Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nuclear energy after world war
Introduction essay to nuclear power
Introduction essay to nuclear power
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nuclear energy after world war
Nuclear fission was discovered in the 1930s and, with that discovery it opened the doors to an exciting new field of energy production. When first discovered, it was so misunderstood that some children’s toys actually included live radioactive material. However, we learned from our mistakes and moved forward. Today, nuclear reactors that produce electricity for the populace are common in big cities, in some rural areas, but how safe are they really? This question is being brought up again by the events in Japan with the nuclear reactors there. Are the reactors in use today any safer and are we in any danger from them? When the word nuclear reactor is mentioned in passing today, it is usually associated with giant, concrete cooling towers emitting torrents of steam, a mushroom cloud rising high into the sky, or even Homer Simpson asleep at the control panel. Nuclear energy is so much more than that. When first discovered it was praised as being a low-cost, low mission alternative to fossil fuels, which is extremely good for the entire, but today with the threat of nuclear meltdowns, safety has become a key issue. ”In the United States, 104 nuclear power plants supply 20% of the electricity overall, with some states benefiting more than others.” (Brain, Lamb 1) With that many reactors in the United States alone, people have a right to know if operations are conducted safely. That information can be quite worrying to some, but when we actually look at the track record of nuclear power, another side is told. In the World Nuclear Association’s Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors it states there have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained without harm... ... middle of paper ... ...d Robert Lamb. "HowStuffWorks "How Nuclear Power Works"" HowStuffWorks - Learn How Everything Works! Web. 17 Mar. 2011. . World Nuclear Association. "Safety of Nuclear Reactors." World Nuclear Association | Nuclear Power - a Sustainable Energy Resource. Jan. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. . Sanger, David E., Matthew L. Wald, and Hiroko Tabuchi. "US Calls Radiation 'Extremely High;' Sees Japan Nuclear Crisis Worsening." The New York Times 17 Mar. 2011. New York Times. 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. . "Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Nuclear Power Plant Safety Has Improved, but Refinements Are Needed: GAO-06-1029." GAO Reports (2006): 1. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
Nuclear power has always been a controversial issue because of its inherent danger and the amount of waste that the plants produce. Once considered a relatively safe form for generating energy, nuclear power has caused more problems than it has solved. While it has reduced the amount of traditional natural resources (fossil fuels), used to generate power like coal, wood, and oil, nuclear generating plants have become anachronisms. Maintaining them and keeping them safe has become a problem of immense proportion. As the plants age and other technology becomes available, what to do with these “eyesores” is a consuming issue for many government agencies and environmental groups. No one knows what to do about the problem and in many areas of the world, another nuclear meltdown is an accident waiting to happen. Despite a vast array of safety measures, a break in reactor pipe or a leak in a containment vessel, could spell another environmental disaster for the world.
Nuclear power has no place in having a safe, clean, sustainable future. Today, the manufacturing of nuclear power plants has become a critical topic throughout the world that many strongly believe should be stopped. Nuclear Power is not safe anywhere in the world nor is it environmentally friendly. Nuclear power plants are truly something that could cause mass destruction in the world and has the potential to wipe out a whole country with ease. Despite proponents’ that claim that nuclear power is safe, there is a history that proves otherwise and marks a number of disasters caused by nuclear power plants.
Nuclear Energy has many proponents and much opposition. Many of the groups that oppose nuclear power have legitimate concerns, mainly with the dangers of nuclear material in relation with human health concerns and environmental troubles that are risked by allowing nuclear power plants to increase in number. Yet, many of these opposition groups have made outspoken and radical claims about the “hidden” motives of why nuclear power is promoted and subsidized by our federal government. For example, The Nuclear Information and Resource Service claim that the federal government has the intention of committing genocide against Native Americans because uranium mining is predominantly done on reservations. Another cry out by nuclear power opponents is the constant reliving of the few nuclear mishaps that occurred decades ago, at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. No doubt, past accidents have happened worldwide and are important reminders to not play around with nuclear material, but technology has improved as well, a fact opponents fail to consider. Many of these organizations feel that other sources should be used to supply America’s energy needs. These types of statements tag many opponents to nuclear energy as misinformed, out of touch with scientific facts, or just closed minded to the whole concept of nuclear power. On the other hand, the proponents of nuclear energy like President Bush see it as cheap, and environmentally friendly. As a result, President Bush passed the Comprehensive Energy Bill in 2005 that would increase production of all types of energy, including nuclear, by giving subsidies and tax breaks to nuclear power producers. Keeping safe America’s capabilities for generating electric power by way of nuclear e...
...nce World War II to the present day, the technology of nuclear power has increased significantly in terms of energy output and safety. The energy efficiency of nuclear power is far superior to its counterpart fossil fuel and renewable energy. Compared to fossil fuels, tiny amounts of fuel used by nuclear reactors is equivalent to a large sum of coal. This is a no brainer. Why mine a ton of coal when a little uranium can be used to gain the same amount of energy? Not only is it efficient, it’s safe to use. Used fuel is packed away in storage safely, so there isn’t any chance of radiation leaking out. In the present day, nuclear power incidents haven’t been occurring lately. Advancements in technology and equipment used have made nuclear energy a very reliable and safe source of energy. With today’s energy needs, nuclear power has the ability to keep up in the race.
