Should We Expand the Use of Nuclear Energy?
Should We Expand the Use of Nuclear Energy?
Radioactive waste. We’ve all heard about it. And we all know where it comes from—nuclear power plants. A nuclear power plant is an energy-creating facility where worker burn fuels such as uranium and plutonium to help generate electricity. Say no to nuclear power plants! Nuclear power plants are terribly expensive to run and release fumes into the atmosphere that are not healthy for the economy nor for the environment. And when the facility blows up, it creates a giant health hazard. I haven’t even mentioned how much waste is stored when these plants produce energy!
Nuclear power plants are expensive, not to mention dangerous. To run a power plant costs at least nine billion dollars, per unit. In the article titled, The Cost of Nuclear Power, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the author states, “The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.” The same article, The Cost of Nuclear Power, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, states, “... nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support.… according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate…. more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own. Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.” At the same time, nuclear power can become a health hazard.
The materials used to generate nuclear energy are also used to create nukes, which have devastating effects on the environment. An organization called "Physicians for Social Responsibility" wrote an article on the topic and they stated, "The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.... expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan. In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle." They continue with, "In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001. A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor." Thus, nuclear power is much too hazardous to be trusted.
I believe that we should not expand upon the use of nuclear energy. To produce nuclear energy costs a lot of money, is incredibly dangerous, and the waste excreted by it is radioactive. The materials made to generate nuclear energy are also used to produce nuclear weapons. In closing, we should find other alternatives that have less dangerous effects on the environment.
Links:
*Cited using EasyBib
*"The Cost of Nuclear Power." Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power.
*"Nuclear Energy." Greenpeace USA, www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear/.
*Wilkerson, Jordan. "Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power." Science in the News, 25 Oct. 2016, sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/.
*“Support PSR!” Physicians for Social Responsibility, www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html.
Nuclear power plants are expensive, not to mention dangerous. To run a power plant costs at least nine billion dollars, per unit. In the article titled, The Cost of Nuclear Power, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the author states, “The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.” The same article, The Cost of Nuclear Power, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, states, “... nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support.… according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate…. more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own. Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.” At the same time, nuclear power can become a health hazard.
Nuclear energy is not just expensive, but the waste a power plant produces is incredibly dangerous. The waste is radioactive because it consists of uranium and plutonium, which are known to be radioactive elements. If a nuclear plant explodes, the surrounding area is filled with poisonous gases and anyone who ventures forth will risk death from the radiation it produces. An organization called Greenpeace wrote an article on their website titled, Nuclear Energy, and they stated, “Meltdowns like the ones in Fukushima or Chernobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Many of them may never come back. If the industry’s current track record is any indication, we can expect a major meltdown about once per decade… There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on site. The site selected to store the U.S.’s radioactive waste — Yucca Mountain in Nevada — is both volcanically and seismically active.” Another article titled, Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Energy, written by Jordan Wilkerson, states, "radioactive refers to the fact that this material is actively emitting radiation. This is not the same kind of radiation we’re familiar with such as visible electromagnetic radiation from a light bulb. Electromagnetic radiation emitted as a result of nuclear fission... has 100,000 times more energy than visible light. Radioactive material can also emit highly energetic electrons (beta particles) and small clusters of protons and neutrons (alpha particles). This concentrated energy causes the molecules in our body to react in ways that can be extremely damaging, sometimes giving rise to cancer. Radioactivity isn’t just a characteristic of the material being used in the nuclear reactor. Even in the absence of a nuclear accident, nuclear power inevitably produces dangerous materials: radioactive waste. This waste, composed of mostly unconverted uranium along with... plutonium and curium, stays radioactive for extremely long periods, too, presenting a major problem in regards to storage." So even though the risk of death is unmistakable and cannot be regarded lightly, others argue that it's completely worth it.
Some believe that we should expand the use of nuclear energy. They would say that the radioactive waste produced from nuclear power plants are in small amounts and that nuclear energy is a little less expensive than other alternatives. Jordan Wilkerson, author of Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Energy, writes, "... The byproducts from burning fossil fuels are toxic pollutants that produce ozone, toxic organic aerosols, particulate matter, and heavy metals. The World Health Organization has stated the urban air pollution... causes 7 million deaths annually or about 1 in 8 of total deaths. Furthermore, coal power plants release more radioactive material per kWh into the environment in the form of coal ash than does waste from a nuclear power plant under standard shielding protocols. This means that... the radioactive waste problem associated with one of the most mainstream energy sources in use actually exceeds that from nuclear energy. In fact, on a per kWh of energy produced basis, both the European Union and the Paul Scherrer Institute... found an interesting trend regarding the fatalities attributable to each energy source. Remarkably, nuclear power is the benchmark to beat, outranking coal, oil, gas, and even wind by a slight margin as the least deadly major energy resource in application..." While this is true, we must think about how the entire world suffers when a nuclear power plant malfunctions. Fukushima is still recovering from the damage done and the ghost town of Chernobyl, Ukraine is still incredibly dangerous from the amounts of radiation there. The materials used to generate nuclear energy are also used to create nukes, which have devastating effects on the environment. An organization called "Physicians for Social Responsibility" wrote an article on the topic and they stated, "The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.... expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan. In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle." They continue with, "In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001. A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor." Thus, nuclear power is much too hazardous to be trusted.
I believe that we should not expand upon the use of nuclear energy. To produce nuclear energy costs a lot of money, is incredibly dangerous, and the waste excreted by it is radioactive. The materials made to generate nuclear energy are also used to produce nuclear weapons. In closing, we should find other alternatives that have less dangerous effects on the environment.
Links:
*Cited using EasyBib
*"The Cost of Nuclear Power." Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power.
*"Nuclear Energy." Greenpeace USA, www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear/.
*Wilkerson, Jordan. "Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power." Science in the News, 25 Oct. 2016, sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/reconsidering-risks-nuclear-power/.
*“Support PSR!” Physicians for Social Responsibility, www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html.
Comments
Post a Comment