The Economic Impact Of Nuclear Energy

The use of nuclear power can have several negative impacts on the economy. The use of nuclear power can be costly. The building of the plants can cost between $12 - $18

According to nei.org, the Nuclear Energy Institute, “The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 1.64 cents per kWh”. The unit ‘cents per kWh’ is the standard unit for LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) which directly and completely compares all energy sources and their energy output in comparison to their costs (direct and indirect). This number (1.64c/kWh) is much lower in comparison to other energy sources’ operating costs of power plants, such as petroleum, which has an O&M cost of 4 cents per kWh. This makes nuclear energy a very cost-efficient option for alternative energy, that will save money for other uses over time, such as for better nuclear energy research or for cutting consumer electricity costs. { Plus, the cost of uranium, which is currently the main fuel for nuclear reactors, is fairly low in comparison with other fuel options. The Nuclear Energy Institute also lists that, “The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 0.76 cents / kWh.” In contrast, the 2014 fuel costs for coal and gas were 2.53 and 4.01 cents/kWh respectively, making nuclear energy a very cheap alternative to fossil fuels. In addition, looking at Figure 1, it can be seen that fuel costs occupy much less of the total production costs for nuclear energy than for fossil fuels. In fact, uranium itself occupies only about 15% of the

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

Firstly, the usage of nuclear power is consistent and plentiful. As we know, the reaction of nuclear can emit a great power of energy, it can support vast of families’ and enormous plants’ working. In addition, unlike solar energy and wind power, which depend on external factors, nuclear power is consistent generate at anytime and anywhere. Secondly, since the nuclear power is easy to produce and it also can generate a huge amount of power, it is much cheaper to use it. What’s more, like Hill’s saying, “with the cost of natural gas and oil soaring”, the nuclear plants have return back to work and produce massive energy. Lastly, nuclear power benefits to environment: not only because it does not produce the carbon emissions, which can alleviates the global warming; but also it reduces the noxious byproducts, like sulfur dioxide, which is main reason of air pollution. Therefore, using the nuclear power is an ideal energy resource for human

The author of The Cheap but Costly Alternative - Nuclear Power emphasizes the dangers of nuclear energy by informing you of all the disasters that can happen and have happened. The author also uses loaded language to create an emotional appeal on how people could get hurt so that the reader won't support nuclear energy. Wind or solar energy could be good alternatives to nuclear energy. These sources of energy are natural and clean considering they'd come right from the weather and

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

This report is formed to examine the effects that nuclear energy has brought upon the United States of America. As over the years, local state government as well as the public citizens of America are having sceptical doubts on the long term effects that nuclear energy would bring to the states.

In our society, nuclear energy has become one of the most criticized forms of energy by the environmentalists. Thus, a look at nuclear energy and the environment and its impact on economic growth.

Despite citizens opposed nuclear power plants, the government positions nuclear power plants as "important baseload power supplies" and shows the posture to utilize it as well as before nuclear accident six years ago, government decided to "reduce it as much as possible". In other words, people's resistance failed. The government wants to supply stable electricity at low cost, and Japan is an island country with few resources, and if there is no nuclear power will be insufficient when it is emergency. In addition, from the dangers of nuclear accident occurrence, citizens raise demonstrations or requests compensation. There are many people who oppose restarting in Japan because there are many people who think that safety is more important than

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

The use of nuclear power is risky, costly, and dangerous. The chances of having it leak are great, and if it ever does manage to leak somehow, it will take millions to clean up the mess. Nuclear power plants are also expensive to maintain and build. The money that goes to building nuclear plants only to have them taken down again could go to greater causes, such as funding other sources of renewable energy. For example, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power (“Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power.” Green America.). Overall, the cons of building and using nuclear power (plants) outweigh

The first reason why Nuclear Power can be beneficial is that by building a Nuclear Power Plant, it will bring several jobs to the community. The jobs that will be brought to the community will not only be jobs inside the Plant, but there will be construction jobs, engineering jobs, electricians, heavy machinery workers, and many more.

Nuclear power is expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and expensive to replace if something goes wrong. One facility in a multiple facility plant can cost up to $9 billion dollars to build, and more money to maintain. The whole world will require many nuclear power plants to provide energy, which will be expensive. If completed it will reduce pollution, but not fix the pollution

Nuclear power plants have a high energy density compared to fossil fuels. Nuclear energy requires much less fuel than other sources of energy. The greatest benefit of nuclear power is that is doesn't rely on the rapid change of oil and gas prices: “It doesn’t rely on fossil fuels and isn’t influenced by fluctuating oil and gas costs” (Conserve- Energy- Future). Overall, the efficiency of nuclear power plants is greater than the efficiency of fossil fuels. It uses less fuel causing less pollution, has a higher density of energy, and it is the most persistent source of

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