Why I Still Support Nuclear Power Summary

Should nuclear energy be used? Throughout the article “Nowhere to go”, the author objectively reviews the use of nuclear energy, using the text and graphics to provide details that demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of its use. Nevertheless, the consequences of using nuclear energy outweigh the benefits. One of these consequences is that working with nuclear energy can cause many health problems. The text states, “Dangers include radiation sickness, cancers, and other health problems. High level radioactive waste can present hazards ‘for a million years or more,’ Kamps says.” This means that using nuclear energy can cause health problems for future generations.

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).

Despite the fact the countries continue to increase the production of nuclear energy, my position is that new nuclear power plants should not continue to be built. The current use of nuclear power should be carefully evaluated with a plan to slowly decrease production throughout the world. The negative implications to the environment and economy support my position.

To many times people talk about the negative side of nuclear energy, and how it can impact the environment around them, but too few talk about how nuclear energy had improved their lives. In truth nuclear energy is responsible for creating a fair amount of revenue in the local economy, state revenue, and federal revenue. For every dollar a nuclear power plant spends it generates an estimated 1.04 in the community, 1.18 in the state, and a 1.87 for the nation (Nuclear Energy Institute). With such a great revenue it would be detrimental to the nation if nuclear energy was disbanded, and deemed a great threat to national security. Nuclear energy generates roughly $16 million dollars annually for the state it resides in, and about $67 million dollars annually for the nation (Nuclear Energy Institute). That revenue generated for the state is used for the construction of new schools, improved state wide emergency response training and response times, and a whole multitude of things that just can’t compare. To add to this nuclear

For years, many scientists, environmentalists, and energy experts have been studying how human’s creation and use of energy has impacted our environment. These experts have discovered some troubling facts. Most of our country’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. But there’s a safe and effective solution to this problem: nuclear power. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

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,

In Hans Blix's essay, Nuclear Power and the Environment, Blix suggests that nuclear power should be the main source of power to meet the constantly growing energy needs of the world. He discusses why fossil fuels should be discontinued due to their environmental impact as well as renewable energy sources and how they can not meet the growing demand for energy. Blix makes a strong, persuasive argument for the use of nuclear power through his use of statistics, his discussion of the alternatives, as well as his refuting of the common misconceptions about nuclear power.

Tucker starts off with common counter arguments used by his peers. He mentions that even after the events of nuclear power damage in Japan, other technologies and substitutions would be in some form of risk. By comparing the natural resources that countries use in day to day life to the harm that they have caused, is his way of justifying his opinion on nuclear energy. An example given by William Tucker is how coal mining killed 100,000 workers in the 20th century, which is still killing an average of six people a day in China, but yet coal is used worldwide. Tucker gives a point concerning Uranium fuel rods, “Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely

William does a phenomenal job at getting straight to the point with facts and the opposition of his claim. He states “It’s not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days. The events in Japan have confirmed many of the critics’’ worst predictions.” This statement shows the audience the opposition and his view in just one sentence. William tucker used many statistics, facts, and arguments, to “wow” his audience. He makes an interesting point that I restated earlier, that stood out to me the most, “Uranium fuel rods sit in a reactor core for five years. During that time six ounces of their weight—six ounces!—will be completely transformed into energy. But the energy produced by that transformation will be enough to power a city the size of San Francisco for five years.” This quote is one of his many ways of

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 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.

Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.

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.

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.