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).
Nuclear power plants are a safe, clean and reliable source of energy production. They are uniquely qualified to meet the growing demand for energy in the USA.
Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy Nuclear power was the world’s fastest growing form of energy in the 1990’s. However, presently it is the second slowest growing worldwide. Considering that nuclear power accounts for eleven percent of the world’s energy supply, one must ask what happened [Nuclear Power]. Why is it that the growth of nuclear power has almost completely stalled? The simple answer is that after meltdowns such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, many people are afraid of nuclear power plants, which causes great opposition to the expansion of the industry. Unfortunately, most people are not well informed about nuclear energy; many do not take the time to view its positives and negatives.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Nuclear power has been viewed as an expensive, harmful energy source; however, that is not the case. Nuclear energy actually emits less greenhouse gases and leaves a smaller footprint on our planet than any other energy source. As a proficient energy source, nuclear energy has the highest power density, allowing
The world depends on energy, if the world didn’t have energy no human would be able to function properly. The main process that is used to develop nuclear energy is nuclear fission. Nuclear fission helps us produce the high amount of energy we need, by using an element called uranium. Another process that can be used is nuclear fusion, but we don’t have a proper mechanism to control it, like we do with nuclear fission. Overall there are many pros to nuclear energy. One pro of nuclear energy is that it has very low pollution tied to it. More pros of nuclear energy are low operating costs, reliability, more skilled than fossil fuels and high energy density, it’s kind of renewable, and base load energy.
Statement of intent – That Nuclear power is a great way to produce power and is not as bad as it is said to be. This will be directed teens and young adults looking for a quick read in a small informative magazine. The following piece of writing is about
The burning of fossil fuels has been the main source of energy in the world for too long. It’s the worst cause of pollution in the world, it damages the ozone layer, and it kills people. Good thing there is another type of energy source we can use, Nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a much more reliable source of energy. But like everything on this Earth there’s a bad side to it. The thing though is that the cons of Nuclear energy aren’t even that bad. For a person to start feeling symptoms of radiation exposure they would have needed to have been exposed to 0.25Sv and for death to occur above 10Sv. For instance, a year of radiation exposure from Nuclear Power Plants is 0.001Sv and radiation exposure per dental X-ray is 0.0004Sv. It would take 625 x-rays to start feeling effects of radiation and 25,000 to kill you. No one in their lifetime will take any amount of x-rays close to 625 and it would take 250 years of living near a Nuclear Power Plant to feel effects of radiation. So it’s safe to say no one is getting hurt from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be found from almost everywhere and is not going anywhere anytime soon, small amounts can produce much more energy than fossil fuels, and it only emits little to no greenhouses gases. If you ask me the better choice is obvious, nuclear energy is the better option. Nuclear energy is the better option and is more important because it helps fight against climate change, it is competitive relative to other electricity
In the past decade, human civilization has progressively become more aware of the fact that the traditional methods of using fossil fuels to create energy are contaminating the environment. Because of this, people have become more aware of the issue and sought the most efficient and least harmful alternatives to provide energy for the world. As a result, many energy sources have been developed including wind, solar, and nuclear energy. Since many of these are relatively new processes, the long-term effects are just recently becoming more apparent, particularly with nuclear energy. Both Nuclear Power: a Panacea for Future Energy Needs by Allison MacFarlane and Five Myths About Nuclear Energy by Kristin Shrader-Frechette analyze the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear energy from the supporting and disapproving sides. Macfarlane took a slightly neutral approach and mentioned the overall gains and losses of nuclear energy while explaining why the gains outweigh the obstacles. Shrader takes a more directly opposing approach towards the matter. She skims over the benefits and focuses mainly on the negative effects. Both writers' methods for organizing their major points are different, but it allows them to better explain why they are either for or against nuclear energy.
There are many types of energy sources such as Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Hydro Power and last but not least, Nuclear Energy. It has been debated for decades whether or not we should use such energy. There are multiple reasons to use Nuclear Energy such as it having no greenhouse
The nuclear energy debate has persisted for decades. Those who strongly oppose it argue that its benefits, such as carbon-free emissions and low fuel costs, are almost irrelevant when the risk posed by radioactive waste and reactor meltdowns are factored in. The problem revolves around how little waste storage is prioritized in the planning stages of a reactor, including the locations of waste storage, leading to a surplus of radioactive waste at reactor sites. With the progress being made to advance waste disposal methods and increase public participation in countries that need storage for accumulating waste and developing countries considering nuclear energy, nuclear energy could be the new "green" energy alternative.