without creating any greenhouse gases of any sort (228). And for the negative effects of mining? In just two states there are 732 coal mines. In

While, coal-burning plants release tons of ash into the atmosphere, which is a cause to acid rain (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). Additionally, coal-burning plants release a toxic gas, which has been associated with cancer; moreover, the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to cause the release of carbon dioxide and global warming (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). On the other side of the spectrum, nuclear plants have been known for their issues in the leakage of toxic wastes, creating a risk of harm to the individuals who live around the area (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). Moreover, nuclear reactors create toxic wastes and until now the plans for long term storage for these wastes have not been created, which leaves the question of if there will ever be a plan implemented (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015)? Illustrates that an investment in a nuclear plant might be riskier than making an investment with a coal-burning plant.

This nuclear power plant that was proposed, brought about the problem that it is too dangerous. A senior researcher at George Mason University states, “...let's hope that the current nuclear disaster

As each year passes, more and more electricity will be made as a result of increased nuclear power plants around the world. The economic benefits of nuclear energy are equally advantageous as the environmental aspects.

Nuclear power plants have been around for many years. The first nuclear power plant was built in 1954. The controversy over them is whether they are harmful or beneficial to the environment and to humans. We as humans tend use a lot of energy. Nuclear power plants are so called a “strong candidate” for supplying our energy. There are many harmful remarks on nuclear power plants, and today I am here to talk about why they should be potentially reduced if not banned. For starters it can lead to cancer for children young of age, it can be used a weapon for destroying or targeting our country, and how expensive they are related to other fuel factors.