The Nuclear Predicament

Not many people fully know what happened at Chernobyl, or understand the effect it has had on today’s nuclear science. Chernobyl has been named as the largest man-made disaster ever recorded. Chernobyl is the most influential and important event during the 1980’s because it has completely changed how the world views anything nuclear by changing experimentation and usage of nuclear materials and power as a whole. It was extremely influential because it caused thousands of people to move out of their homes, while damaging nearby cities and countries and covering the surrounding area in radioactive smog, and is still a threat to surrounding cities and countries today. It also has caused the nearby area to be thriving with wildlife.

It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent of the power in the U.S. (Loewen 53). In addition nuclear has an exemplary safety record. The group of people who oppose nuclear and promote renewable power sources, hereafter termed environmentalists, do so for very sound reasons. However,

To answer the question, the author will compare and analyze the three incidents that occurred in different parts of the world, in countries with different government regulations and policy establishments, and caused by different triggers: the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant (NPP), U.S., Chernobyl NPP, Ukraine (former Soviet Union), and Fukushima Dai-ichi (Fukushima I) NPP, Japan.

According to the U.S. Energy Administratin, “By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level” (Candris). The population increase of the United States and other developing countries is causing a need for cleaner energy. There are many alternatives that are already in use today that show that the technology is possible. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and natural gas are all alternatives that can provide energy in a much more efficient and clean way. However, these alternatives do not come close to the energy that can be produced by nuclear power. The past events have shown that nuclear power follows more of the necessities that other resources do not follow now. Despite monetary costs and increased

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.

Alternatives to oil, along with the other fossil fuels, have been gaining popularity in the wake of high prices and elevated awareness of global warming. While solar, wind, hydro, and even geothermal have been getting press about being the means to lower CO2 production, and become less dependent on foreign oil, there is an alternative that rarely is mentioned. The mere reference of nuclear power conjures images of meltdowns and mushroom clouds. Despite the advances in efficiency, safety, and technology, public opinion has changed little since the years of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It is this misguided sense of impending doom from nuclear power that has deterred much of the population from accepting it as a viable alternative to

Many people are worried about the potential for nuclear energy and the drastic effects it can have on our planet, if put in the wrong hands. No energy resource has ever been as groundbreaking as this. The potential for this energy is limitless. Through countermeasures set against countries that may have malicious intent for this power, some of which have already been put into place, we can use nuclear energy as it should be intended. The preservation of the environment and us as people.

When clean and renewable sources of energy are discussed, the focus is usually centered around energy productions like solar and wind. But an important source of energy is often overlooked, nuclear energy. The viability of nuclear power plants has been a topic of debate since their inception, with many both for and against it. Many countries are broadly opposed to nuclear energy with poor public opinion resulting in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in their country. With the potential dangers of nuclear energy and the historical disasters that have accompanied it, many are resistant to continuing its development. For my paper I will be addressing why even with historical catastrophes, forgoing nuclear energy would be a mistake.

The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.

As technology advances society’s need for energy grows exponentially. Nuclear energy can help provide the energy that society desperately needs, but there is a lot of controversy around nuclear power. Many people are afraid that potential risks that arise when there is a disaster and the long term health effect of radiation. Others are concerned with the storage practices for radioactive material. These concerns are always prevalent in nuclear discussions and an implicit bias and stigma around nuclear energy especially in the United States. The public’s fear can lead into decisions based only on emotion when controversial decisions should be made with a clear and unbiased mind. It is important that people understand and learn all of the pros and cons of nuclear energy and base their opinions on facts rather than irrational fear.

In today’s world, energy is vital part of first-world life, to the point where the human race depends on the growth of energy for their own growth and well-being. However, in recent years, it is known that America’s primary source of energy, oil, has become expensive and an increasingly limited resource, estimates place reserves depleting in approximately 120 year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/07/09/how-many-years-of-oil-do-we-have-left-to-run-our-industrial-civilization-keeping-in-mind-that-oil-is-a-resource-and-has-an-economical-end/). This all points to where Americans having to think about using new sources that would be more sustainable. One of these alternative options, surrounded in controversy, is the idea of nuclear energy.

In a time of shifting global pressures, a constant energy supply is vital to the well-being of a nation, and can alleviate many of the pressures faced by a nation and its occupants. However, nuclear power provides the anchor that prevents a nation from becoming trapped in the malicious vortex of global energy struggles. Even so, critics of nuclear power discover problems with this form of energy, and their concerns are enough to entice global outcries against nuclear power. It is critical for the dangers of nuclear power to be taken seriously, but careful planning and rational thinking supersede many of the irrational views toward this form of energy. There is no “one solution” to the nuclear energy problem, but there are viable options for each scenario that can entail countless

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station is located approximately 3.6 kilometres from the city of Pripyat in the Soviet Union (now part of Ukraine, close to the border with Belarus) [4]. The power station was the site of four completed nuclear reactors, as well as two further reactors under construction. In the early hours of the 26th of April 1986, Reactor 4, which had been running for approximately 2 years prior, was undergoing maintenance checks in order to review emergency procedures [5]. In a test to examine whether the cooling pump system could function in the event of the failure of the auxiliary electricity supply, too many control rods were lowered, causing a near-complete shutdown of the reactor. Engineers raised the rods in an attempt to restart the system, but raised too many rods, resulting in a great increase in power output. At 1.23am, the emergency

As the threat of climate change increases, the discussion of nuclear energy has arisen again. One of the most important problems the world is facing today is limited supply of energy resources. It is common knowledge now that oil, coal and gas will come to end extremely soon; therefore it is vital we find a replacement for fossil fuels before they are depleted. NASA’s Jim Hansen, perhaps the world’s foremost climatologist, warns that the situation is so dire that, “The entire world needs to be out of the business of burning coal by 2030 and the western world much sooner.” But to fully understand what it is we are committing the world to we must first understand what energy, mainly nuclear energy is and what its positives and negatives are. Will it have a positive or negative impact on our society? Nuclear energy: Friend or Foe? Is it the way to go?

America relies heavily on foreign sources for the energy to run the country. The issue has received much media attention due to the political and economic implications it will have in the near future. This problem could at least be partially solved by using technology that already exists, rather than relying heavily on ones that have yet to come to fruition. America’s energy woes – specifically its reliance on fossil fuels – can be solved by reviving nuclear energy with the use of politics to tackle perceived dangers, technological advancements to make them more feasible, and public outreach to promote acceptance.