Preview

nuclear power

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
603 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
nuclear power
Nuclear power is “safe”. The UK now has enough radioactive waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over. It is more reliable than other types of power and creates very little emissions. However the cons just outweigh the pros. Where is all this waste meant to go to? The waste will probably end up in the environment harming the earth. It is deemed safe but an accident occurred, the consequences would be catastrophic like the Chernobyl disaster.
It has been twenty years since the worst nuclear disaster happened; Chernobyl. Also the 2011 Fukushima disaster showed the world that nuclear power is clearly fundamentally unsafe. Furthermore people are being affected by cancer and deformities. It has also caused mental health problems- according to the IAEA the "designation of the affected population as "victims" rather than "survivors" has led them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control over their future. Nuclear power is inherently dangerous and, despite claims of improvements in safety, scientists agree that another disaster on the scale of Chernobyl could still happen anytime, anywhere. Nuclear power is dangerous, hazardous and harmful.
The nuclear industry is hugely expensive. The construction and generating costs of nuclear power are greater than most renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Added to these costs are associated with dismantling nuclear stations and waste disposal. The cleanup costs of the UK’s existing nuclear industry and its waste alone have been estimated at up to £100bn. That is £100bn of public money. Nuclear power plants normally take 5-10 years to construct as there are several legal formalities to be completed and mostly it is opposed by the people who live nearby. Nuclear power is too pricey, costly and sumptuous.
The nuclear industry transports thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste around the UK by road, rail and sea. There could be the risk of a terrorist attack. Every week, communities up

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    There are further issues implied by the trend shown for nuclear power. The use of nuclear power has fluctuated in the past 60 years, rising by 10 million tonnes between 1970 and 1990, and then decreasing back 10 million tonnes by 2030. This is because the first stations in operation at 1990 had a short life and are now beginning to expire. This poses an issue for energy security in the UK as even with immediate investment into nuclear energy; the stations take 15-20 years to build. This leaves a gap as shown in the trend (nuclear only at 10 million tonnes in 2030) where the UK will be without nuclear power, irrelevant of…

    • 619 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many people around the world ask themselves what are the disadvantages of adopting an alternative solution to solve the consumption of global nuclear energy? Based on what we have experienced through events with major disasters and the aftermath of many casualties, it has summed up to result in having failures outgrowing expectations. Therefore, global nuclear power usage is to be opposed due to the fact that it comes with high financial costs, nuclear waste management complications, and the fact that thousands in populations are mass numbers of casualties.…

    • 530 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    labouring the Walmart way

    • 394 Words
    • 2 Pages

    As everyone knows, nuclear energy can release nuclear radiation which can kill human’s cells and serious radiation can cause death. Furthermore, radiation can result in genetic variation. Radiation also has nuclear residue. It is hard to clear, may be more than 50 years can disappear. Such as Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, now is a ghost town, no one can live in there because of the radiation residue.…

    • 394 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The initial construction cost of nuclear power plants is large. On top of this, when the power plants first have been built, people are left with the cost to enrich and process the nuclear fuel which also costs a lot of money. How much? Apply concrete details from your research (and cite it). Just think of how nuclear is wasteful too conversational 8 not only that but the people who work there at the plant. Nuclear energy is very costly. Generation electricity in nuclear reactors is cheaper than electricity generating from oil, gas, coal and not to talk of the renewable energy source 1 cite. Even though coal pollutes big time doesn’t mean it’s not double negative bad. Coal produces carbon dioxide which we 9 human produce as well. By using coal, it provides just what we need without paying overtime on building one of nuclear buildings which cost way more than a Coal factory.…

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Many disasters have occurred involving nuclear energy, the two most publicly known ones are the disasters in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011. The…

    • 418 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    No new nuclear power plants should be built because the increasing energy demand in the United States can be met with less negative environmental impact with power generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar, and tidal power. The “zero emissions” benefit of nuclear energy is a common misconception. The actual reaction in a nuclear power plant only creates steam and radioactive waste; it does not produce greenhouse gasses or particulate matter that the combustion of fossil fuels creates. But, due to reliance on existing fossil-fuel power for plant construction, decommissioning, and fuel processing as well as the mining, enrichment, and transport of uranium, the nuclear…

    • 2071 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    After the Chernobyl disaster of April 26th, 1986, it was often said that the nuclear industry no longer had the resilience to survive another major nuclear accident. The industry hoped that the sentiment behind the Chernobyl accident could be eased on the basis that it was the consequence of a flaw in design that was unique to the Soviet Union’s reactors and that they had been operated in such a way that would not have been acceptable in the West. Then, Fukushima changed everything. That, at least, was the popular view adopted in the aftermath of March 11, 2011, by the press, media and across the Internet blogging community. A nuclear accident in such a densely populated and well-developed country would transform the way nuclear energy is perceived, as well as, determine the way it would be used, or not used, in the years to come. This analysis attempts to overview its causes, evaluate its impact, and understand its consequences on future nuclear development.…

