I’ve seen nuclear power plants in several states and often wondered just how much of our power comes from the controversial source. One such plant stands out in my memory; far out in the Arkansas countryside, surrounded by wooded hills and a deep river, the instantly recognizable cooling tower caught my eye. It made me wonder, why is nuclear energy so controversial anyway? I have to admit, the scene that day was idyllic. It didn’t match at all the way nuclear power has traditionally been portrayed in the movies or on TV. What I saw was a prosperous area full of people a mere stone’s throw from the plant. I’m talking about boaters and skiers literally in the shadow of those cooling towers. In the course of my research I found that I had some misconceptions about nuclear power and that the industry just might come back to life here in the United States. I learned that about 20% of our electricity is derived from nuclear reactors. I’ve come to believe that nuclear needs to play an even larger part in our energy mix along with wind and other technologies; it’s safer than ever and cleaner by far than coal or natural gas. Even with the challenges of radioactive waste and high capital cost, nuclear has a place in U.S. energy production. Those opposed to nuclear power are likely to believe that it’s just not safe. There’ve been exactly no deaths or serious injury from radiation exposure at a nuclear power plant anywhere in the United States. Sure, some of us might recall an incident referred to simply as “Three Mile Island (TMI)” that happened back in 1979, but that seems to have been greatly overhyped to me now. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the governing body in the United States which oversees all nuclear energy activities, i... ... middle of paper ... ... Schulz, M., & Smith, B. (2006). Nuclear power: both sides. The Wilson Quarterly, 30(4), 59+. Retrieved October 9, 2011 from Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Richburg, K.B. (2011, March 16). Guessing is underway about nuclear power's feasibility. The Washington Post, A14. Retrieved October 09, 2011, from LexisNexis Academic. Sharpe,V. (2008). "Clean" Nuclear Energy?. Hastings Center Report, 38(4), p. 16-18. Retrieved October 9, 2011 from Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Wald, M. (2005, December 27). Scientists try to resolve nuclear problem with an old technology made new again. The New York Times, section F. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from LexisNexis Academic. Wald, M. (2009, September 24). U.S. panel shifts focus to reusing nuclear fuel. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from LexisNexis Academic.
...nce World War II to the present day, the technology of nuclear power has increased significantly in terms of energy output and safety. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is far superior to its counterpart fossil fuel and renewable energy. Compared to fossil fuels, tiny amounts of fuel used by nuclear reactors is equivalent to a large sum of coal. This is a no brainer. Why mine a ton of coal when a little uranium can be used to gain the same amount of energy? Not only is it efficient, it’s safe to use. Used fuel is packed away in storage safely, so there isn’t any chance of radiation leaking out. In the present day, nuclear power incidents haven’t been occurring lately. Advancements in technology and equipment used have made nuclear energy a very reliable and safe source of energy. With today’s energy needs, nuclear power has the ability to keep up in the race.
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...
Wareham Oam, S, 2007 The Nuclear Industry: A History Of Misleading Claims,briefing paper 20, pp. 1-13, viewed 1 Oct 2009.
...for nuclear power has declined as support for renewable energy has increased. Though nuclear power produces zero energy and is seen by many as a cheap way to reduce the world’s carbon emissions (Kessides 2012), several major factors have affected its support amongst the general population. Incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have forever shifted support away from nuclear power (Burton 2006, Cyranoski & Brumfiel 2011) as governments shift support to renewable energy sources that do not pose the same risk.
Romm, Joe. The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power. N.p.: American Progress Action, Jun. 2008. PDF. 25 Feb. 2014
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
Nuclear power plants are an extremely safe and reliable source of clean energy. As long as protocol on safety is met, then there should be no means for worry. The coal-burning power plants are only killing us slowly; we need to take action now before it is too late. We need to embrace new technology and use it to advance our world, as well as the world of our future generations.
Nuclear energy has, for some time, been a controversial issue. With incidents like that of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the more recent complications caused by the earthquake and tsunami Fukushima reactors in Japan, concern about the safety of nuclear energy has become a major issue. A lot of this concern probably exists because of a lack of information and education about both radiation and its effects. It is my belief that nuclear power is no less safe than any other form of energy generation, and can produce significant amounts of power.
Folke, L., & Burnette, H.S. (2005, March 28). Burning bright:nuclear energy's futute. Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba511/
Carbon, Max W. Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim?: Our Most Misunderstood Source of Electricity. Second ed. Madison, WI: Pebble Beach, 1997.
“Every dollar spent on nuclear energy is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand” (Jacobson). Most countries today are becoming more and more dependent on nuclear power as a source of energy because of its high energy output and the availability of uranium used for fuelling nuclear reactors that generate power to provide electricity in households. Although using nuclear power as a source of energy has benefits like this, the danger posed by using nuclear power is too ominous.
McLeish, Ewan. “The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power”. New York: Rosen Central, 2008. Print.
The use of nuclear power in the mid-1980s was not a popular idea on account of all the fears that it had presented. The public seemed to have rejected it because of the fear of radiation. The Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union in April of 1986 reinforced the fears, and gave them an international dimension (Cohen 1). Nevertheless, the public has to come to terms that one of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Fear of radiation may push nuclear power under the carpet but another fear of the unknown is how costly is this going to be? If we as the public have to overcome the fear of radiation and costly project, we first have to understand the details of nuclear energy. The known is a lot less scary then the unknown. If we could put away all the presumptions we have about this new energy source, then maybe we can understand that this would be a good decision for use in the near future.
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.
Stieglitz, Richard, and Rick Docksai. "Why the World May Turn to Nuclear Power: Demand for Fossil Fuels May Decline, but Demand for Electric Power Will Soar. Nuclear Power, Resisted by Many, May Provide a Long-term Solution, and It Has Come a Long Way since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl." The Futurist 1 Nov. 2009: 1+. Print.