Why I Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima

Perhaps the main disadvantage of nuclear power plants, is the generation of nuclear waste. However, new technologies in 4th generation reactors are minimising the creation of waste and using old waste as their primary fuel., While the threat of a nuclear disaster like Fukushima is still “fresh in our minds”, fossil fuels have done more damage than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined. Additionally, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster is decreasing with new technologies, that eliminate human error., Nuclear power plants can also be seen as a “beacon for terrorist attacks”,, since one bomb could result in another Chernobyl. Furthermore, while the cost of building a nuclear power plant is high, it is still cheaper than the rising prices of renewables (see Figure 7)., A common misconception is that “the transition from nuclear power plants would be cheap and smooth.” However, this is far from the truth. Nuclear power plants will always be needed to provide a baseload of electricity, since renewables are inefficient and incapable, regardless of the few negative

Recently, the deserted Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has been emanating an alarming amount of radiation. Kyodo of Japan Times reported that the radiation reading has reached its highest level since its emergence in March 2011 (Kyodo, 2017). As a result, there is a greater presence of air and water

Nuclear Energy is the Best Option for Society “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima” written by William Tucker, nuclear energy is still the best option for the contemporary society we live in today. Tucker goes on to explicate “The events in Japan have confirmed many of the critics’ worst predictions” (Tucker 228). Tucker then examines two other nuclear accidents, Three Mile Island, & Chernobyl. Tucker acknowledges that there is still a very serious threat of contamination that is widespread. Then he gives some facts to show that the other industries have had bad accidents also. In one incident 130 people were killed in a natural gas accident that occurred in Cleveland in 1944, the accident leveled a whole neighborhood. Tucker

Why Nuclear Power should be banned Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island — all known as major nuclear power disasters. Nuclear power might be a good source of power, but in the long run it can be a real hazard and should be banned. If we rely on nuclear power to be our primary power source, it will cause major problems to humans and the environment. Nuclear power is hard to dispose of, expensive to run, and the reactors can easily be disrupted and cause the release of massive amounts of radiation.

According to Community Science Action Guides, nuclear power plants are cheaper to run, require smaller area than its competitors, and produce the most energy than environmental impact ratio. Nuclear power plants should be used in the United States based on three reasons: spatial area/location of use, cost efficiency, and environment friendly. To prove that nuclear power plants is a better energy solution, it will be compared to other major energy resources such as wind turbines, solar farms, dams, and biomass technologies.

Radiation Burn or Sunburn? The Risks are Real William Tucker, journalist for the Wall Street Journal specializing in environment and energy, provides us with intriguing information in his article, "Why I Still Support Nuclear Power Even After Fukushima". Tucker explains his belief that nuclear power is still the

Despite citizens opposed nuclear power plants, the government positions nuclear power plants as "important baseload power supplies" and shows the posture to utilize it as well as before nuclear accident six years ago, government decided to "reduce it as much as possible". In other words, people's resistance failed. The government

Despite the potential harmful effects of nuclear energy, it is a necessary step for this country and world to take for the future. William Tucker holds this position in his article, “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima.” This article made its appearance on the April 23, 2011

After Fukushima, the developing of Nuclear energy has been doubted. America proclaims that Nuclear energy is high in cost. Hence, speaking of not only maintaining the plants, they will also need to be inspected and made sure that there are no problems. This all cost money, America claims. It cannot be cost efficient if it need such high levels of management. Nuclear energy is not safe for the environment. Since the Fukushima destruction, America says that even though it may be a more reliable source but it creates hazard for the area because of the unknown damages that could partake. After the natural disaster that happened in Japan where three reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi were hit, it caused a meltdown. Therefore, leading to many damages

The use of nuclear power is risky, costly, and dangerous. The chances of having it leak are great, and if it ever does manage to leak somehow, it will take millions to clean up the mess. Nuclear power plants are also expensive to maintain and build. The money that goes

While, coal-burning plants release tons of ash into the atmosphere, which is a cause to acid rain (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). Additionally, coal-burning plants release a toxic gas, which has been associated with cancer; moreover, the burning of fossil fuels has been proven to cause the release of carbon dioxide and global warming (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015). On the other side of the spectrum, nuclear plants have been known for their issues in the leakage of toxic wastes, creating a risk of harm to the individuals who live around the area (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). Moreover, nuclear reactors create toxic wastes and until now the plans for long term storage for these wastes have not been created, which leaves the question of if there will ever be a plan implemented (“Nuclear Energy”, 2015)? Illustrates that an investment in a nuclear plant might be riskier than making an investment with a coal-burning plant.

Hypothetically, let’s say a college student, named Steve, rented an apartment and had to pay the rent but was low on money. What could he do? He was only in college working at a job that didn’t pay him much. Well, one day he reads the newspaper and sees that there is a nuclear power plant being built where he lives. Steve is a very smart man and thinks that he can find a job there. He sends his application and gets the job. Now, he makes enough money to pay his rent and still buy other necessities. Although transporting radioactive material such as waste is dangerous, several methods are used to assure it safe; therefore, we should allow a nuclear power plant to be built in Sparta.

Nuclear Power is the Short Term Solution 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.

Nuclear power has been viewed as an expensive, harmful energy source; however, that is not the case. Nuclear energy actually emits less greenhouse gases and leaves a smaller footprint on our planet than any other energy source. As a proficient energy source, nuclear energy has the highest power density, allowing

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