Many believe that nuclear power plants are a hazard to the people that live around them and the environment in which they are built. However, these assumptions are based mostly on the fact that the nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants of today are built to the same standards that the old nuclear plants from many years ago. Nuclear power today is designed to be much safer than outdated nuclear power plants and have a very minimal chance of causing a nuclear catastrophe. Nuclear power plants are a safe and viable option for generating electricity for the foreseeable future.
The purpose of this report is to investigate the different views and opinions on the safeness and cost effectiveness of nuclear power compared to other forms of energy. This report will explain the issues and background of the debate, the importance of the issue, and the parties who are involved in this debate with their thoughts.
Most people have bad feelings towards nuclear power because of three major incidents, Three-mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and more recently Fukushima in 2011. It is because of these events that many dislike the idea of nuclear power and have a misunderstanding of what actually happened in these events. According to the World Nuclear Association, “These three significant accidents occurred during more than 16,000 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources. The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health, unlike Chernobyl. Other incidents (and one 'accident ') have been completely confined to the plant.” (WNA). Each plant had its problems, but the only plant to actually cause damage and the loss of human life was the ukraine reactor in Chernobyl. According to WNA, what happened during the meltdown was that the staff running the reactor did not follow the correct procedure and when they were supposed to follow through with one action they neglected to stop something from happening, therefore resulting in the meltdown of only one reactor out of four. The total meltdown could have been easily prevented if the engineers running the plant had followed through with all plant procedures. The meltdown was an unfortunate accident and many nations turned from nuclear power soon afterwards until more recently when the technology to handle all possible situations with the most extreme care. The United states is best known for its procedures with rectors. The US has set in plans to handle any and all actions for the possible event of a nuclear situation. According to the Nuclear Safeguards Infrastructure Development and
“There are 61 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 99 nuclear reactors in 30 states in the United States” (U.S Energy Information Administration). An energy crisis is going on right now. This crisis includes the consumption of fossil fuels that leave the world free of pollution, while still creating the same amount of energy. The idea of using nuclear energy came around the 1960’s as countries who were involved in World War II needed to get an upper hand on weapons, specifically bombs. This was made possible when german scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman fired neutrons into uranium 235, which in turn led to the discovery of a self-sustaining chain reaction. This experiment led to the creation of the atomic bomb and the nuclear
“It takes a certain kind of person to do what I do”. No-one's ever impressed; no-one's ever fascinated.” Kenny is an Australian mockumentary-style film that follows the numerous misadventures of Kenny Symth as a porta-john worker. This quote is addressed directly to the audience in the opening sequence of shots at Kenny's home. The character Kenny is played by Shane Jacobson, and the film was directed by his brother, Clayton Jacobson, which was released in 2006.
As our population increases, so will our demand for electricity. Air conditioners, computers, televisions, microwaves, and many other appliances have become necessities for Americans. All methods of producing electricity have drawbacks. As the earth becomes warmer, we must look for ways to decrease our use of fossil fuels. There are several ways to produce electricity without releasing air pollution. The most feasible method at this time is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy presents a safe, clean, and inexpensive alternative to other methods of producing electricity. Nuclear waste can either be reprocessed or disposed of safely, provided certain precautions are taken.
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.
The energy industry is beginning to change. In today’s modern world, governments across the globe are shifting their focuses from traditional sources of power, like the burning coal and oil, to the more complex and scientific nuclear power supply. This relatively new system uses powerful fuel sources and produces little to no emissions while outputting enough energy to fulfill the world’s power needs (Community Science, n.d.). But while nuclear power seems to be a perfect energy source, no power production system is without faults, and nuclear reactors are no exception, with their flaws manifesting in the form of safety. Nuclear reactors employ complex systems involving pressure and heat. If any of these systems dysfunctions, the reactor can leak or even explode releasing tons of highly radioactive elements into the environment. Anyone who works at or near a nuclear reactor is constantly in danger of being exposed to a nuclear incident similar to the ones that occurred at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi plants. These major accidents along with the unresolved problems with the design and function of nuclear reactors, as well as the economic and health issues that nuclear reactors present serve to show that nuclear energy sources are not worth the service that they provide and are too dangerous to routinely use.
Nuclear power, the use of exothermic nuclear processes to produce an enormous amount of electricity and heat for domestic, medical, military and industrial purposes i.e. “By the end of 2012 2346.3 kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity was generated by nuclear reactors around the world” (International atomic energy agency Vienna, 2013, p.13). However, with that been said it is evident that the process of generating electricity from a nuclear reactor has numerous health and environmental safety issues.
Nuclear Energy is a potentially potent source of energy but still an unknown, unsafe entity that cannot be performed in a timely manner and the risks outweigh the potential. Though the 21st century is widespread with electronic devices and an ever-growing population, the thirst for electricity can be quenched by renewable resources. Men and women across the United States need to say NO to nuclear power because it cannot be performed in a timely manner, is a safety risk, and there are far more economical ways of producing energy that do not produce as much waste. The first and one of the main reasons for not wanting nuclear power in the United States is that with the continuity of nuclear power, what also comes with it are nuclear weapons.
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.