Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy IELTS essay
Coal mining health
Pros and cons of nuclear power production
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Although it is the irresistible trend to put an end to nuclear power, we could not achieve the nuke-free dream through an immediate action. There are a few essential reasons.
Firstly, given that energy is the fuel of the sustainable development of economy , we have to consider how to supply the deficiency caused by the elimination of nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to completely replace nuclear power right away with other sources. According to the last three quarter reports published by Taipower, the largest amounts of energy sources is offered by coal (40.46% on average) followed by gas (30.26% on average) , nuclear power (18.27 on average) and water power (4.19% on average) while the renewable sources which is highly advocated by environmentalist, only shares 0.9% in total. Now, could these sources mentioned be the substitutions of nuclear power right now?
The coal
The coal obviously will not be the one. Apart from the finitude of coal miner, coal itself is the cause of lots of pollution. The combustion of coal, especially carbon dioxide, contributes most to acid rain as well as air pollution, and has been connected with global warming. Moreover, a number of verse health effects of coal burning exist. Coal-fired power plants cause nearly 24,000 premature deaths annually in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer. ("Deadly Power Plants? Study Fuels Debate: Thousands of Early Deaths Tied To Emissions." MSNBC (2004-09-06) .Retrieved 5 November 2008.) Annual health costs in Europe from use of coal to generate electricity are €42.8 billion, or $55 billion. ("The Unpaid Health Bill – How coal power plants make us sick". Health and Environment Alliance. Retrieved 7 March 2013.)
The g...
... middle of paper ...
...ountry's 50 reactors offline since a Fukushima accident, Japan has been almost without nuclear energy that once supplied about a third of its power. As the result of the immediate reaction, Japan posted a trade deficit in 2011 for the first time in 31 years, and another deficit of 8.2 trillion yen ($82.4 billion) in 2012. About half of the increase stemmed from rising fuel costs, according to Trade Minister Motegi. ( Ramtanu Maitra. “Japan Without Nuclear Energy Is a Disaster for the World” Executive Intelligence Review. September 27, 2013 issue) Now, Japan is trying to restart some of 50 currently idled reactors. All those evidences clarify that we cannot be too impatient on the way to say goodbye to nuclear power.
Works Cited
Ramtanu Maitra. “Japan Without Nuclear Energy Is a Disaster for the World” Executive Intelligence Review. September 27, 2013 issue
Seventy-one years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear power is rarely recognized as a solution to the energy crisis. Instead, it is associated with the most violent pits of Hell: warfare. The demands of warfare exhaust the scientific community and deplete its resources, as well as decimating the human population.
Roughly 68 percent of the electricity generated in the United States of America is produced by fossil fuels. That includes petroleum, natural gases and coal. Although coal contributes around 37 percent to the factor, it is by far not the cleanest of them all. Some might argue that it is good for the economy because it is cheap and it creates jobs.. But the other side of the story portrays coal mining as a process that kills thousands of coal miners a year and that it practically destroys the environment around the mining with soot and air pollution. Mining now days is a big part of urbanization; due to how cheap the process is. There are different ways that coal mining is done. Mainly mountain top removal is done but there are many other
Together with the Soviet Union we have made the crucial breakthroughs that have begun the process of limiting nuclear arms. But we must set as our goal not just limiting but reducing and finally destroying these terrible weapons so that they cannot destroy civilization and so that the threat of nuclear war will no longer hang over the world and the people.
Of course, there is no way to rid the world of nuclear power, but it must be controlled.
Coal also can be very damaging to the environment. People in the coal industry don’t always follow the precautions needed for helping the recovering environment that coal mining hurt. Most of the time water is polluted from the byproduct the is produced while mining coal. Like acid mine drainage, air pollution from coal-fired power plants, coal dust, coal sludge, and mountaintop
Immediate use of the atom bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future nuclear weapon use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger. Erica Cook said “with the development of the atomic bomb, science has unleashed the means to destroy the world and burdened future generations with its destructive presence” (1997, 2). This paints a dark picture of the atomic bomb in terms of the future of our planet. “Nuclear weapons are the most terrifying weapons ever created by humankind. They are unique in their destructive power and in their lack of direct military utility. Most national leaders repeatedly express their hope that these weapons will never be used” (Cirincione, 2007). Since the creation of the atomic bomb, the world has become aware of atomic power and the concept that the entire world can be destroyed by said power. Citizens and government realize that if there were to be anothe...
Not only is nuclear power friendly to the environment, but it is almost always available, and many countries are starting to use it more. Renewable energy sources like solar and wind en...
The main parties who is associated with the debate are governments, experts, and the country people. These people have given out their opinions regarding the effects of nuclear ene...
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.
From the creation of nuclear weapons at the start of the Cold War to today, the world has experienced struggles fueled by the want of nuclear power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s nuclear weapon program are some of the most important conflicts over nuclear weapons. Thanks to the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 to end World War II, the world has come extremely close to a nuclear war, and more countries have began developing nuclear power. Unmistakably, many conflicts since the start of the Cold War have been caused by nuclear weapons, and there are many more to come.
T.N. Srinivasan, T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj, Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power, Energy Policy, Volume 52, January 2013, Pages 726-736, ISSN 0301-4215. Retrieved from: http://0-dx.doi.org.hkbulib.hkbu.edu.hk/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.036. Accessed by:April 7 2014.
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.
Burning and mining coal for fuel is harmful to the environment, but because of how cheap and easy it is to find, many people are unwilling to give it up as a fuel source. One of the problems with coal is that they are limited and are non-renewable, so once it has been used we won’t be able to use it again. When coal gets burned, they start to release harmful, dangerous toxins such as mercury, lead and arsenic that will then escape into the air. It also releases large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. These emissions increase the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere and lead to global warming.
“If nothing changes about the rate of coal consumption there is enough to last over a thousand years. However, if the rate of consumption rises even 5%, there is less than hundred years supply” (Tjblackwell 1). When creating energy from coal, it gives off a thick dark cloud which is highly pollutant and releases a large amount of carbon monoxide for every pound that is burned. Coal was first used back into the late 1700 when the first steamboat was built, whereas coal is now used to power whole cities. There are always improvements in technology like the one just listed which is where energy alternatives are headed in the near future. Coal is a very effective way to power machinery, but that same machinery that can also be powered by solar energy, hydrogen, or biofuel. All of these alternatives allow machinery to function without creating any pollution. In contrast, coal has turned rivers orange from the acid and coal mines are the cause of thousands of deaths every year because of how pollutant it is to a human 's body. One can concluded that even though this has been an effective way to produce energy, this old method should be removed from our current practice should be removed from our current practice. The problem Americans face is there is no possible way they can get people to stop using coal. However, if one thinks about it, education and awareness can help to end some of our excessive use
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.