    • 3083 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nuclear power’s bad reputation has come about due to the accident at nuclear plants such as Chernobyl in Ukraine, Fukushima in Japan and Three Mile Island in the USA. Chernobyl was one of the only ones out of three that has been classified as a “major accident” by The International Atomic Energy Agency; the other was the accident at Fukushima. The reason the Chernobyl accident was considered a “major accident”, was due to the emergency shutdown failing, with a full melt down being achieved. This area is not able to be populated ever again due to the extreme…

    • 1108 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    2. In “Small Recactors Make a Bid to Revive Nuclear Power”, the Obama Administration and the Energy Department are working on making America the leader in advanced nuclear technology and manufacturing (Biello 2012). They are considering switching the large reactors, which are currently the predominant technology, to small reactors, which will save money. These reactors would contain enough power to power more than 200,000 U.S. homes for a year (Biello 2012). This strategy will cause less nuclear waste and will increase safety issues as well. In another article, “Time to revive, not kill, the nuclear age”, it is stated that a world without nuclear power would be less secure. Neither fossil fuels nor renewable resources will be able to replace the 14 percent of global electricity generated by nuclear reactors (Financial Times 2011). This article sides with MacFarlane by saying the Chernobyl accident was bad, but since then things…

    • 1389 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Final Critical Assignment

    • 1161 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The main issue of the article is whether or not we should increasingly rely on nuclear power and make it our No1 source of energy given endless concerns about its safety and expensive cost. Undoubtedly, in a world of increasing population, diminishing natural resources and worsening climate change, nuclear energy is considered the key future energy resolution. In favor of greater reliance on nuclear energy, Mark Lynas – a climate-science author strongly brought in the reasons of: 1st, nuclear power avoiding climate change while fossil fuels have failed to do so and green energy capability is still being questioned; 2nd, opponents overstating danger even after many reactors has been safety improved; 3rd, the cost is acceptable comparing to other renewables energy. In contrast, Peter A.Bradford – former commissioner of the U.S.Nulear Regulatory Commission insisted in the alternatives, arguing that nuclear power is too costly to be pursued, not to mention its danger and potential severe impacts on people’s health. Obviously, the need of understanding the issue from comprehensive perspectives with substantial data support is essential to weigh the risks and benefits of each opinion.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Furthermore, nuclear power is too expensive. For instance “Many supporters and critics say nuclear power biggest impediment is economic.”(8,8) Even people who agree with nuclear power agree that the cost is too high the amount of workers and materials that will be needed and how long the process is too much money for the economy. Like this quote states “But in reality is wasting yet more time and money pursuing the nuclear nightmare would be, too expensive, too risky.…

    • 79 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    With all these pros, there are still cons about nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants generate large amounts of highly radioactive material. This is from the leftovers, after splitting the uranium atom. You can argue that nuclear waste is a bad thing, but if it is taken care of properly it is not so bad. The highly radioactive rods are kept in cooling pools of water, which not only cools the rods down, but…

    • 688 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nuclear Power is reliable yet controversial source of energy in the U.S. Many people have different viewpoints on Nuclear energy. Although nuclear energy can cause many problems such as nuclear accidents, it saves money, produces less pollution, and it can be made in any environment. The benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. Without nuclear energy we would be relying on the weather for energy.…

    • 347 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    By building nuclear reactors which contains the nuclei, the large of energy released from it creates steam which drives machines to generate electric power. Nuclear energy is capable of producing energy equivalent to 3 million pounds of coal from 1 pound of uranium. however, after the nuclear plant disasters that happened in Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan led people to a controversy on nuclear energy and questions such as whether nuclear energy and reactors can solve the world’s energy issues or does it pose to much of a risk and should be taken out as a choice of energy. After looking through the issue more, I have came up with the question: To what extent do the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the possible risks it has on the environment? After doing research, my position in this controversy is pro nuclear. I believe that the benefits of nuclear energy are higher than the threats and after looking at statistics, it had shown that other sources of energy causes the same or more damage to our environment with less good…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bill Mckiibben Waste

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages

    With all the money, we spend on the nuclear industry they nor the government have come up with a plan to get rid of the waste that does not involve dumping it in the ocean or the desert. McKibben states, “Congress is being lobbied really, really hard to fork over billions of dollars to the nuclear industry” (333). One thing about nuclear energy that can never be forgotten is the fact it can be turned into a weapon. The destruction nuclear weapons can cause is and always will be horrifying. During World War 2 a nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The bomb destroyed most of their island, killed most of their population, and left the country filled with radiation. Nuclear weapons can cause radiation sickness, different forms of cancer, and malformations to children ("What's the Damage?"). Even factories that use nuclear energy are harmful they destroy soil used for farming and water sources. Nuclear energy contains elements such as uranium, strontium, benzene and many others ("What's the Damage?"). These are the materials that keep nuclear energy radioactive even after it is disposed of, plus it can cause birth…

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays