Taking a Look at Nuclear Energy

Should nuclear energy be used? Throughout the article “Nowhere to go”, the author objectively reviews the use of nuclear energy, using the text and graphics to provide details that demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Nevertheless, the consequences of using nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. One of these consequences is that working with nuclear energy can cause many health problems. The text states, “Dangers include radiation sickness, cancers, and other health problems. High level radioactive waste can present hazards ‘for a million years or more,’ Kamps says.” This means that using nuclear energy can cause health problems for future generations.

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).

In both of the supporting articles over the use of nuclear energy, there is a proficient amount of strengthens and weakness in both arguments. Though the use of the background and prior information given in the preclude, it allows the reader to understand the basics of nuclear energy and the way both authors are approaching to present their ideas. Using this analytical preface most of the information presented, allows the reader to have an idea on which side is more appealing to their choosing. Allowing the reader to get a perspective on both sides of the argument will insight them on the information presented and will ultimately give a substantial amount of evidence to back their claims.

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

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.

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

- Radioactive waste, like the spent uranium rods take thousands of years to lose their radiation and decompose

Nuclear energy has many benefits, but do they outweigh the cons? The argument over nuclear energy has continued for many years. Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and produces massive amounts of energy, but does produce gargantuous amounts of radioactive waste. The benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the cons.

The steam spun the wheel of the turbine with a Whoosh. The ecstasy of finding a new energy source is ineffable, and when found, the discovery always immediately prompts a race to use this newfound source. In accordance with this behavior, many sought to integrate nuclear power into society upon its development. The difference being nuclear energy is far more complicated and powerful than anything the field of energy has dealt with thus far. There are two types of nuclear reactions, fission and fusion; working reactors only using fission currently. In fission a neutron reacts with Uranium-235 to produce energy, two fragment nuclei, and multiple neutrons to continue the reaction. Meanwhile, in fusion two hydrogen isotopes react to produce energy, protons, neutrons, and Helium. As a consequence of these processes ' complex and formidable natures, there is a hesitance to their utilization as it is difficult to discuss the complexities of the procedures with the public without some misinterpretation. Despite the benefits found in nuclear power, it still undergoes harsh debate as governments oppose giving money to such an unexplored area of science. Yet, an increase in funding for U.S. nuclear programs would prompt advancements that replace less effective energy sources, creating opportunities for specialization in the field.

New energy sources are invested in every year to produce heat and electricity for the citizens of the United States. However, nuclear power is becoming a much more urgent discussion topic. Nuclear power, or the use of nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity, contributes to nearly 20% of the electricity generated and used in America. According to the Department of Energy, the United States has invested 60 years of their time into nuclear power! But why have we done so? Well, the production of nuclear energy helps produce reliable, low-carbon energy, and supports national defense activities. Additionally, the Department of Energy also works to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of making magnificent contributions in

After the Fukushima Daiichi accident, nuclear power was once again brought into the spotlight with one burning question: Is it worth the risks? Well, I believe it is, and that we can avoid those risks altogether if we do it properly. One of our biggest upcoming problems is climate change, and with solar and wind power not able to provide enough clean power, nuclear is the safe, reliable, realistic, and clean option.

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 struggle for nuclear power has been a problem since the dawn of the nuclear age. Governments continue to use the threat of a nuclear attack as a deterrent. However, small terrorist groups may not feel threatened by a nuclear attack due to their mobility. Thus, the question remains; are nuclear weapons a necessary safety, or a danger. The solution is therefore to observe the pros and cons of nuclear capabilities, and to look at some precautions that can be taken to help protect people.

Energy renaissance versus worldwide destruction, these two theories present common views regarding the utilization of nuclear power. Few energy resources have been spoken with such notoriety by some and praised as the final energy solution by others than nuclear power. However, the United States must increase its use of nuclear power in order to cover rising energy demand caused by the global energy crisis. In addition, nuclear power is and will be an important factor in combating atmospheric increases in CO2 and maintaining economic strength.

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.