The Pros And Cons Of Uranium Mining In Australia

Nuclear power plants should be legal in Australian as they pose many advantages. Such as high money income and cleaner power source than coal power. This essay will argue that nuclear power plants in Australia should be legalised.

Using conventional fission, nuclear power plants generate electricity without creating air pollution from stack emissions as the energy is released from the breaking of the nucleus rather than the combustion of the organic compounds in the fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide . In contrast, combusting coal, oil, or natural gas emits sulfur dioxide(fossil fuels contain both organic and non organic compounds that contain sulphur) that contributes to acidic deposition, particulate matter that threatens human health, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.One might consider the indirect greenhouse emission of actually building a nuclear fission reactor and also the resources that are required to obtain and purify the uranium essential for the plant to run. Even after considering all the steps involved in building plants and generating power, researchers from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have calculated that nuclear power lowers emissions 4–150 times below the emissions from fossil fuel combustion . IAEA scientists estimate that at current global rates of usage, nuclear

Since its discovery in the late 19th century, nuclear energy has been used in a diversity of areas such as atomic bombs, medicine, reducing pollution and food irradiation (Gupta, 2012). However, one of the biggest outcomes since this discovery is nuclear energy generation. This subject is largely controversial as it has many pros and cons. It is considered to be a more eco-friendly alternative source of electricity, as it emits less carbon emissions than coal-fired power stations, for example. Yet there still an environmental risk provided by the radio-active waste and its inability to be disposed of for 100,000 years (Phillips, 2012). Today in Australia there are no active nuclear power plants but that is predicted to change in the

The production of nuclear energy is not as safe and clean as some say that it is. The Oxford Research Group released a report providing evidence that supports this point. It is clear that nuclear power plants do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide when they operate, but it is the mining of uranium and the storing of waste that produces the carbon dioxide pollution.

The use of nuclear power plants is a more efficient energy source compared to coal power plants. Coal has high emissions of greenhouse gases, especially SO2 which leads to acid rain formation, smog, health impairments, radioactivity and climate change. Nuclear power plants emit little to no harmful pollutants or gases, and if properly managed should not contribute to atmospheric climate change (AIU Online, 2016).

Arjun Makhijani, a prominent researcher for The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, claims that today’s emission rate of carbon dioxide is about nine gigatons annually and that the Earth only has the capability to absorb 3 gigatons annually—thus a problem arises. Furthermore, Makhijani states that about 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. With those shocking statistics in mind, fossil fuel’s emission of carbon dioxide is thought to be the leading cause of climate change—which is responsible for irreversible and catastrophic changes to the Earth. Yet, scientist had tremendous difficulty finding a safe, effective, and efficient form of energy supply that will met the great consumption rate. Many prominent scientist suggest that nuclear power is the most plausible explanation and solution to the fuel crisis. However, despite nuclear power having a exponentially lower emission rate, it presents its own hazards and threats—such as the Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incidents. These accidents have many activists and politicians cautious about the prospect of using nuclear power as a complete alternative to fossil fuels—regardless nuclear plants are responsible for 11% of the energy supplied to the world annually (World Nuclear Association.) What many of the activist and politicians seem to overlook is that fossil fuels are an indefinite energy supply and will quite possible run out within

Throughout this world, we use various equipment that need certain energy requirements in order for them to run properly. Two of the utmost imperative sources of energy in our world today come from coal and nuclear power. Still, a great deal of citizens of this world are unaware of the impacts of nuclear power whether it be positive or negative due to the fact that nuclear power has not existed as long as coal power has. However, as nuclear power becomes a major resource of energy, we as citizens must determine which is more fitting for not only us, but our environment. As this report continues on, you will come to find the history of each of these resources along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Concluded from this research was the concept that nuclear power is worthier for America as a whole. Included below are the specific points as to why nuclear power is far superior for American citizens and our environment. However, the main notion to be taken from this report is the view that we need to become further educated on the energy resources present in this world and be able to determine how we can become more efficient and contribute less to climate change in the long run.

Emissions from coal fired power plants contribute to global warming, ozone smog, acid rain, regional haze, and perhaps most consequential of all from a public health standpoint, fine particle pollution.

Nuclear power has been highly controversial in the world, specifically uranium mining. Uranium mining is an option that was presented to the world for a source of nuclear weapons, nuclear medicine, as well as nuclear power. Uranium is a natural element, it has an average concentration of 2.8 per million in the Earth’s crust. Uranium is very abundant and is more plentiful than gold, silver, and mercury. The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.46 billion years, the half-life of uranium-234 is 245,000 years, and uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years (Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards, n.d.). There are four common kinds of extracting uranium from the ground; open pit and underground mining, in situ leach mining (ISL), heap leaching, and milling. While there are several forms of mining that have proven to be affective at extracting uranium from the ground, none of the mining types have been guaranteed to stop nuclear radiation in the area that the mining took place. Nuclear power has gotten a bad name ever since the atomic bomb, so many people have become skeptical on how safe the rising expansion of uranium mining is. The environmental implications that uranium mining has caused in the past has brought up the question on if the expansion of nuclear technology is worth the risk.

On top of emitting 1.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, coal-fired power plants in the United States also create 120 million tons of toxic waste. That means each of the nation's 500 coal-fired power plants produces an average 240,000 tons of toxic waste each year. A power plant that operates for 40 years will leave behind 9.6 million tons of toxic waste” (2009). Coal Combustion Residue despite containing toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, lead, selenium, and cadmium that are proven to cause cancer, kidney problems, birth defects, and wreck havoc on the nervous system. Coal Combustion Residue can is disposed by either being land filled, used to reclaim mine shafts, or are stored in pits on-site of coal burning plants. Even without a spill these contaminants can leach into the ground and pose a health risk if they are not disposed of properly.

Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear

The effects of climate change have already begun to take place, as the United States and other countries face hurricanes, heat waves, and snowstorms. As all scientists know, these changes are the results of carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere. The main sources of this pollution are coal and oil plants. Nuclear power is a less pollutive alternative to coal plants, but its negatives outweigh its positives. Nuclear power produces a large amount of harmful byproducts that scientists cannot discard, and nuclear plants face the dangerously likely risk of a plant collapse. There are many, better alternatives to nuclear, oil, and coal power such as solar and wind power that have little

Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

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.