We have put it into power plants, but the government and public were disappointed by accidents. We have put it into war, and with it we have caused great damages. So the question is where can this energy go? Even though it has been discovered to be the greatest power source of the world today, nobody is willing to cooperate with it because of these accidents and accomplishments. I am not sure if my findings are accurate but by source tells me that today there are a total of 432 nuclear power plants and the amount keeps on lowering everyday.
Gray Livingston Anderson AP Language 17 December 2013 Beware Godzilla For almost one hundred years, nuclear energy has powered the world with little to no consequences. These consequences though, can be monumental. Nuclear energy is the costliest power system to start up, and due to its strict safety procedures, it is very expensive to keep reactors in safe operating condition. (Buzz) This potential danger has been the death of millions of people over the century, with the single most deadly being the Chernobyl incident of 1986. Nuclear energy may have its good side, but with its high cost, potential for catastrophe, and its impractical waste, it is not good for any type of consistent energy production.
With construction comes jobs, something few could make a case Against in the current economic climate. Millions of people in poorer countries have limited access to reliable sources of electricity. Up steps nuclear power to center stage. For starters, developing countries with nuclear power plants wouldn't have to rely on expensive fossil fuels that emit large volumes of carbon dioxide. Second, global interest in investing in nuclear power is high, providing the potential to pump money into emerging economies and create jobs.
No reactors have been ordered since 1978 and even in 1973 there were over 100 reactors that were cancelled. There is a reason why no nuclear reactors have been ordered for the past 30+ years but its not only cause of the dangers of nuclear fission but the cost, in 2007 multiple orders were issued for new nuclear reactors and nuclear plants. But even though these new generation of nuclear reactors have been ordered most of them will not be created or completed because of the cost of a single nuclear reactor. but was it only the cost or was it because of the dangers of radiation and how the public is scared and doesn’t want ... ... middle of paper ... ...s which are residents of the power plant and do constant safety checks and makes sure that workers are working to full capacity with all these precautions studies show that for the U.S. every 100 years there may be a small meltdown thats controllable as a comparison 1 Three Mile Island every 100 years and for a Major Meltdown once every 1000 years as a comparison for that 1 Chernobyl every thousand years. With all this in mind why should we not continue to use nuclear energy?
To put this monster into perspective: humans have only used huge amounts of fossil fuels since the early twentieth century. All of this deterioration has been caused in a time span of less than 200 years. That is not even a dent in the amount of time humans have been on this earth. Easy access to fossil fuels has changed our society as a whole, leading to rampant materialism. We have forgotten how to work for things, and also how to preserve and care for the things we love.
The building of a reactor is a big project, so it ads many jobs to the US. By using reactors, we lower our foreign fuel dependence by over 2.1 billion barrels since 1979- that’s billions of dollars that stays in the wallet of the United States. (NEI 2) Many people who fear nuclear power imagine a nuclear meltdown to be like an atomic bomb – Mass destruction, mushroom clouds, the lot. But really, the truth is, no matter what, that can’t happen. There just simply isn’t enough uranium to explode.
Since the demand for electricity is increasing and with many resources to get electricity from, the use of nuclear energy without constant support will probably decline to around 9 percent or less by 2035. At least two factors will make this quite difficult for nuclear energy to gain a bigger m... ... middle of paper ... ...ved from electricity consumers in which we pay a tenth of a penny for every kilowatt-hour of electricity we use from nuclear power plants. This money cannot be used because there is no waste management program. All this hidden waste was to be removed in 1998 but the government failed to do so. This resulted in about two billion dollars in court awarded damage settlements that was being paid from the taxpayer judgment.
To fuel this growth, the only cheap, affordable, efficient energy production means was nuclear energy. The fission of 1 lb of uranium-235 produces as much energy as 1,500 tons of coal. The Cold War only escalated this demand, and soon, reactors served dual purposes of providing energy, as well as producing weapons grade plutonium. In fact, the first reactors were designed to manufacture plutonium, not to generate electricity. Everything has its flaws though, and nuclear energy was no exception, with one of the heaviest reprucussions in the event of an accident.
About half of the increase stemmed from rising fuel costs, according to Trade Minister Motegi. ( Ramtanu Maitra. “Japan Without Nuclear Energy Is a Disaster for the World” Executive Intelligence Review. September 27, 2013 issue) Now, Japan is trying to restart some of 50 currently idled reactors. All those evidences clarify that we cannot be too impatient on the way to say goodbye to nuclear power.
With the supply of fossil fuels declining at a predicted rate of about 3% per year since 1971, alternative sources of power are an important issue in the minds of scientists and world leaders alike. While everyone scrambles to find the most effective way to harness solar, wind, and water power, they forget about a form of producing energy that has been researched for 70 years and is only a hair's breadth from being usable (26). Fusion, or the fusing of two atoms, the same power that fuels the sun, could fuel the world’s homes and cars. A 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power plant requires 2.7 million tons of coal per year (21) whereas proposed fusion power plant designs only require 250 kilos of fuel per year to produce more power than current methods (22). That’s 1/10800000 of the fuel required to run a coal-fired plant.