Persuasive Essay On Nuclear Power Plants
English 111.62
1 October 2013
Nuclear Power Plants.
In the editorial from the Los Angeles Times dated July 23, 2007 the author goes on to talk about a public assessment of nuclear power as a possible solution to global warming. We are being told that nuclear plants are a good thing but the author also describes risks that are involved. “Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be a part of any solution to climate change because nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases” states the editorial in the Los Angeles Times. (367) The author argues that they make a weak case. Stating that “...ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process far too slow to make a difference on global warming.” (367). Nuclear power is extremely risky. There are cleaner, cheaper and faster alternatives that come with none of the risks. (367)
The author of this editorial claims that the risks of nuclear plants increase when spent fuel is …show more content…
Since there are many risks involved there isn’t much interest by investors. Tax incentives and subsidies haven’t been enough to bring them in. (369) Spending $4 billion on something that is involved with so many risks, seems way out of budget. Not only is building nuclear plants out of budget but it also takes a decade to build, while an alternative, such as renewable wind and solar power doesn’t take near as long to build. A study done in 2006 by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas, but the world would have to build a new plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. (369) Building nuclear plants takes a large amount of time and to reduce greenhouse gas they would have to build them at an impossible rate. Even if building them were possible it would still overwhelm the companies that make the parts to build the
1 October 2013
Nuclear Power Plants.
In the editorial from the Los Angeles Times dated July 23, 2007 the author goes on to talk about a public assessment of nuclear power as a possible solution to global warming. We are being told that nuclear plants are a good thing but the author also describes risks that are involved. “Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be a part of any solution to climate change because nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases” states the editorial in the Los Angeles Times. (367) The author argues that they make a weak case. Stating that “...ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process far too slow to make a difference on global warming.” (367). Nuclear power is extremely risky. There are cleaner, cheaper and faster alternatives that come with none of the risks. (367)
The author of this editorial claims that the risks of nuclear plants increase when spent fuel is …show more content…
Since there are many risks involved there isn’t much interest by investors. Tax incentives and subsidies haven’t been enough to bring them in. (369) Spending $4 billion on something that is involved with so many risks, seems way out of budget. Not only is building nuclear plants out of budget but it also takes a decade to build, while an alternative, such as renewable wind and solar power doesn’t take near as long to build. A study done in 2006 by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas, but the world would have to build a new plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. (369) Building nuclear plants takes a large amount of time and to reduce greenhouse gas they would have to build them at an impossible rate. Even if building them were possible it would still overwhelm the companies that make the parts to build the