The Benefits of Nuclear Power - Essay Example

The Benefits of Nuclear Power The development of atomic energy gave mankind the ability to create massively destructive nuclear weapons and a constructive method of a producing a practically unlimited power source. It forever changed the concept of warfare and of generating electricity. It was the most significant innovation of the Twentieth Century and could potentially affect the Twenty First Century as much as any other innovation. Nuclear energy is commonly understood to the most practical alternative to electric generating power plants that burn coal for fuel. Nuclear powered plants, as a substitute for coal-burning plants, could play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The biggest test mankind faces in the Twenty First Century is reversing the cataclysmic effects of global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions and to combat the misperceptions of nuclear generated power from the extensive criticism it has been subjected to during the past three decades. If the world’s countries and people are serious about ending the burning of fossil fuels (oil and coal) and stop the acceleration of global climate change, alternative fuels such as bio-fuel and renewable energy such as solar and wind power must be rapidly employed on a large scale. However, these types of energy alone are not sufficient to replace oil and coal as the most prevalent power sources therefore the levels of CO2 emissions will continue to rise. Scientists have caution that if far-reaching radical steps are not employed now, the consequences of global climate change will quickly become irreversible and the earth’s temperature will continue to increase despite future attempts to diminish these dangerous emissions. Consequently, nuclear power plants should be built as soon as possible to replace coal burning facilities. “Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable and competitive energy source. It is the only source of energy that can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which massively pollute the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect” (Comby, 2006). Nuclear plants are the only alternative to coal that would be able to provide all the electricity power needs for both residential and businesses and residential customers. Nuclear power is the only feasible energy alternative that could replace the enormous energy needs of the world’s people and, if implemented with a sense of urgency, could be constructed in time to save the earth from the most horrific consequences. Environmentalists who are against nuclear electric plants should appreciate that this is the best way to avoid the ominous affects of irreversible global climate change. Their anxiety principally concerns nuclear waste disposal. “Nuclear waste is to be deposited in deep geological storage sites; it does not enter the biosphere. Its impact on the ecosystems is minimal. An intelligent combination of energy conservation, and renewable energies for local low-intensity applications, and nuclear energy for base-load electricity production, is the only viable way for the future” (Comby, 2006). Some detractors of nuclear power point to the possible deaths resulting from nuclear accidents. To date, only the nuclear power plant melt-down at Chernobyl caused deaths. No deaths are associated with the recent plant damage in Japan. Compare nuclear power plants safety record to that of coal mines. Chernobyl was unique. That type of accident could not occur in any other plant because all the currently operating reactors in the world are located inside a containment structure (Chernobyl was not). The 1979 Three Mile Island reactor core meltdown, which was the result of a failure in its core cooling system, emitted a lot of radiation but the reactor was housed in a containment structure which kept the radiation from being released into the air. There were no deaths or injuries. (Miller, 2004) Nuclear power is safer and more dependable than ever before. We cannot allow the fear surrounding the disaster in Japan prevent us from the continued implementation of nuclear power. Unfortunately, there are several deaths and injuries related to coal or oil production every year but for whatever reason that has not caused a massive fear campaign that nuclear power has experienced. “The fear of nuclear is something that the energy industry has had to understand for decades.” (Crain, 2011) Nuclear power enjoys several advantages over most, if not all, other sources of energy but it badly needs an improved public image. Regrettably the earthquake damage to the plant in Japan is not going to help further a positive public image for nuclear power as a clean, safe energy source. Most do not understand that nuclear power is relatively safe and nuclear waste does not present a clear and present danger to the earth or its inhabitants. The majority of by-products of the nuclear fission reaction comprise brief half-lives. A half-life describes the time required for the decay of half the atoms in a radioactive isotope. Nearly all radioactivities vanish within four months. The radioactivity still present following this four month period has a 30 year half-life and needs to be disposed of properly. Nuclear wastes, under stringent government regulations, are sent to burial facilities which dispose of this material. If polluting the environment with nuclear waste is the concern, consider that spills from sea platforms and tankers put millions of gallons of oil into the world’s oceans each year. By contrast nuclear power is verifiably safe and waste is relatively small. “Nuclear energy produces no CO2 and the volume of nuclear waste produced is very small, a typical family’s use of nuclear energy over a whole lifetime produces vitrified waste the size of a golf ball” (Comby, 2006). Compare that to one oil incident alone, last year in the Gulf of Mexico. Other forms of non-fossil fuel energy alternatives are sub-standard to nuclear. Solar cells are fine for homes and farms but the technology hasn’t advanced to the point where it’s feasible for most businesses. In addition the chemicals used to make them are harsh and not environmentally friendly. Hydro-electric dams ruin the ecology of flooded valleys, most large rivers are dammed already and current EPA regulations do not permit new dams anyway. Natural gas is a limited source and is also used for home heating which causes prices to fluctuate, usually upward. (Welter, 2006) Coal and oil served mankind well. The industrial age could not have occurred without these inexpensive natural resources and the world’s economies would be much less vibrant than they are today. Only recently has fossil fuels been proven to cause cataclysmic environmental and economic consequences. Now that we know the by-product of fossil fuels are causing the Earth’s climate to change why have many countries, especially the U.S., been slow in trying to reduce its use in favor of more feasible energy sources such as nuclear power? Works Cited Comby, Bruno. “The Benefits of Nuclear Energy.” TNR Editions. (October 2, 2006). July 9, 2011 Miller, Donald W. Jr., MD “Advantages of Nuclear Power” Lew Rockwell.com (2004) July 9, 2011 Crain, Keith “We can't ignore benefits of nuclear power” Crain’s Detroit Business (March 20, 2011) July 9, 2011 Welter, Dr. Kent “Nuclear Power” All Experts (May 12, 2006) July 9, 2011 < http://en.allexperts.com/q/Nuclear-Power-2462/nuclear-power.htm> Read More