Introduction: During this project I have been exploring the benefits and risks associated with the use of nuclear power as an energy resource. I have been investigating this topic from the perspectives of France, Luxembourg and China as well as analysing it from my own point of view. I remain undecided that the weight of evidence in favour of nuclear power is strong enough to overcome some very clear obstacles related to the risks of nuclear power, but am hoping that throughout the course of this investigation I will come to a conclusion.
Global Perspective: With such an amazing selection of alternatives for fossil fuels nowadays it’s a mystery why we don’t use these to our advantage. There is so much pressure on us to try and revert the
…show more content…
Although this would improve the pollution and air quality as well as decrease greenhouse gasses, some people believe that because China is moving too fast with its nuclear industry. Some have criticised China for overlooking the safety issues and controls that come with building new reactors, especially ones that have only just been designed and have yet to be thoroughly tested. Proposals to build inland could also be risky as if there were an accident then it could contaminate rivers and potentially adversely affect millions of people, especially in rural China. Chinese engineers will need to take all of this into account if their nuclear programme is to be …show more content…
We will live in fear of nuclear power, re-telling horror stories of previous nuclear disasters, whilst living in a world running out of fossil fuels to burn. If we continue to use fossil fuels we will eventually not be able to leave our houses without gasmasks because the world will be covered in a dark cloud of pollution. Not only that but greenhouse gas levels will be dangerously high with an extremely negative effect on our environment. We need to not take our planet for granted as if we continue this way, it will not sustain our
When the nuclei of Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239 undergo nuclear fission, they produce waste as a by-product, which is known as nuclear waste or “fission fragments”. (Leslie Corrice, 2015) This waste contains radioisotopes, which are radioactive isotopes that have long half-lives. This means that the radioisotopes are able to stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years, which is extremely hazardous to the earth’s environment. Very commonly this waste contaminates water and ruins the quality of both air and soil, which in turn devastates the planet.
Power plants burn fuel to produce heat to generate energy; however, nuclear power plants use the heat given off fission to turn water into steam. Nuclear energy is without a doubt a great way to power our homes because, Nuclear power plants are safer than other energy alternatives. Nuclear plants are safer than other energy alternatives. Coal is responsible for five times more deaths than nuclear power plants, coal also causes over one thousands more serious causes of illness than nuclear. Nuclear plants produce steam while coal plants, heat water by burning coal that produces greenhouse emissions.
In “Nuclear Power is Not the Answer,” Helen Caldicott argues that pursuing nuclear energy would be a detriment to the United States. According to Caldicott, nuclear power, contrary to what the industry claims, is not clean and green, but rather a pollutant and a strong contributor to the destruction of the ozone layer. Because of the availability of uranium ore steadily decreasing, the process is requiring more and more fossil fuels to extract the ore. Caldicott projects that within ten to twenty years, nuclear reactors will be counterproductive because of the amount of fossil fuel it will take to mine the remaining uranium. In addition to air pollution, nuclear power plants also emit radioactive gases and materials that have the potential
Facts, data, expert opinion: a) Low Pollution such as air pollution, water pollution - Nuclear power also has a lot fewer greenhouse emissions. It has been determined that the amount of greenhouse gases have decreased by almost half because of the prevalence in the utilization of nuclear power. Nuclear energy has the least effect on nature since it doesn’t discharge any gasses like methane and carbon dioxide b) Low Operating Costs - The cost of the uranium, which is utilized as a fuel in this process, is low. Also, even though the expense of setting up nuclear power plants is moderately high, the expense of running them is quite low. The normal life of nuclear reactor is anywhere from 40-60 years, depending on how often it is used and how it is being
Schlosser asserts that Iran shouldn’t be able to possess nuclear weapons due to the pervasive threat it will pose. He acknowledges that nuclear weapons haven’t been used since the World War II, which suggests that a nuclear war will never happen. In addition, Schlosser emphasizes the ubiquity of the belief that nuclear weapons serve as war deterrents between nuclear powers by quoting Kenneth Waltz. Schlosser agrees that the belief does describe recent situations but doesn’t portray the future.
