The Debate On Nuclear Energy

Fossil fuels are a primary source for providing energy throughout the United States. These sources of energy are causing many problems involving environment, health, and pollution. The solution? Nuclear power. Nuclear power is seen as a green energy that can improve global warming. However, there a more issues that can result from using nuclear power. Even though there are a lot of people who support it, nuclear power can result in world threatening problems. Nuclear waste, expense and time, and the threat regarding to war and terrorism are constant issues related to nuclear power.

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.

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

Nuclear power has been around since the 1950s, and has had varying opinions throughout the years (iaea.org). At its conception, individuals viewed nuclear power as an unlimited source of energy. People thought it would revolutionize the world and produce large amounts of power at extremely low prices. However, opinions changed after catastrophic events like the reactor meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Over the years, nuclear reactors have improved and made safer, and the power of the atom is slowly being tamed. There is still conflict between those who view nuclear power as the future and those who view it as a curse. Nuclear power is the future.

Much of the public is weary of nuclear energy because of past events, though they know very little about how it works or the safety measures that accompany it. A large power plant and the knowledge that one just like it melted down causing mass panic across the globe is enough to put any person on edge. Instead of scrapping the idea of nuclear power all together, researchers have come up with safer and smaller reactors that should be able to calm the public’s worries. Nuclear power has too many benefits to give up on the idea fully. Large nuclear plants are where many of the fears about nuclear energy have stemmed; new advancements and technologies, however, have emerged that could quell many of the concerns of the public. Small modular reactors

One of the most pressing topics of debate in the recent years has been the different sources of energy and their effects on the environment. People have started to realize the negative effects of non-renewable energy, such as greenhouse gas emissions and other negative effects on the environment, but neglect to take action and implement more ecofriendly energy sources. For the past 300 years the world has been predominantly powered by coal and other non-renewable energy sources, but now it is time to move past these energy sources and transition to more efficient, clean energy like nuclear energy. In those past three centuries, we have learned a lot about how fossil fuels effect the environment, while also discovering clean energy sources that can replace the outdated energy sources. In this essay, I will argue that nuclear energy is the solution to the energy debate and prove that it is the best energy source based on its effect on the environment, economy and energy efficiency.

What if all the power you would ever need in your life came from something the size of a golf ball? 1 kilogram of uranium can provide for every spark of energy you could use in your life from running your AC to powering an airplane. And yet this energy source is underutilized and only makes up about 20% of the electricity used in the United States (NEI, 2017). The question now is why? If nuclear power can create so much energy with minuscule amounts of fuel and waste why doesn't the U.S. use it more? The answer comes from such heavy reliance on fossil fuels and a fear of all things nuclear. But this reliance on fossil fuels cannot continue for much longer because of depleting resources and continual pollution worldwide. Power found through other means is needed to compensate for this. Energy produced through nuclear reactions are sound and effective, providing a way to change how energy works and the effects it has worldwide.

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.

Charles de Montesquieu once said, “Constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go”. Montesquieu was not only insinuating the need for the separation of powers, but also discussing the inevitability of power leading to corruption. The theme of abuse of power is frequently displayed in governmental settings across the world just as Montesquieu mentioned. A prime example of this in today’s world is the struggle for nuclear power. Nuclear weapons were first developed in the United States in 1942 in what was called the Manhattan Project. Three years later, the US tested their first nuclear weapon in New Mexico, and a month later dropped two atomic bombs on the

Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a

usually would only happen in a time of crises, this is why shields are so highly

The topic concerning whether nuclear energy is a positive or negative reinforcement is proven to be negative. The cost of production of the substance and toxins from the waste outweigh any known good impact. In the expenditure of power nationally, nuclear energy exponentially raises the price (Carrington, 2016). Energy resources are necessary in order for communities to thrive and expand; however nuclear energy is not the only vital resource. Various renewable energy sources can replace the need for nuclear energy for everyday basic needs, thus reducing the risk of nuclear power usage. Nuclear energy is an inevitable danger globally that should be eliminated immediately, an example of the threat it poses is the 30,000 mishaps at the US nuclear-power plants alone since 1979 (Schier & Zott, 2013). The complexity of the situation has increased by a tenth-fold, thus making the disposal of nuclear energy near impossible. However, it is plausible to believe the execution of the plan can still be carried out to get rid of the toxic substance.

Paper Topic:_____nuclear energy _________________ __________ Thesis Statement (Usually the last sentence(s) in the introduction): _____Should one find themselves in an area with nuclear a an option they should give it some true thought to nuclear energy due to the facts that Nuclear energy produces a lot of power while being both cheap and is very safe .___(Intro) _____12/2/1942 The world's very first nuclear reactor was brought on-line __then june 26 1954 .The first nuclear power plant came on-line if you do the math in twenty seventeen you will find that we the human race have had nuclear technology for 75 years .And in that time has been many countries have adopted it for which all comes down to three basic reason

their energy crisis. A study conducted in 2009 states that nuclear energy prices for electricity is $0.21/kWh, while wind power energy and solar photovoltaic panels can cost only $0.05-0.10/kWh (as cited in Shrader-Frechette (2011 p103)). The price comparison between energy sources show that nuclear energy is not the only effective option to solve the energy crisis. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the amount of dollar spent on nuclear energy is not very high compared to wind power. According to Shrader-Frechette (2011 p103), one dollar invested in wind energy will generate up to 100 times the energy invested in nuclear energy. The comparison describes that nuclear energy is very ineffective and that wind power is the most efficient source of energy. Wind power and the increasing efficiencies of current process to produce energy will deter the use of nuclear energy in Europe.

The Americas and the Syria’s energy is mostly diffrante. There is barely anything that is similar or close to be similar. There is barely anything that is similar because Syria is in war right now. Russia is thinking after the Syria’s civil war they are going to build oil refinery. Syria has a big problem with their securing fuel. The Americas are trying to fix the smoke that is keep on coming out of the building