Site Loader

LOCATION

Rock Street, San Francisco

Introduction

Energy source that is being proposed and used by people in the public, one must always look at safety and economic use. This paper provide thesis argument: nuclear energy is not good.

Why nuclear energy is not best alternative

Making nuclear plant that would be good for replacing fossil fuels must require many nuclear plants which each need billion dollars. In the end this means the country would have to waste with so much money before it can remove the energy demand for the United States even as much as the fossil fuels (Mackenzie, 1977). Even the day and time needed to create a nuclear plant would be bog problem because one plant take about ten years in order to complete.

Again even shutting a nuclear plant involves massive expensive because it must be decommissioned by a decommissioning authority. Even those who say net production is cost effective for unit of nuclear energy produced may not be saying the truth because most of these estimate forget that nuclear energy is recipient of many government subsidies.

Most researches in renewable energy are done with help of government inventions and subsidies in it. If these are removed because they cannot be there in the future then cost of producing this power would be so high. Therefore, it would not be good idea to make large scale nuclear energy because it would be good to improve current energy sources in because of costs.

Another problem and issue is environmental damage being taken by this source of electricity. Nuclear energy is bad for total of nuclear waste removed at time of production and this waste often radioactive (Diesendorf, 2007). It is because of these problem, factories must have system in place that allow disposals and this must be very expensive that make a number of them very much uneconomical.

If they have not been in position to do so then the environment suffer through the emission of any kind of heat in waste or because radioactive emissions that be very harmful to the human body. Furthermore, even process of mining the material to begin with for nuclear energy production i.e. uranium mining would being radioactive dumps which being in some sort of negative cycles. One method used to remove of this kind of waste has been making of electricity during the use of heat from the waste.

Here, people who support of nuclear energy say that natural gas can be generated through such method and this may therefore increase the convenience of the waste. But, major reason for take up nuclear energy is to protect the environment from carbon emissions. It would not be good to use clean energy to make dirty one (Lowe & Brook, 2010). Another method in getting rid these effects is US must build repository.

Still, do not forget radioactive nature of the materials, there must be radioactive resistant material that you use so to prevent the spread of these radiations to outside world. Also, nuclear energy building factories are using too much of resource – they want too much of water in order to make cooling effect.

Some plants like this one in Southern Australia consumers thirty million liters of water and plans in future for tripling this water. When economic activity bring to much of using of important natural resource like the water then it is environmental sustainability should always be wrong since it now competing with other kinds of uses that may be more important to the people (Bodansky, 2008).

Last one; many nuclear firm will like to focus on high level of the waste like the one radioactive material from factory after completing the process but very small number of them will think on low level wastes like radiation clothing (that may been used so that it can cover workers not to get radioactive emissions), rags, syringes and other smaller produces of radioactive emissions that may not attract many attention from manufacturers but this still be a dangerous thing to the public.

One other issue concerning nuclear energy is likely harm is may present to the public. Any employee who works at nuclear plant is risky always of being exposed to low level of radiations that may be responsible for many sick persons. Still, some disastrous events even occur especially around this form of energy.

The most big case of them was the Chernobyl accident. Not just this, smaller accidents have occurred or will be going to occur in the everyday to day making nuclear energy. For example, in Minnesota, it was said contaminated equipment transported from another location, this could put many at big danger (Cooke, 2009). And this is not enough, any people who live near nuclear plants always put the other at problem of long term health effects.

Those who work or live near the factories may be in danger to long term complications like cancer. Even though the chance of having affects by these issues may be highly small when safety measures and throwing away are obeyed, studies show serious problem there is still a danger of getting a health problem because of going near radioactive emissions or radioactive work.

Conclusion

These many risk of nuclear energy i.e. safety problem and around health of workers and residents, the building factories is not and environmental problems are many. Make this nuclear energy not a good and clean energy for the United States and world.

References

Mackenzie, J. (1977). The nuclear power controversy. Biology quarterly review, 52(4), 467

Cooke, S. (2009). A cautionary history on nuclear age. NY: Black inc

Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse solutions and sustainable energy. NSW: New South Wales university press

Lowe, I. & Brook, B. (2010). Why vs. Why: Nuclear power. Sydney: Pantera Press

Bodansky, D. (2008). Environmental paradox of nuclear power. Environmental practice, 3(2), 86

Post Author: admin