Just a few years ago there was a significant catastrophic nuclear failure. This failure caused huge amounts of radioactive materials to be released into the environment. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster quickly became the largest nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl accident while both have affected the environment immensely with radiation. Due to the potential safety issues, the risk to the environment, and the dangers of nuclear power, the use of nuclear facilities must be called off to prevent meltdowns and irreparable damage to the surrounding area. One reason why nuclear power must be eliminated is due to the fact that it does not justify the danger it creates. According to Malik Imran’s blog entitled “Nuclear Power Not Sufficient Enough?” as published on the 4urtech.blogspot, “ . . .[N]uclear energy with current efficiency levels isn’t enough . . .there needs to be much more research efforts, mainly to improve efficiency in order to make [a] nuclear energy solution capable to replace fossil fuels.” Since nuclear energy will never be a good substitute for fossil fuels, it is clear that its production needs to be abandoned completely. Others agree that efficiency is an issue. “[H]e considers much more efforts should be mainly done to improve nuclear power efficiency . . .and switch to fuel enrichment based on gas centrifuge technology, which is more energy-efficient than current gaseous diffusion methods” (Imran). Clearly there is something more efficient to be used than trying to make nuclear energy work. According to Tiffa Nur Latifa, author of “Nuclear Power Generation: Efficient or Not? Based on Pareto Efficiency” as published on Tales of The Breeze website: Compared to other energy source[s] . . .the approxima... ... middle of paper ... ...ailing." Reuters. N.p., 14 Aug. 2013. Web. 30 Dec. 2013. Latifa, Tiffa N. "Nuclear Power Generation: Efficient of Not? Based on Pareto Efficiency." Tales of The Breeze. N.p., 4 July 2011. Web. 30 Dec. 2013. Mackenzie, Debora. "Briefing: How Nuclear Accidents Damage Human Health." NewScientist. N.p., 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Dec. 2013. Narmasen, Gary. "Nuclear Power Is Too Dangerous and Should Be Phased Out." voices.yahoo.com. N.p., 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 30 Dec. 2013. "Nuclear Power Is Expensive and Bad for The Environment. It's Being Pushed Because It Is Good for Making Bombs."washingtonsblog.com. N.p., 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 30 Dec. 2013. Sheldrick, Aaron, and Antoni Slodkowski. "Fukushima Nuclear Plant Cleanup In Japan Approaches Dangerous Operations."Huffington Post. N.p., 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 2013."What's the Damage?." greenpeace.org. N.p., 26 Apr. 2006. Web. 30 Dec. 2013.
Non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels have been used up by society on a daily basis and have forced the world to find a new, clean energy source. The rising price of oil and the constant emission of carbon dioxide are proof that in the future our lives will be much harder to live. One answer to this problem is nuclear power, which has shown its efficiency during the times of World War II but has not been used commercially due to the challenges of dealing with nuclear waste and proliferation. In today?s modern era, nuclear power has been used in liquid metal fast breeder reactors, reactors that use uranium-238 to produce plutonium-239.
Smil, V. (2010).Myths in the Headlines: Nuclear Power, Energy: Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate (pp. 150-157). Washington, D.C.: Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute.
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.
Not only is nuclear power friendly to the environment, but it is almost always available, and many countries are starting to use it more. Renewable energy sources like solar and wind en...
Despite the fact the countries continue to increase the production of nuclear energy, my position is that new nuclear power plants should not continue to be built. The current use of nuclear power should be carefully evaluated with a plan to slowly decrease production throughout the world. The negative implications to the environment and economy support my position.
There is a range of safety concerns in regards to nuclear power with one of these being the effects of radiation resulting from a nuclear accident. Research shows that there is a link between exposure to radiation and the development of cancer (Zakaib 2011) whist Preston (2012) express’s concerns that people exposed to radiation may not be able to see the effects of radiation exposure for several years as was the case in Chernobyl. Furthermore, people are unable to move back into the vicinity of reactors that have been involved in an incident due to their fear of radiation as is the chase in Fukishima (Cyranoski & Brumfiel 2011) and in the areas surrounding Chernobyl (Berton 2006). Governments are increasingly becoming more stringent in the levels of radiation in which people are exposed to with this evident in Fukishma, where the Japanese government evacuated people living within a 30km radius of the plant (Evacuation Orders and Restricted Areas n.d.). As a result of nuclear accidents and the resulting radiation, support for nuclear power has diminished due to safety concerns.
