Ethos, Pathos and Nuclear Energy 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 honored in the green movement for creating the Gaia hypothesis, which combines everything on earth as entirely organic. In the past Lovelock opposed nuclear energy. Unfortunately, to his fans, he changed his views beginning to support nuclear energy. Throughout the article Cravens goes with the explanation how the use of nuclear energy will be able to soft issue about global warming. Current fossil fuel power plants cause serious health problems in thousands of Americans, furthermore, continue to drive the warming. She tries to prove to the audience that currently there is no possibility that U.S. nation can use any of renewable energy sources such as the wind and sun (in which she looks to find common with public views about this case), and that nuclear energy is safe, and this is the best option to get the necessary amount of needed energy. To support her thesis she strongly focuses on creating her ethos or her credibility as a writer. Through her impressive use of ethos, she gives the trustwort... ... middle of paper ... ...o persuade her audience through her strong assumptions and facts of evidence from her researched work. Although, Cravens may have some weaknesses in her argument by not giving the substantial information about her opponent’s stance. Maybe this could be considered as clever point because otherwise it may completely undercut her argument to attract her position from audience about nuclear power. She tries to prove to the audience that currently there is no possibility that United States nation can use any of renewable energy sources such as the wind and sun, and that nuclear energy is only one safe, and this is the best option to get the necessary amount of needed energy. Well, let’s hope the tide will eventually change and robably it is time to look for realistic alternatives. Works Cited …………
writes her stories with the intent to shock her readers into seeing the truth behind human
Carbon, Max W. Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim?: Our Most Misunderstood Source of Electricity. Second ed. Madison, WI: Pebble Beach, 1997.
Nuclear power may lead to some extensive breakthroughs in multiple fields for better or for worse in the case of humanity and its survival. It’s a topic that people need to take a bit more seriously as it holds the chance to make or break the future for earth and its inhabitants. Greater risks have greater rewards and as observance of nuclear products and ideas deepen then so do the products yield, perhaps into infinity. While nuclear power is accompanied by several risks, it can also be the solution for various global strains and difficulties. Sufficient energy for the world is a huge goal to tackle and requires the use of any efficient resource we have, especially when the source has so much potential.
Central Idea: Nuclear energy only contributes a small amount to the world’s electricity yet it has hazards and dangers that far out-way its benefits. There are many other alternative power producing sources that can produce energy more efficiently and more safely than nuclear power plants can.
The genre of her essay is informative and expository as she talks about the topic to her audience while giving statistical studies and surveys to support her purpose.
Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear power opponents is the constant reliving of the few nuclear mishaps that occurred decades ago, at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. No doubt, past accidents have happened worldwide and are important reminders to not play around with nuclear material, but technology has improved as well, a fact opponents fail to consider. Many of these organizations feel that other sources should be used to supply America’s energy needs. These types of statements tag many opponents to nuclear energy as misinformed, out of touch with scientific facts, or just closed minded to the whole concept of nuclear power. On the other hand, the proponents of nuclear energy like President Bush see it as cheap, and environmentally friendly. As a result, President Bush passed the Comprehensive Energy Bill in 2005 that would increase production of all types of energy, including nuclear, by giving subsidies and tax breaks to nuclear power producers. Keeping safe America’s capabilities for generating electric power by way of nuclear e...
The main parties who is associated with the debate are governments, experts, and the country people. These people have given out their opinions regarding the effects of nuclear ene...
“Face it. Nukes are the most climate-friendly industrial-scale form of energy” (Power, Reiss, Pearlstein, 655). This statement is what I’m trying to promote through my argument. It also ties Inconvenient Truths: 10 Green Heresies by Matt Powers, Spencer Reiss, and Jonanna Pearlstein and Nuclear Power is Best Energy Source: Potchef Stroom together by bring out the main point all authors are trying to get across. Global warming has been a big concern for years now and one of the biggest causes for it, is the burning of fossil fuels to get energy. People that live in the United States of America use a huge amount of energy in their daily lives and that amount continues to grow with our population growing with it. My purpose of this piece is to persuade people to switch to nuclear power for a cleaner energy source because it’s the cleanest energy source.
On and off, could it be that simple? Energy is there whenever we need it, so we think. It’s not as simple as turning the light switch, replacing light bulbs, and paying the electric bills. Our energy today is made mostly from coal, natural gas, oil, wind, solar, and nuclear. With depleting natural resources, we must begin to consider what will power our future. Although there are many challenges yet to be encountered and technology yet to be discovered, many say nuclear energy is becoming a major part of our future. However, nuclear meltdowns and disasters have many people and scientists questioning the possibility of having a nuclear powered world. What are the concerns and positive aspects of nuclear energy today? Could nuclear energy become a part of our future energy source?
The world is facing an energy crisis and many are unaware of this growing problem. Sustainability is avoiding depletion of our natural resources in order to provide for future generations, and the only way to ensure that resources are available into the future is to find alternative sources to meet the world’s energy needs. Nuclear energy is just one source of alternative energy being implemented today in an effort to support the needs of the population and mitigate global climate change. Nuclear energy holds the necessary benefits in order to continue being used globally as an alternative solution.
Nuclear power is the generation of electricity from an atomic reaction. (World Statistics: Nuclear Energy Around the World n.d.) Though it produces zero carbon emissions there has been a decline in support for nuclear power and increased its support for alternative energies in the pursuit for a fossil free energy sector. Factors that have resulted in the reduction of support for nuclear energy include nuclear accidents and waste and the positives of renewable energy which include clean energy, sustainable and reduced health and environmental risks.
Even though the consequences of nuclear energy are known by the public, not all people in the society oppose the future development of nuclear energy. Nuclear power is still a safe and clean source of energy...
Energy affects our lives in many ways and in nuclear energy, there’s a lot of drama. Nuclear energy has provided us with powerful and vigorous energy, but it also has had some…dramatic explosions. I am writing, believing that we should not use nuclear powers since the cons outweigh the pros. Nuclear energy is a wild and unpredictable stallion, which could explode at the slightest disturbance. Nuclear energy accidents are terrible, the environmental impact is not good, and the cost makes the government’s wallets bleed. Although nuclear energy has its benefits, the cons are just too much to handle. Let’s take a look at some accidents that have occurred through the ages.
Nuclear power, although relatively new, is one of the most productive major sources of energy. It has been readily embraced by France, Russia, the United States,and initially Japan, four of the world’s leading nations. Of course, as with every energy source, there are some drawbacks, the bulk of which have to do with safety concerns. For this reason, this particular source faces enormous opposition. Yet, the negatives are so heavily outweighed by the positives (i.e. high economic efficiency and low environmental impact), that they do not in any way draw from the fact that nuclear energy should definitely continue to be used, and more so.
At first, author Rod Adams states the significance of having nuclear power plants to produce power. Adams addresses that nuclear energy is a reliable, affordable and safer source that should be invoked as a main supply of energy. He recommends the option of using uranium or thorium as the fundamental source of power. Adams justifies his idea by explaining that a small amount of uranium could be used to generate more potential energy than oil. The risk of using nuclear energy is lesser than burning fossil fuels. Moreover, using nuclear energy would make the government spent less than using fossil fuels to create power (Adams).