Preview

Us Nuclar Power Plants

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
514 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Us Nuclar Power Plants
Should the United States commission new nuclear power plants?
Energy is a controversial topic in the United States and the rest of the world. More than half of the energy we have comes from coal burning power plants. President Obama is working along with government agencies to build more nuclear power plants in the United States. Nuclear power plants produce large quantities of energy creating no air pollution and very little water pollution in the form of thermal pollution. The United States should build more Nuclear power plants, they are good for the environment unlike coal burning power plants which are major producer of carbon dioxide and contributor of mercury in our waterways; they produce a lot of energy, they don’t produce any air pollution or greenhouse gases, and the little pollution they create can be safely stored and carefully contained.
Many people are suspicious of this new technology simply because it can be dangerous if not taken precaution and it can lead to a meltdown. For example, a natural disaster can destroy a plant’s boiler room; if this happens the reaction of uranium-235(very radioactive) can’t be stopped if fission happens, leading to a meltdown releasing radioactive material into the environment. In a Generation II plant there are backup diesel generators that are designed to provide an emergency supply of electricity to the cooling system, is this is destroyed there will be no electricity to keep the cold water flowing, causing explosions, and the spread of radiation. The example is true, but scientists are working on a Generation IV plant that runs on thorium, which is four times more abundant than uranium and less radioactive, this is very efficient because it stops fission reactions and prevents a meltdown from happening.

Nuclear power plants are capable of producing large amounts of energy without polluting the air, and they also don’t release any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Nuclear power plants do not release harmful carbon dioxide into the environment like the fossil fuels that are mostly used. Therefore, it can actually help with the problem of global warming around the world and even here. Nuclear power plants are also considered more reliable since they do not depend on the wind or the sun in order to produce energy. This means that nuclear energy can provide a more reliable base load of energy even when the demand for energy is very high like during the summer months when everyone is using their air conditioners.…

    • 848 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    labouring the Walmart way

    • 394 Words
    • 2 Pages

    First off all, what is the nuclear? Many countries use nuclear energy to generate electricity. “Unclear is the energy stored in the center or the nucleus of an atom. After we bombard the nucleus into two parts, two different elements are formed along with the emission of high energy. The process generally followed is called fission. Fission is the chain reaction which needs uranium-235.”(“Fission and fusion”)The nuclear energy is considered as the worthiest alternative resource of energy after fossil fuels, but it also has a lot of potential problems.”(“Nuclear Energy”)…

    • 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
  • Better Essays

    Only about 0.7% of uranium consists of the isotope U-235, the fuel source of nuclear reactors, but because the cooling process utilized by LWRs absorbs a significant number neutrons required for fission, nuclear fuel must be enriched to contain between 3% and 5% U-235. The enrichment process requires large amounts energy and could be avoided by using more efficient reactors which do not need enriched fuel (Barton). Not only would LFTRs and IFRs require non enriched fuel in order to operate, but they would also utilize the fuel to the fullest extent. LWRs are only capable of burning about .6% of U-235 in the fuel and the rest is “depleted” or “spent” fuel which is discarded as radioactive waste. Since LFTRs and IFRs are able to operate at much higher temperatures than LWRs, they can more thoroughly burn uranium and burn it more efficiently turning up to 85% of the heat into electricity as opposed the 30% of heat that LWRs turn into electricity (Hansen). LFTRs which will utilize thorium as a primary energy source will be able to produce over 30,000% more energy per megaton of fuel as the current method of burning uranium only amounts to about 35 GW*hr/MT while a LFTR would produce about 11,000 GW*hr/MT (Barton). Efficiency is a great advantage over the current generation of nuclear power plants, but…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nuclear energy is one of the hottest topics in the fight to a cleaner world. The number of people who believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous and unhealthy for the earth has skyrocketed because of the nuclear accidents that have happened in the past and recently. These protesters may have a lot of evidence and theories about how bad this type of energy can be, but the people who have realized that nuclear energy is the way to a cleaner and more “Green” society have proof and facts that overrule anything that the protesters say.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good 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

    Roland Schenkel. “Nuclear Energy Acceptance and Potential Role to Meet Future Energy Demand. Which Technical/Scientific Achievements Are Needed?”. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Transuranium Elements. (2012): 356-364.…

    • 3083 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    With nuclear power came what was thought to be a more clean alternative to burning coal and other fossil fuels; Nuclear power does not produce nearly as much of the greenhouse gases as coal produces. People and society have given nuclear power a bad name, considering the amount of accidents that have happened. Although when you look at statistics it’s not as many as you would believe, or expect. When nuclear power is put head to head with coal power, nuclear power is the more efficient, and the safest way of power production. There are several reasons for this like the amount of fuel burned, pollution levels, and the effect it has on the environment.…

    • 1108 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Many professors, scientists, researchers, and even governments, have been debating over the issue on the use of nuclear power as a main energy source. In Taking Sides, two authors who are highly narrow-minded state their debates on this critical issue. Allison MacFarlane, author of “Nuclear Power: Panacea for Future Energy Needs?”, believes that nuclear power should be revived. She argues that nuclear power will provide sufficient energy, while at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On the other hand, professor Kristin Shrader-Frechette, author of “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, argues that nuclear power is too expensive and unsafe for the environment, when there are renewable energy sources that are better for the environment and economy. I agree with Shrader-Frechette because she proves the five myths about nuclear energy wrong using extremely valid arguments, which exist to prove that nuclear power is not the best option for an energy source in our society.…

    • 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nuclear Power Plants

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The question of whether the U.S. should have nuclear power plants is very controversial. There are two sides that one can take; however, both sides have their own share of problems. If you chose to not have nuclear plants, then eventually all natural resources will run out. The oil supply will run out relatively soon, and all other sources will run out too. The natural resources that we have now are still harmful to the earth however. The gas which we use for our cars pollutes the air and considering the amount of cars the are driven each day, it is ripping apart the o-zone layer. However, if the U.S. does decide to use nuclear plants, then there is a great danger of toxic waste invading our rivers, and also the chance of a spill similar to Chernobyl. As we saw in the Chernobyl video, there is great danger when using nuclear energy. If this were to happen is the United States, the risk of mortality is much higher because the area's in which there would be a plant such as a big city are very densely populated. Because of these facts, I do not think that the U.S. should renew its efforts to develop more nuclear plants.…

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory 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

    be stopped, but sure, it can be decreased. If we installed nuclear plants we would have to some how discard the left over rods. These rods are highly radioactive. If there is a possible leak this can lead to worse problems and can have an influence on global warming. If we were to have say 30 nuclear plants in Australia, where would…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the world, countries are leaning towards nuclear energy due to the amount of energy it can produce with very little resources. This topic is worth investigating since energy is basically a must, now in the 21st century. It is now considered an essential to have energy in our lives to maintain our standards of living. We have gone to many different sources of energy other than nuclear energy such as coal, solar, wind, oil and more, but many of those energy source have flaws too. Some sources of energy will reach the peak of their production due to resources and will eventually fall, others pollute the environment just like nuclear energy and some just don’t produce enough energy for us to fully rely on them. Many countries needed a new source of energy since…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays