The World 's Natural Resources

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 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.

From the electricity that kept my home warm and powered the lights at school to providing employment to both my parents for the past 30 years, nuclear power has been at the center of my life growing up. In Wadsworth, Texas, the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company has been a way a life thousands of people by providing nearly 1200 jobs and providing carbon-free electricity for over 2 million people. However, this is just one example in just one state in the United States. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 11 percent of the world’s energy comes from nuclear power plants and for 13 countries it provides more than 25 percent of their country’s energy. However, even though nuclear power has made its mark as a global competitor in the realm of green energy, incidents such as 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have created a global sense of uneasiness. On top of this underlying fear, the huge building costs of new nuclear plants has lead to a stunt in the growth of nuclear energy even though operation costs for nuclear energy at $0.0219/kW is less than that of coal ($0.023/KW) and almost half that of gas ($0.0451/kW) (IER). Even though nuclear energy has had some setbacks, it is still safer (short-term and long-term) than the carbon-producing alternatives. The question at hand is whether we should take an utilitarian perspective by giving more serious consideration to the long-term effects of the carbon-emitting energy sources and whether we can overcome our

While there are plenty of benefits to using nuclear power, there are numerous disadvantages that also come with its use. There have been nuclear incidents throughout history that have caused many questions to be raised about how safe nuclear energy really is. One of the most notable accidents is the one that happened at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine. An explosion at the plant destroyed the reactor core which in released radioactive material into the atmosphere. This accident has been considered the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever. This hasn’t been the only incident in history that has turned head though. There was an earthquake in Japan that caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant’s core to experience a meltdown. Because of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake, a tsunami caused water to seep into the plant generators which lead to temperatures and reaction rates being uncontrollable and ultimate the release of tons of radioactive waste into the environment. Three Mile Island, a nuclear power plant located in Pennsylvania, is considered the most significant accident that has happened on American soil when it comes to dealing with nuclear energy. Numerous mechanical and human errors lead to a chain of events that no one could have seen coming that resulted in a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor. It’s because of this accident that no new nuclear power plants have been constructed in the United States. The impact that the Three Mile

After the United States developed the atomic at the end of World War II, interest in nuclear technology increased exponentially. People soon realized that nuclear technology could be used for electricity, as another alternative to fossil fuels. Today, nuclear power has its place in the world, but there is still a lot of controversy over the use of nuclear energy. Things such as the containment of radiation and few nuclear power plant accidents have given nuclear power a bad image. However, nuclear power is a reliable source of energy because it has no carbon emissions, energy is available at any time, little fuel is needed for a lot of energy, and as time goes on, it is becoming safer and safer.

When the term nuclear power or nuclear energy comes into conversations, often the first thoughts that come to mind are bombs, destruction, radioactive waste, and war. However, these four things occur the least in the nuclear power field. It is far more than just mass destruction and devastation, nuclear power is used to create electricity in a safe and eco-friendly manor. People have a high level of concern about the use of nuclear energy especially after past devastations such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Even with these accidents, society should not oppose the use of nuclear energy because of advancements in technology, it has become a very environmentally friendly and cost efficient energy source.

Right now in America, there are 65 nuclear power plants with 104 operating nuclear reactors that generated a total of 769 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 19% of the nation's electricity (EIA source 1). But a push to further nuclear as a primary source for energy is uncertain, ideas of safety for the surrounding regions’ people and environment are a main concern. In recent light, the nuclear program support has begun to slowly grow back since its halt in 1980. However, much of the population is still against the idea of nuclear energy. Issues regarding radioactivity waste management, future nuclear accidents, and other pollutions such as thermal pollution of waterways and extra background radiation hinder the argument for nuclear

What is Nuclear Power? Nuclear power uses nuclear fission to release nuclear energy which creates heat that can then be used in nuclear power stations to provide electricity. In nuclear fission, the nucleus splits apart generating large amounts of energy. Nuclear fusion is also an excellent energy source because it produces no greenhouse gases or combustion products which are not radioactive. The drawback is that it takes too much energy so we are sticking to nuclear fission. Nuclear power a controversial issue because of accidents in previous years and the amount it costs to build advanced reactors. These accidents still have lasting effects that we as a country are working to fix. However I believe the most promising form of energy is nuclear power. Between nuclear power and fossil fuels, nuclear power is the safest, most environmentally friendly and will meet our country 's energy demands in the future. The arguments I will be addressing in this essay are the environment, safety, economics and energetics.

