Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of nuclear power
Negative impacts of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy controversy essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of nuclear power
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.
This theme describes the inter-related processes by which the partially decrepit and moribund nuclear apparatus is being dismantled, appropriated, recycled, commodified, and memorialized in contemporary culture (e.
On March 28, 1979, at 4:00 A.M. Eastern time, the worst accident in commercial nuclear power history happened. It was a nice day in Dauphin county, Pennsylvania, and then it all happened. This accident was rated a 5 on a scale that only goes to 7. The scale is called International Nuclear Event Scale. It all started inside the secondary-system where the pilot-operated relief valve was stuck open releasing large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant. This horrific accident caused many scientists to worry about nuclear energy, as well as concerning scientists that it could be a danger to the world, so this caused many safety concerns among activists and the general public which resulted in in new regulations for the nuclear industry, and has been cited as a contributor to the decline of a new reactor construction program that was already underway in the 1970s. Even though this sounds like it should have caused many people to develop cancerous cells, epidemiological studies analyzing the rate of cancer in and around the area since the accident, determined there was a small statistically non-significant increase in the rate and thus no causal connection linking the accident with these cancers has been substantiated. After
Carbon, Max W. Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim?: Our Most Misunderstood Source of Electricity. Second ed. Madison, WI: Pebble Beach, 1997.
Rhodes, Richard. "The Manhattan Project - A Millennial Transformation." Remembering the Manhattan Project: Perspectives on the Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Legacy. New Jersey: World Scientific, 2004. 15-38. Print.
It was Italian-born physicist and Nobel winner Enrico Fermi, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago who were responsible for this success (“Nuclear”).
...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.
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.
Since the dawn of civilization, all living (and some non-living) things have needed energy. When humans discovered fire, the first form of harnessed energy, it made it easier to stay warm, prepare food, make weapons, etc. Since then, humankind has been inventing new ways to harness energy and use it to our advantage. Now-a-days, people in most nations depend extremely heavily on fossil fuels – to work, travel, regulate temperature of homes, produce food, clothing, and furniture, as well as other power industries. Not only are these fossil fuels dominating our society and creating economic vulnerability, but they also produce waste that causes a number of social and environmental concerns. The waste from these fuels leads to acid rain, smog, and climate change. It also releases sulfur dioxide as well as other air pollutants that are very harmful to the human respiratory system (Morris, 1999, p. ix). There are other alternative sustainable energy sources including solar, hydroelectric, wind, and biomass. However, the main source aside from fossil fuel is nuclear energy from controlled nuclear reactions (where nuclei of radioisotopes become stable or nonradioactive by undergoing changes) in a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power produces enormous amounts of energy to serve a community. Unfortunately, nuclear energy has its own set of problems – a big one being its waste. The spent fuel from nuclear plants is radioactive. This means that it emits radiation, or penetrating rays and particles emitted by a radioactive source. Ionizing radiation is known to cause cancer, and therefore makes anyone who lives near spent nuclear waste facilities vulnerable to this incurable disease. The disposal of nuclear waste is a global issue...
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.
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 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.
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.
Nuclear power, the use of exothermic nuclear processes to produce an enormous amount of electricity and heat for domestic, medical, military and industrial purposes i.e. “By the end of 2012 2346.3 kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity was generated by nuclear reactors around the world” (International atomic energy agency Vienna, 2013, p.13). However, with that been said it is evident that the process of generating electricity from a nuclear reactor has numerous health and environmental safety issues.
Though it might seem that the world’s energy supply is secure as of the present, this issue is something that is beginning to worry even the richest states. “Countries as far apart as South Africa and Tajikistan are plagued by power cuts and there have been riots in several nations because of disruptions to electricity” and “rich states [are] no longer strangers to periodic blackouts” (ElBaradei). If we look again at the breakdown of U.S. electricity generation by energy source, it is evident that nuclear power is the next most substantial chunk of energy generation, with other renewables weighing in far behind that. I believe this begs the question, why do we not expand nuclear power to encompa...