The Nuclear Predicament

The disaster had more of an effect on eastern Europe’s nuclear experimentation and use but “While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants” (World Nuclear Association). Since the Chernobyl disaster was majorly caused by human error and under qualified scientists, to work with nuclear reactors today you need to be insanely qualified. Since the accident, Soviet-designed reactors’ safety has improved greatly, even in smaller ways. Automatic shutdown mechanisms now work faster, and other safety mechanisms have been sped up. Even new equipment has been installed such as automated inspection equipment. Several scientist and reporters have even said an accident like Chernobyl is virtually impossible with today’s technology (World Nuclear Association).

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,

These accidents were chosen because they constitute worst yet valuable examples of what can – and, occasionally, does – go wrong in the nuclear power production realm, and because they shape our understanding of the caused harm. They also embrace a thirty-five year period, during which nuclear power underwent significant regulatory development worldwide, aiming to address growing concerns with respect to short- and long-term effects of such disasters on human health, environmental, social, and economic factors.

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

Alternatives to oil, along with the other fossil fuels, have been gaining popularity in the wake of high prices and elevated awareness of global warming. While solar, wind, hydro, and even geothermal have been getting press about being the means to lower CO2 production, and become less dependent on foreign oil, there is an alternative that rarely is mentioned. The mere reference of nuclear power conjures images of meltdowns and mushroom clouds. Despite the advances in efficiency, safety, and technology, public opinion has changed little since the years of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It is this misguided sense of impending doom from nuclear power that has deterred much of the population from accepting it as a viable alternative to

According to the U.S. Energy Administratin, “By 2030, electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to grow by 21% from its current level” (Candris). The population increase of the United States and other developing countries is causing a need for cleaner energy. There are many alternatives that are already in use today that show that the technology is possible. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and natural gas are all alternatives that can provide energy in a much more efficient and clean way. However, these alternatives do not come close to the energy that can be produced by nuclear power. The past events have shown that nuclear power follows more of the necessities that other resources do not follow now. Despite monetary costs and increased

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.

As technology advances society’s need for energy grows exponentially. Nuclear energy can help provide the energy that society desperately needs, but there is a lot of controversy around nuclear power. Many people are afraid that potential risks that arise when there is a disaster and the long term health effect of radiation. Others are concerned with the storage practices for radioactive material. These concerns are always prevalent in nuclear discussions and an implicit bias and stigma around nuclear energy especially in the United States. The public’s fear can lead into decisions based only on emotion when controversial decisions should be made with a clear and unbiased mind. It is important that people understand and learn all of the pros and cons of nuclear energy and base their opinions on facts rather than irrational fear.

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.

America relies heavily on foreign sources for the energy to run the country. The issue has received much media attention due to the political and economic implications it will have in the near future. This problem could at least be partially solved by using technology that already exists, rather than relying heavily on ones that have yet to come to fruition. America’s energy woes – specifically its reliance on fossil fuels – can be solved by reviving nuclear energy with the use of politics to tackle perceived dangers, technological advancements to make them more feasible, and public outreach to promote acceptance.

The consequences of a nuclear accident are potentially very damaging to human life, health and the environment.

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

In today’s world, energy is vital part of first-world life, to the point where the human race depends on the growth of energy for their own growth and well-being. However, in recent years, it is known that America’s primary source of energy, oil, has become expensive and an increasingly limited resource, estimates place reserves depleting in approximately 120 year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/07/09/how-many-years-of-oil-do-we-have-left-to-run-our-industrial-civilization-keeping-in-mind-that-oil-is-a-resource-and-has-an-economical-end/). This all points to where Americans having to think about using new sources that would be more sustainable. One of these alternative options, surrounded in controversy, is the idea of nuclear energy.

As the threat of climate change increases, the discussion of nuclear energy has arisen again. One of the most important problems the world is facing today is limited supply of energy resources. It is common knowledge now that oil, coal and gas will come to end extremely soon; therefore it is vital we find a replacement for fossil fuels before they are depleted. NASA’s Jim Hansen, perhaps the world’s foremost climatologist, warns that the situation is so dire that, “The entire world needs to be out of the business of burning coal by 2030 and the western world much sooner.” But to fully understand what it is we are committing the world to we must first understand what energy, mainly nuclear energy is and what its positives and negatives are. Will it have a positive or negative impact on our society? Nuclear energy: Friend or Foe? Is it the way to go?