Stop for a moment and visualize living in a region that has a nuclear power plant. The efficient and clean energy is perfect for this ever growing world. It is the picture-perfect form of energy until something goes terribly wrong. An earthquake rocks the town in which this nuclear power plant is located. The structures covering the nuclear core crack and the core melt’s down causing massive amounts of radiation to escape into the environment. As the days after the disaster continue, people are forced to leave their homes. Towns that once thrived with life are abandoned, and will remain that way for many years to come. The damage does not stop there. Besides physical objects being contaminated and destroyed, humans must face the disastrous consequences. People are left sick and contaminated by the radiation. They are lucky though. The fallout from this disaster will affect generations for years to come. The world will forever be changed by this disaster, and that is just the beginning.
There are six authors that will be mentioned in this paper. Three of the authors are for nuclear energy and three of them are against nuclear energy. The first three authors that will be introduced are for nuclear energy. Naim H. Afgan is a professor at the Superior Technical Institute in Lisbon, Portugal and the Chair Holder for the Energy Sustainable Management. He is also a member of the VINCA Institute of Nuclear Science that is in Belgrade that he joined in 1957. He published over 200 papers, including his article on nuclear energy that will be used in this paper. The next au...
Nuclear power has proven before that it can result in tragedy, both seen in the accident in Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, in places such as France and even the University of Maryland, we can see the many advantages that nuclear energy can bring forth, and for different purposes. In both research and energy production, nuclear energy has proven that it can not only improve our health and the economy, but also emit less harmful gases on the environment than fossil fuels. Looking to the future, nuclear energy can easily ascend as a dominant source of electricity – if properly managed. Other sources of energy will slowly deplete and continue to damage the environment and atmosphere. Nuclear power provides a solution to so many of the current energy crisis problems, so it is only a matter of
The purpose of this report is to investigate the different views and opinions on the safeness and cost effectiveness of nuclear power compared to other forms of energy. This report will explain the issues and background of the debate, the importance of the issue, and the parties who are involved in this debate with their thoughts.
Nuclear energy is not as beneficial to the environment as one may think. Nuclear energy does not burn anything in order to create energy. However, the problem is not in that aspect, but rather the fact that we do not have a way to get rid of the nuclear waste. According to Amanda Beckrich, there is currently no full proof solution to the long-term storage of the radioactive products used in the development of nuclear energy. Materials used in the nuclear process include isotopes of uranium, plutonium, iodine and strontium (Beckrich 10). All of these materials are radioactive and dangerous if exposed to society. When radioactive products are spilled or exposed into society, the consequences can be detrimental. People who are exposed to high doses of radiation will most likely face serious consequences. The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that people will likely face a number of different health problems varying on the amount they have been exposed to. Some possible major health effects include cancer, internal bleeding, damage to the central nervous system and death (“Radiation Protection: Health Effects”). With these outcomes being possible, there is not a justifiable answer to this problem.
Starr, Steven. "About." Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster. Physicians for Social Responsibility, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. .
The energy industry is beginning to change. In today’s modern world, governments across the globe are shifting their focuses from traditional sources of power, like the burning coal and oil, to the more complex and scientific nuclear power supply. This relatively new system uses powerful fuel sources and produces little to no emissions while outputting enough energy to fulfill the world’s power needs (Community Science, n.d.). But while nuclear power seems to be a perfect energy source, no power production system is without faults, and nuclear reactors are no exception, with their flaws manifesting in the form of safety. Nuclear reactors employ complex systems involving pressure and heat. If any of these systems dysfunctions, the reactor can leak or even explode releasing tons of highly radioactive elements into the environment. Anyone who works at or near a nuclear reactor is constantly in danger of being exposed to a nuclear incident similar to the ones that occurred at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi plants. These major accidents along with the unresolved problems with the design and function of nuclear reactors, as well as the economic and health issues that nuclear reactors present serve to show that nuclear energy sources are not worth the service that they provide and are too dangerous to routinely use.
Media coverage of such cases have made the public less comfortable with the idea of moving further towards nuclear power and they only opt for reducing human activities to reduce global warming. It is true that there have been some notable disasters involving nuclear power, but compared to other power systems, nuclear power has an impressive track record. First, it is less harmful and second, it will be able to cater for the growing world population. Nuclear power produces clean energy and it delivers it at a cost that is competitive in the energy market (Patterson). According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are currently 65 such plants in the Unite States (National Research Council). They produce 19 percent of the total US energy generation.
The greatest disadvantages of nuclear energy are the risks posed to mankind and the environment by radioactive materials. ‘On average a nuclear plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel cla...