Fukushima, Chernobyl, Iran and radiation, are the words which come to our mind when we encounter the term nuclear issues. Ironically, despite its widespread use in many countries today, the use of nuclear power continues to be one of the most highly debated topics over the past 80 years since its first use. As seen from these common terms which we relate nuclear energy to, both the good and bad of nuclear power have been well portrayed to us, though the negative images of it have been illustrated to us more strongly by the media than its good. Where did this great controversy stem from, and where does it stand today? Detractors would say that they object the use of nuclear energy based on the devastation it may bring when an accident occurs. …show more content…
This in turn, is a way to combat global warming. Nuclear energy works on the principle of splitting the nucleus of an atom to smaller nuclei, similar to the idea of splitting a watermelon into smaller pieces. This fission results in the release of large amounts of energy, which is used to turn electric generators to give an equally vast amount of electricity. Uranium is most commonly used for such fission since it is one of the sparingly few fissile isotopes present in the periodic table. Some would say the mining of Uranium for use in nuclear fission is as damaging to the environment as coal, or even more due to the radioactive nature of the materials being mined(Aref, n.d.). However, if we contrast nuclear power with the use of fossil fuel for energy, nuclear power holds much greater superiority as much more energy is produced with the same amount of starting material. With this in mind, the harm done from mining would be minimal in terms of quantity compared to coal. At the same time, almost no carbon emission and carbon dioxide gas is produced from the use of nuclear energy, unlike the use of fossil fuel. In a way, nuclear energy is a step we have to head towards if we want to combat global warming (Lynas, 2012). The great benefits reaped from the use of nuclear power hence accentuate the need of it to continue …show more content…
Indeed there exist many pros and cons of using nuclear technology where both sides of the spectrum hold arguments which are understandable. It is alright to use nuclear energy, yet without a doubt, we have to be cautious when using it. Failure to do so may lead to the very destruction of ourselves from the something which could ironically, save us in the face of global warming. Hence, despite the risks of accidents, the advocation of the use of nuclear energy remains justified given that these risks and damage can be minimized through apt
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
What do you think about nuclear energy is safe or not? Do you know why nuclear energy is important to us? And do you really know why we need to have this kind of energy? After my speech, it will make you to understand why we need to rely on this kind of energy.
Schlosser argues that the possession nuclear weapons comes with high risks and asserts that political instability in nuclear powers brought us close to the brink of nuclear war numerous times. Furthermore, he emphasizes the risks in having nuclear weapons
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
This is evident in Figure … where an equivalent amount of energy is given, the nuclear energy is able to sustain power up to years, where normal fossil fuel can only sustain up to a few days. Although there are debates that the life span of nuclear power sources such as Uranium is low and is comparable to oil, this do not pose a threat as nuclear energy can be recycled. In addition, nuclear power plant only emits hot water into the environment which makes it environmental friendly. In fact, little or almost no carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere.
Nuclear energy only creates minimal negative effects to the environment. Nuclear energy produces steam and low levels of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy is also beneficial seeing that it produces a large amount of energy for a low cost. Nuclear reactors generate energy at a lower cost than oil, gas or coal. This nuclear energy will be a stable source of energy seeing that it is a base load source and it is synergistic with other renewable resources.
In Richard A. Muller’s “Nuclear Waste”, he discusses the problem with left over nuclear waste and how it is causing headaches for scientists and politicians. The University of California at Berkeley professor agrees that nuclear waste does present a threat to our well being, but also states that society assumes there is a much larger danger than actually exists. Muller does a great job at proving his point by explaining how nuclear waste is not a forever lasting danger and by also providing alternative methods of storing the waste. Regardless of whether one supports the development of nukes, Muller mentions that this waste already exists and a solution must be made for it.
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.”
Richard A. Muller a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, expresses his concerns on the subject of nuclear waste. In his essay, Nuclear Waste, he writes about where the United States stores its nuclear waste, alternative ways to dispose of the waste and whether it would be effective. He also talks about how dangerous the nuclear by-product is, and other dangers regarding civilian’s safety. He effectively explains his concerns through pathos, logos, ethos, and other uses of examples to help readers understand his concerns. He attracts readers by talking about the future generation and their safety against potential nuclear waste contamination.
Another man named James H. Rust who published a book called “Nuclear Power Safety” also agrees with Tucker that nuclear power should be on the fore front of science in todays society and not over looked because of all the safety concerns. Rust gives an honest opinion on what he wants the readers to get from the book and that is, “Given the fact that a reactor is not a bomb, and I hope the other chapters in this book will have at least convinced the readers of that one fact, there is still the possibility of escape of radioactive materials, both during normal operation and in case of accidents” (Rust, 36). Even a man who believes in nuclear power can not promise the public a completely safe nuclear plant that does not effect the people surrounding
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
Advantage: The first advantages of nuclear power is that the nuclear power contribute insignificantly to global warming, since only low emission of carbon dioxide is being contributed. This will alleviate the effects of climate change. The second advantage is that nuclear energy decreases the amount of energy created from fossil fuel, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emission.
Have you ever thought that nuclear energy can produce many things that can cause mass destruction or could be beneficial to us ? There are research that backs up both sides of the argument . Is nuclear power safe to use ? Could it be the key to limiting the use of Fossil fuels? Could nuclear energy be the destruction of many cities and cause the lives of people.