Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fukushima Daiichi power plant destruction
Fukushima Daiichi power plant destruction
Fukushima Daiichi power plant destruction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fukushima Daiichi power plant destruction
Nearly 6 years have passed from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, but many areas in Fukushima still remain abandoned as ‘ghost towns’, according to DailyMail. Residents of those areas have remained evacuated from their hometowns because of continuing high radiation levels, and most buildings have been left untouched since the accident occurred. This proves that nuclear accidents are extremely destructive for people and future generations. Japan must stop using nuclear power energy because it’s dangerous, overall bad for the environment, nor economical.
The first reason is that, as mentioned above, nuclear power can cause major accidents like the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and is treacherous. It is considered safe when they are operating
…show more content…
Nuclear power is often seen as a cheap energy source that makes it possible to generate vast amount of energy at once. That is true, if the focus is just on the energy generation cost. Kansai Electric Power Company presented that the cost for nuclear power generation was ranked as the cheapest, 10.1 yen per kWh, comparing to other energy sources such as solar energy which costs about 30 yen per kWh. From this it is unquestionable that nuclear power generation costs cheaper than others and may be seen as an economical energy source. However, when nuclear accidents like the Fukushima nuclear disaster happen, the government of Japan and big companies will have to pay for the damages and compensation. Recently, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry released preliminary calculations of the cost for the Fukushima nuclear disaster’s clean-ups. The cost rose to 21.5 trillion yen, roughly double of the previous prediction. This unimaginably huge number indicates how much nuclear power can cost in case accidents like this happen, and again, it is impossible to predict these disasters. Moreover, Kenichi Oshima, a professor of Ritsumeikan University estimated that the disaster has cost Japanese taxpayers about 13.3 trillion yen. “The underlying cost is mainly being paid by the public, either through electricity bills or as tax,” said Mr Oshima. This data shows that the taxes could have caused economic hardships for the Japanese citizens. …show more content…
According to World Nuclear Association, Japan depends on imports for over 90% of energy since the country is low in natural resources. That is an issue because middle-eastern countries that Japan imports oil/gas from are unable to sell those resources at a stable price rate. However, it is possible to cover that problem by using an alternative type of oil/gas which are available now because of new technology, called ‘shale oil/gas’. Although shale oil/gas aren’t common yet, they are found in countries which will be able to sell oil/gas at a stable price rate. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that shale oil/gas were available in 42 countries in the world. Hence, by importing stable resources like shale oil/gas, Japan will potentially be able to avoid using nuclear energy and shift to other ways of energy
Energy is undoubtedly one of the most important issues facing the world today. While fossil fuels may produce enough energy at a low cost, it also has severe environmental impacts on the world. Wind energy is a clean source, but is also extremely expensive to maintain. Nuclear energy may be the best energy alternative to coals and oil, with the ability to produce much more energy with relatively low cost, while also being more environmentally sound.
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.
I. (Gain Attention and Interest): March 11, 2011. 2:45 pm. Operations at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant continued as usual. At 2:46 pm a massive 9.0 earthquake strikes the island of Japan. All nuclear reactors on the island shut down automatically as a response to the earthquake. At Fukushima, emergency procedures are automatically enabled to shut down reactors and cool spent nuclear fuel before it melts-down in a catastrophic explosion. The situation seems under control, emergency diesel generators located in the basement of the plant activate and workers breathe a sigh of relief that the reactors are stabilizing. Then 41 minutes later at 3:27 pm the unthinkable occurs. As workers monitored the situation from within the plant, citizens from the adjacent town ran from the coastline as a 49 foot tsunami approached. The tsunami came swiftly and flooded the coastline situated Fukushima plant. Emergency generators were destroyed and cooling systems failed. Within hours, a chain of events led to an explosion of reactor 1 of the plant. One by one in the subsequent days reactors 2, and 3 suffered similar fates as explosions destroyed containment cases and the structures surrounding the reactors (Fukushima Accident). Intense amount...
...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.
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
“Face it. Nukes are the most climate-friendly industrial-scale form of energy” (Power, Reiss, Pearlstein, 655). This statement is what I’m trying to promote through my argument. It also ties Inconvenient Truths: 10 Green Heresies by Matt Powers, Spencer Reiss, and Jonanna Pearlstein and Nuclear Power is Best Energy Source: Potchef Stroom together by bring out the main point all authors are trying to get across. Global warming has been a big concern for years now and one of the biggest causes for it, is the burning of fossil fuels to get energy. People that live in the United States of America use a huge amount of energy in their daily lives and that amount continues to grow with our population growing with it. My purpose of this piece is to persuade people to switch to nuclear power for a cleaner energy source because it’s the cleanest energy source.
Nuclear power has grown to be a big percentage of the world’s energy. As of January 18, 2013 in 31 countries 437 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 372 GW are in operation and 68 plants with an installed capacity of 65 GW are in 15 countries under construction. As of end 2011 the total electricity production since 1951 amounts to 69,760 billion kWh. The cumulative operating experience amounted to 15, 15,080 years by end of 2012. (European Nuclear Society) The change that nuclear power has brought to the world has led to benefits in today’s energy’s usage.
The United States spends billions of dollars on importing oil. This is represented as almost two-thirds of the country’s entire annual trade deficit. Now that there is more access to gas deposits, there is no need to rely on other countries around the world for fossil fuels. America can instead rely on their own resources to provide energy for the residents. America is already the world's largest producer of natural gas thanks to shell drilling and the country's sits on 2 of the world's largest gas fields gas production has soared 20 percent in five years in the United States now should have enough gas to last generations soon the nation will begin exporting gas and unimaginable possibility just a few years ago when energy supplies look set to run out in the construction of gas importing facilities was considered a matter of national urgency (Zuckerman, G.,
Specific purpose: To persuade the audience that nuclear power is the best source of energy today.
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.
However, nuclear technology has been around for a long time. With nuclear, an incredibly low risk is associated with it. Many countries use nuclear to great success with proper controls and regulations. Nuclear has been framed as a “bad” technology as many tragedies have followed it and the damage can be irreversible for centuries. Lastly, the cost of bring a new plant online is financially daunting.
After the nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011, I have been communicating with victims and received countless of irate calls from victims, but almost all of them repeat critics and anger to the central government. An enormous number local residents criticized our reconstruction policy to return to the evacuation areas. “You government must be willing to sacrifice us to evaluate the effect of exposure to low-level radioactive doses.” Or “Government does not have the right to think about the reconstruction because you know almost nothing about the local situation.” These were some typical words I have received.
The world that we live into today affords us the expectation that the flip a switch will turn the lights on. As populations increase and developing nations undergo dramatic economic growth, this energy demand will only continue to grow. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that “the world’s energy needs could be 50% higher in 2030 than they are today” (ElBaradei). Given this projected growth, it is necessary for world leaders must take action to secure the energy supply. Meaning that world leaders need to start seriously considering an alternative to non-renewable energy sources. “In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights.
The risks of nuclear power have been more widely publicised than those of other energy sources, and more widely publicised than the potential benefits of nuclear power. Despite the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, nuclear power has prevented 1.8 million deaths worldwide. This is for two reasons. Firstly, using nuclear power reduces our need for fossil fuels, which leads to fewer CO2 emissions, thereby reducing the number of deaths attributable to climate change.
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.