Opponents of the nuclear industry conjure up frightful images of nuclear accidents to spread terror to those who could benefit from its awesome bounty. A misguided desire to protect the environment blinds people to the reality that nuclear power is a "green" energy source. Nuclear power is superior to traditional power generation in almost every way whether it is looked at from an environmental, economic or technical point of view. Currently, most consumer power generation is achieved through the burning of fossil fuels. Skeptics of nuclear energy’s potential have long contended that fossil fuels are safer to process, are better for the environment and pose less of a long term hazard than nuclear power. Concerns over safety also …show more content…
This gives nuclear power a much smaller carbon footprint than its traditional counterparts. The second advantage is that nuclear power plants have less emitted radiation than traditional power plants. This is somewhat of a surprise as nuclear energy is based on radioactive materials. The answer to this conundrum is the ability to contain the radiation. Nuclear power plants are heavily shielded and often built underground to keep the surrounding environment from being exposed to excess radiation. Traditional power plants emit 0.03 millirem per year as opposed to nuclear power plants emitting 0.009 millirem per year (McGregor, para 13). These two advantages combine to make nuclear power a much more environmentally attractive alternative to coal and natural gas. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are two bloody shirts that opponents to nuclear power have waved in their arguments against its proliferation. Chernobyl was a nuclear disaster in Russia that exposed the surrounding area to a severe amount of radioactive material. While the immediate damage and long term effects were severe, there were several factors involved in the accident that made it much worse than could be possible today. The reactor was not properly shielded nor were there safety protocols in place to mitigate such a disaster. In short, the Chernobyl reactor was a result of cutting corners and
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
• Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.
One of the key issues with fossil fuels is the fact that they are non-renewable. Humans consume fossil fuels at a faster rate than it is produced. With humans consuming more and more fossil fuels as more countries develop and increase their energy needs, the need for renewables like nuclear energy becomes greater. One of the large
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).
The loudest objection raised by the anti-nuclear groups is that there is "no safe level of radiation." It is also the phoniest. The major sources of radiation are natural and ubiquitous: we are continuously bombarded with radiation from cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere and from naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth. Compared with these background sources, the radiation from nuclear power plants is negligible.
The nuclear energy institute refers to nuclear energy as “the most 'eco-efficient' of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact.” Nuclear energy created electricity without burning anything and is therefore emission-free. The areas around nuclear power plants and their cooling ponds are so clean, they are often developed as wetlands that provide nesting areas for waterfowl and other birds, new habitats for fish, and the preservation of other wildlife as well as trees, flowers, and grasses not to mention the amount of actual land a nuclear power plant uses in relation to the amount of
The use of fossil fuels as a primary source of power is poisoning our world, and nuclear power is just the way to stop this. Nuclear power is using the process of nuclear fission to create electricity. Nuclear fission is the splitting of a uranium atom to release massive amounts of energy. When this process takes place in a nuclear reactor, the energy is used to superheat water which is pumped through pipes also submerged in water which then boils. The pressurized water vapor is used to turn turbines that produce electricity. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest, safest, most reliable and economically beneficial sources of power, and it needs to be considered as a substitute for fossil fuels. Nuclear power unfortunately has been given a bad name, but is actually an important resource that should be utilized by the U.S. and the rest of the world.
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,
Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment since it does not release any gases like carbon dioxide, methane which are largely responsible for
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 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.
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.
The United States of America’s population constitutes just 5% of the world’s population, yet it consumes nearly 24% of the world’s energy. Because of our huge consumption of energy, we harm our environment in different ways, like producing massive amounts CO2 emissions which have catastrophic effects, such as climate change, that directly impact us and the different forms of life around us. To cut down on these negative effects, researchers have developed more environmentally friendly methods of energy production. The debate now centers around which energy method is better than the rest. Although there are many energy-generating methods, we will focus on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as nuclear power. Shrader-Frechette opposes nuclear energy because it 's seen as unclean, expensive, and dangerous. Senator Lamar Alexander opposes wind and solar energies because the sheer amount of space required by these energy producing methods does more harm to our environment than good. Even if Shrader is right about the disadvantages of nuclear power, which she is not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared to the dangers of the impact solar and wind power would have on the environment. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear power -- the one relatively safe, available, energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be
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.
Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has