Nuclear Power
In past
years, nuclear power has begun to be seriously viewed as a significant power
source once again. This is due to our obvious recent need for alternative
sources of energy and power because of the Earth’s dwindling amounts of
non-renewable resources. The main current drawbacks to nuclear power are the
non-renewability and the cost to maintain it. Creating the energy is not
necessarily expensive, but the cost of safety measures is high, and safety is
essential due to the dangerous potential of producing nuclear energy, which is
another disadvantage in itself. One must only look back to the events of Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl to see the great risk involved with using nuclear
power plants. However, though nuclear power is limited and expensive to
maintain, it is very powerful, efficient, and cleaner than coal fuel. There are
lower carbon dioxide levels released, and the technology is well-developed,
though there are still rare issues with radiation and safety. The output level
can also support cities and industry. But in the rare even that there is an
issue with the reactor, the risks are high and the total consequences are
unknown.
I think that if we can find
deserted, remote areas to build reactors in the US, we should use them as
emergency, backup, or any kind of substitutional power source for the country
to rely on if necessary while we develop alternative energy sources that can
support us completely. If a disaster were to occur at one of the reactors, the
area could be easily evacuated of all workers and officials, due to a lack of
civilians, so radiation would not reach any public areas.
1.
Do
you think nuclear energy is too risky to produce?
2.
Do
you think that if an energy source produces waste at all, it’s not worth using?
3.
Do
you consider possibility of terrorist attacks a valid issue with nuclear
reactors?
Using nuclear energy is definitely a risk. Having waste that is hard to dispose of properly is dangerous for the environment as well as the organisms in it. I wonder if we can recycle the waste and put it back into the process of creating electricity. Terrorist attacks could harm the integrity of the endeavors of nuclear power
ReplyDeleteThere is a reactor in Limerick that is near an outlet mall. My parents and I joke that the clothes are radioactive, but I know that the plant is not properly cared for it could be the truth. I found an article on a nuclear waste dump that opened in Texas: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/27/usa-energy-texas-dump-idUSL2E8FR9RO20120427
Opinion/Reflection: Although using nuclear energy is a risk most definitely, the U.S. needs a new source of energy and a backup plan in case the amount of non-renewable resources, mostly oil, runs out. Nuclear energy has its advantages and disadvantages and it is inconsistently dangerous. An advantage is that it is much cleaner than other sources of energy. However, it is not a renewable source. It does produce minimal pollution, but the major problem is safety risk. This is precisely why that the national government and even companies are staying away from nuclear energy as their source of electricity or fuel. If not for safety risk, nuclear energy wouldn't have been hidden in the shadows since nuclear reactions that caused damage occurred in past years.
ReplyDeleteExpansion: I do think that, at this time, nuclear energy is too risky to produce, especially produced in mass. To be produced extensively, nuclear energy must be pronounced as very safe. To make this happen, a way of making the nuclear energy safe must be found. If treated and pronounced safe, nuclear energy could easily flourish. However, as is, nuclear energy is far from being used extensively.
There have been several instances in which reactors have melted down and radiation has reached the atmosphere where no one has been killed or seriously injured. So this may not be too bad an idea. Sure terrorism is scary, but we will be attacked either way, the nuclear reactors won't change anything.
ReplyDelete