Nuclear power produces fewer carbon emissions than traditional energy sources because energy is not produced by burning molecules but splitting atoms. ‘An energy mix including nuclear power has the lowest impact on wildlife and Ecosystems’ as shown by a Conservation Biology paper. Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by nearly half which shows the benefits and popularity of nuclear power use. Nuclear power has many environmental benefits such as small waste production, leaves no adverse effect on water, land or any habitats. By reducing fossil fuel consumption and switching to Nuclear Energy, we will sustain the environment, quality of air, improving the overall quality of
However, there are a number of controversies over the use of nuclear energy with some supporting its use while others opposing the use of nuclear energy. Despite the controversy on whether to use nuclear energy as an alternative, nuclear power has proved to be safe, reliable, clean, and inexpensive. Therefore, Nuclear energy should replace other forms of power around the globe because it is more environmentally friendly, cost effective, and safe for use and to exist with human beings compared to other forms of energy being used today. One of the main benefits of nuclear energy over other forms of energy is that it is a clean way to produce energy.
The US is always in a threat as we have picked up many enemies whether it is North Korea, ISIS, or Russia. In 1942 during World War 2, the US launched the Manhattan Project, which was the project to produce the first US nuclear weapon. We completed the nuclear bombs and destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Over 300,000 people died from these bombs essentially ending the war. These numbers demonstrate the amount people that were killed from 2 bombs.
In todays political climate many countries appear to be on the brink of war. Countries such as the United States, Russia, and North Korea who all have formidable forces of weaponry, are constantly on the verge of a greater warfare by atomic power. Ever since its first test in 1945, the atomic bomb has been considered to be incredibly controversial and dangerous, but also a potential world power changer.
Nuclear energy may be the solution that eliminates our concern for energy production in the future, but it still remains a huge issue for the environment. Despite its wide use in many developed countries, nuclear energy poses many threats to both the
Probably words like radiation, mutations and Homer Simpson pop into your head. However, that is not the case. According to Mark A. Jones, Director of Nuclear Operations and Engineering at Hutchinson Island Nuclear Power Plant, during our interview stated: “Nuclear energy compared to solar energy brings less of an impact because nuclear energy doesn 't emit air pollution unlike other forms of energy. It also only needs the fraction of land the salon energy needs and self-contain its own waste from polluting the environment.”
Nuclear Power Nuclear power plants can be good and bad. The new power plants have nine inch thick walls that can withstand pressure of 2,250 pounds per square inch. “It serves as an important barrier for any radioactive material produced in the reactor core during the operation of the plant.” Nuclear power plants are good because it generates heat, and electricity. Although power plants are good, they can also be bad.
The potential is limitless, and it should be realized as they have low greenhouse gas emissions, are efficient, powerful, cheap and reliable. Positives outweigh the negatives, and we should keep on using nuclear energy. Firstly, nuclear power generation has low greenhouse gas emissions, which make it good for the environment. The actual fission
01 June 2015. Since some of them might offer a partial position on the topic, pro or against nuclear energy I will try to compare their data every time I am talking about a specific event or situation in order to provide data that are as objective as possible. Even though a thesis should be used to demonstrate a position it is politically correct to list the same data from different sources and not just by the one that is more similar to my position. 8. Main Objectives Nuclear energy has become an integral part our lives.
Nuclear energy is a highly scientific field and therefore information can be difficult for the general public to understand and interpret. The structure of the NEA provides a comprehensive outlook of nuclear power policies worldwide. The NEA tries to make a member state’s policies more visible by providing “a setting for reflection and discussion, based on policy research and analysis, that helps governments shape” (OECD, 2004c: 4). The NEA identifies itself as authoritative, balanced actor in the international nuclear energy arena by drawing on the competence and experience of each member country (2011).