The nuclear power Debate In 1953, nuclear energy was introduced into America as a cheap and efficient energy source, favoured in place of increasingly scarce fossil fuels which caused air pollution. Its initial use was welcomed by the general public, as it was hoped to lower the price of electricity, and utilise nuclear power for it’s potential as a resource, not a weapon. However, as people became aware of the long term dangers involved in storing nuclear waste, it’s use was criticised. Two accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, demonstrated to the world the enormous risks involved in producing nuclear power. Nuclear power provides 17% of the world’s electricity but coal is the main source, making up 39%. However, fossil fuels such as coal, require greater quantities to produce the equivalent amount of electricity produced from Uranium.
The use of nuclear power opposed to burning fossil fuels has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 2 billion tonnes per year, minimizing the global warming effect on the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is responsible for half of man made gases contributing to the Greenhouse Effect, and has sparked action from the UNIntergovernment Panel on Climate Change. Their consensus is a concern for the environment in the next century if fossil fuels continue to be used, even at present global levels. The Panel claims that for carbon dioxide to to safe levels, a 50-80% reduction in all emissions would be required. The United Nations has predicted a world population growth from 5. 5 billion to 8.
The Essay on Nuclear Power Fuel Waste High
Nuclear Power Most of the world's electricity is generated by either thermal or hydroelectric power plants. Thermal power plants use fuel to boil water which makes steam. The steam turns turbines that generate electricity. Hydroelectric power plants use the great force of rushing water from a dam or a waterfall to turn the turbines. The majority of thermal power plants burn fossil fuels because ...
5 billion by the year 2025, meaning demand for energy will increase. Nuclear power is the only practical source, in consideration for the environment, cost and efficiency. Coal-fired generation of electricity would increase carbon dioxide emissions, and renewable sources such as solar and hydro, are not suitable for large scale power generation. Nuclear power is not without its own implications.
The process includes disposing of radioactive waste, which poses a threat to the environment and the world if not contained properly and temporarily disposed of with maximum security. In the thesis, ‘Nuclear power: an energy future we can’t afford’, by Peter Kelly from Hamilton College, he wrote,’ … we’d still have to worry about terrorists making bombs out of nuclear waste. Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a nuclear bomb. Such a bomb could topple the World Trade Centre and kill hundreds of thousands of people… Terrorists may be able to recruit disgruntled scientists…
.’ Disposing of nuclear waste is extremely controversial, because it takes thousands of years to decompose, and the radiation remains active. Other than the environmental effects of disposing nuclear waste, the potential of radioactive fallout from a faulty reactor is a dangerous possibility, and the events following the accident at Chernobyl demonstrated the long term destructiveness radiation is capable of. In 1986 at Chernobyl, an unauthorised experiment conducted with the cooling system turned off, lead to the explosion of one of the reactors. The radioactive fallout spread through the atmosphere, reaching into northern Europe and Great Britain.
The Soviets claim 31 people died directly from the accident, while deaths due to radiation are yet to be determined. Radiation sometimes causes genetic mutations in the child whose parents were exposed to radiation. A few years ago on the television program ’60 Minutes’, they presented a story on the after effects of the Chernobyl accident. They revealed horrific shots of mutated embryos preserved in jars, the most disturbing, an embryo named ‘Cyclops’, because it only had one eye. While nuclear power is more efficient and environmentally safer in terms of global warming than fossil fuels, it has a destructive potential that cannot be ignored.
The Term Paper on Nuclear Power The Future OF Energy
Nuclear power, a phrase that isn’t too far from its controversial disputes. nuclear powers debate began around the 1970s to late 1980s when American nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania had a cooling malfunction that caused a part of one of its reactors partially melt inside the reactor core. Media outlets jumped onto this incident, and dramatizing the events that transpired; not ...
Electricity, generated from the nuclear fission of Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239 are both elements which are used in nuclear weapons. Radiation either from waste or fall out from a reactor explosion can cause detrimental effects, both long and short term, to the environment and society. Precautions must be taken in security, disposal, and generation of nuclear power and its waste, in order for it to be a successful resource and temporary alternative. At present, renewable energy sources are too expensive and are not suitable for large scale power generation. However, advancing technology may improve on current systems, making them more efficient and suitable for major electricity generation.
Peter Kelly concluded his thesis, .” … nuclear power should be seen as a way to tide us over to an age of conservation and renewable’s. Barring an unexpected breakthrough in fusion, the age of nuclear power will end in the foreseeable future.” BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Microsoft Encarta ’95 Microsoft Corporation 1994-952. Nuclear power: an energy future we can’t afford Peter Kelly 3. World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 11 Unknown.
