The Storage Facility Is Changing The Memory Of Nuclear Power

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).

An example of the environmental success nuclear energy has provided is France in the 1970s and 1980s. The country switched from using fossil fuels and instead used nuclear energy to supply 78% of its electricity (see figure 3). This in turn lowered the country’s greenhouse emissions by approximately 2% each year since. No accidents have ever occurred at any of France's power plants (Biello, 2013).

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

In both of the supporting articles over the use of nuclear energy, there is a proficient amount of strengthens and weakness in both arguments. Though the use of the background and prior information given in the preclude, it allows the reader to understand the basics of nuclear energy and the way both authors are approaching to present their ideas. Using this analytical preface most of the information presented, allows the reader to have an idea on which side is more appealing to their choosing. Allowing the reader to get a perspective on both sides of the argument will insight them on the information presented and will ultimately give a substantial amount of evidence to back their claims.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

     The protest movement against nuclear power was already big after the Three Mile Island incident, but when the Chernobyl disaster happened, it was rocket-powered. The disaster put a stop to all construction of nuclear power plants nation-wide (Davis 315). The Three Mile Island accident, however, couldn’t have happened at a worse time. Americans need nuclear energy because the country is so oil dependent. But even back in 1979, people recognized that nuclear power needed to be part of our energy source (Readers Digest 72). The incident was responsible for the abandonment of the Shoreham Nuclear Energy plant and opened the door to an escalation of protest activity (Davis 315).

There are two pivotal arguments against nuclear energy: the public’s perception and nuclear waste. In arguments pertaining to this topic, it is commonly asked as the waste continues to build up, what can be done with it? However, Bennie Olsen stated, “All

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

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.

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.

The public effects of the Chernobyl disaster were far reaching. First of all, it negatively influenced a number of counties’ domestic opinions regarding nuclear programs. Although nuclear protests were common in the 1970s, by 1986 it had dropped from public scrutiny to the point

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.

In the modern society, energy is considered one of our most valuable resources. Humanity has managed to tap several sources of energy and utilize it for their daily activities. Almost everything in the society is dependent on energy; otherwise, humanity would cease to exist. The sources of energy vary from firewood, solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The sources vary depending on the amount of energy that can be harnessed. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject when it comes to energy matters. Theorists argue that the world’s sources of energy are being depleted at such high rates, that the future will not favor humanity. Richard Watson establishes this ethical argument in his work known as Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics: he argues that any ethics should be based on the survival of humanity (Watson 245). Therefore, an inquiry that should be made in line with energy and ethics should consider the question; is modernization worth killing humanity? Nuclear power sources provide such high energy that can power industries and sustain industrial processes for longer times. The problem with the nuclear power energy is the danger it poses to the society and humanity as a whole (Ingram 37). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia is a good example relative to the effects of nuclear power and the environment. This essay seeks to analyze and evaluate the ethical issues raised by the Chernobyl nuclear plant as source of energy

The use of nuclear energy is a big topic for debate. Many countries have fully embraced it while others, such as the U. S., haven’t. Nuclear energy is feared for its danger and scorned because of its wastes. On the other hand, nuclear energy does have some pros like cheaper cost of energy and environmentally safe. Reactor breeders show great promise in nuclear waste, but are it enough to convince the nation?