The choice of whether or not to use nuclear energy as a power source is admittedly a controversial one. When people think about nuclear energy it can often be from a negative point of view. People are concerned about nuclear energy, perhaps even rightfully so, because of the potential for deadly accidents to occur, the generation of toxic radioactive waste, and release of radiation into the environment if such waste is improperly stored. However, many consider these concerns to be overly exaggerated, particular given the advancements in nuclear reactor technology since its earlier days. The fact is nuclear power is a cheaper source of fuel than using coal or oil, let alone compared to other traditional alternative forms of energy. Also in comparison to current fossil fuel based power generation, it is significantly safer and cleaner. We should use nuclear power instead of other sources of energy because it can produce high levels of electricity at relatively low cost, it would significantly reduce the existing damage to our environment and atmosphere caused by more common forms of fuel, and it is relatively safe.

Nuclear power is already a widely used power source in the developed world. In fact nuclear energy provided France with more than 70% of its electricity while almost reaching 20% in The United States of America and the United Kingdom (see table 1).

than the toxic burning of fossil fuel, which produces high amounts of greenhouse gases (Health Research Funding). However, I believe that the disadvantages and potential hazards of using nuclear power plants demean the advantages, and thus they should not be considered as a solution to energy problems. The disadvantages include the usage of non-renewable fuel and the potential of long-lasting destructive effects on the environment and health.

Although nuclear power seems like a safe alternative there are many who still disagree with its safety and effectiveness. Money is a source of much backlash when nuclear power is brought up. Joseph Romm, author, physicist, and advocate for reducing greenhouse gases, says, “That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October [2007]”. The budget for producing and maintaining the energy is only so much. With increasing prices, there will be no budget for anything else if nuclear power is to be kept as a source of energy. Another factor is the cost of purchase for nuclear power provided homes. The cost for purchasing nuclear power goes up in order to make a profit or at least break even. This fact is further magnified considering that the cost went up almost two hundred percent in the span of seven years. This would mean that only the very wealthy will be able to afford nuclear energy, which defeats the purpose of having it in the first place. But money is of no use if the world is put into a nuclear apocalypse. Many, who oppose, often attack the safety of nuclear power, noting that nuclear power can be used as a weapon of war. It is a fact that, “There are now more than 40 countries with civil nuclear power programmes, giving them the tools for nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology will always carry the risk that it will be used to construct weapons of mass destruction” (Greenpeace

1 gram of uranium, which is used as nuclear fuel, is able to generate the equal amount that 3 ton of coal does. Some people may argue that we have to spent a lot of money in order to construct as well as operate a nuclear plant, so nuclear power cannot be an efficient energy source. However, it is important to distinguish between the economics of nuclear plants that are already in operation and those in planning stage. The amount of electricity that a nuclear reactor can produce outweighs it’s manufacturing and operating costs. The graph below shows the US electricity production costs from 1995 to

In the United States, nuclear energy produces about 19.7 percent of the total energy produced. Nuclear energy is the backbone of energy production, but it comes with setbacks. It’s elderly technology, in general, and the after-product of nuclear fuel is radioactive waste. There are numerous other cheaper and other effective alternatives to little/no carbon emission power sources, like natural gas. Nuclear energy, along with toxic waste, decreasing supplies of uranium and risks along running a nuclear power plant, is not a safe and effective energy source.

It is clear that the world is in desperate need of new sources of electricity. Right now, more than 70 percent of the world’s power comes from coal, natural gases, and oil. All of these sources are not only unrenewable, but they are polluting our environment. When they are used, they release greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere and quickly start to make the global temperature rise. We can already see the impacts of climate change: icecaps are melting, ocean levels are rising, animals are going extinct, the air is becoming unsafe to breathe, and the world is getting hotter every year. These impacts are only going to get worse and more prominent if we don’t find a solution. Considering that the U.S. is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases, we need to act quickly. Luckily, we have the technology to start using cleaner energy and therefore repairing the damage that we have done to our environment. The solution is nuclear energy. The United States needs to use more nuclear power because it creates less waste both in our land and air, it uses less space than other energy sources, and it is much safer than other energy sources.