Can fossil fuel energy placed by nuclear energy - Essay Example

Nuclear Energy as a Primary Energy Source With our high dependence on fossil fuel as our main source of energy, the environment is not able to copeup with the demand—meaning, we are extracting more than what nature could produce to replenish its resource. Add to that the impact of burning fossil fuel to the environment: increase carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases production that could lead to global warming and climate change that in turn create domino effect that would affect not only humans but the whole ecosystem (National Geographic & Maslin 4).

With this argument in mind, does this mean that nuclear energy is better than fossil fuel? The answer is a big NO. Nuclear energy is not a long term solution, nor is it a permanent answer for long term, safe energy source and I will analyze this based on safety, financial, environmental, and social impact of running nuclear power plants. According to World Nuclear Association (www.world-nuclear.org), nuclear power financially speaking is cost competitive with other forms of energy. This means that compared with gas and coal, nuclear power is cost competitive, unless of course there is direct access to low cost fossil fuel.

Technically, because nuclear power would only rely on very little amount of uranium to produce tons of energy, there is the assumption that it is indeed cost efficient, especially in terms of long term solution. But think again, WNA is amenable that putting up a nuclear power plant has a “relatively high capital costs and the need to internalize all waste disposal and decommissioning costs.” Ergo, though there is financial savings in the energy production itself, the costs goes on operations and maintenance of the plant.

But there is more than just the financial economics of running nuclear power plant. A big issue is the health and safety risk. With the recent meltdown in Fukushima Daiichi power plant, that recently reached a Chernobyl-level nuclear accident, it brings to light how dangerous these power plants really are. People who lived within a 30km radius from the plant have to be evacuated to prevent exposure to high levels of radiation that is now leaking out of the plants. These people are permanently uprooted from their homes, lost their jobs and properties (Smith).

Children are unable to go to school. Not to mention the permanent damage it has on the ecology and the continuous threat it has in the marine biodiversity as poisonous substances leaks out to the sea. These are the unseen social costs that cannot be quantified. What is happening in Japan is a risk that every nation would take once they continue setting up nuclear power plants. Despite heavy dependence on nuclear energy, it will never dampen our profound reliance on fossil fuel because we use fossil fuel not just for electricity but in transportation as well.

Rather than using nuclear energy, I believe that it is better to invest on alternative energy source that is clean and renewable that poses no health or environmental risk. Natural resources such as solar, wind, and geothermal are just some of the options that are being widely studied right now so that countries will not heavily rely on fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Works Cited Maslin, Mark. Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. National Geographic.

Deforestation. 2010. Web. 12 April 2011 . Smith, Matt. Japan Nuclear Disaster Tops Scale.12 April 2011. Web. 12 April 2011. . World Nuclear Association. The Economics of Nuclear Power. 9 March 2011. Web. 12 April 2011 .