America Needs Nuclear Power Essay

Something always curious and provoking happens in science writing. Gwyneth Cravens is an author of five novels and many publications, and one who studies a topic in great detail. She creates an enormous work about nuclear energy for the last decade. Cravens’s research in her last published book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy has led her to do an about-face on the issue. In her article “Better Energy” which was published in May 2008 in Discover magazine, she disputes and claims that nuclear energy is currently best alternative and should be considered as our future energy source. At the beginning “Better Energy” she commences by introducing James Lovelock, who was greatly

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

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).

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

Countless nuclear power plant accidents have been occurring quite frequently since its invention. Some accidents have even been underestimated,

There are millions of people who contribute to a large bias against nuclear technology and would prefer the continued use of natural resources. The “use of nuclear power continues to be a highly debatable topic especially because of the recent developments that have resulted in the misuse of nuclear energy produced“ ( Malyshkina, 2010). In the face of nuclear energy’s societal uncertainty, this new advancement in technology offers many benefits for a world that has dwindling natural resources at a rapid rate. According to a study from the University of California-Davis, “at the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready“ (Malyshkina, 2010). Why shouldn’t people

Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.

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.

Provided that countries can acquire uranium, they can create clean and safe energy. Generally nuclear power stations are safe. The various barriers and numerous safety measures make it very unlikely for catastrophes to transpire. The most up-to-date plants have a reactor core failure 1 in 1 million years. The proposal of building a plant has to be scrutinized intensely so that the barriers and structure ensure a redundant job in

Plants being constructed by today's standards are 1,600 times safer than early nuclear plants, in terms of the predicted frequency of a large radiation leak”(“Risk of Meltdown”). Would you feel safe living one mile from something than was constructed 1,600 times safer than previous construction? If you would, then you are going to support our debate, research, and presentation is for nuclear energy. Throughout this project we have been collecting data, some supported nuclear energy others didn’t. Recently we did a Geiger counter lab there, it’s shown how much radiation we are exposed to. The dangerous amount of radiation is 5 rems luckily the school only had .0001 to .001 rems per hour. An upside is we do not rely on fossil fuels, and we do

Nuclear power plants are considered far more dangerous than others because of their power source: the element uranium 235. When these atoms are split, they release an abundance of

It is frequently said that nuclear energy is cheaper, safer and more efficient than fossil fuels, and without the effects on air pollution, so it is often seen as a solution to the energy crisis. In 2000, approximately a sixth of the global electricity power was provided by nuclear power. (Boyle, G et al 2003) However, over the last year, there has been the serious accident with a nuclear power plant in Japan, which has draw attention on the nuclear issue once again, as it recalled the devastating disaster of Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. It needs to be asked whether it is safe enough to be

Nuclear power plants should not be built due to the biological effects it poses during a meltdown. Radiation is exposed to inhabitants during a meltdown but many people are not aware of the horrific effects. An example of this is explained in the article “Biological Effects on Radiation”. “The higher the radiation dose, the sooner the effects of radiation will appear…this syndrome was observed in many atomic bomb survivors in…1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident…of these, 28 died within the first three months from their radiation injuries. Two more patients died during the first days…” (2012).

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.

However, now this concern of being exposed to these sorts of particles has waned and people are not as worried as in the past. Do to having stronger plants for this sort of energy to be produced, these plants have been going on for years and it just keeps improving with use. The 103 U.S. nuclear power plants are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate for 40 years, and can renew their licenses for an additional 20 years (Eser notes April 4th). To date, 30 have received license renewal and 40 more are expected to have their licenses renewed. Eventually, virtually all U.S. nuclear plants are expected to apply for license renewal (http://www.nei.org).