The Exploitation of Nuclear Energy and Energy Conservation Theory - Research Paper Example

Should countries opt for nuclear power? Introduction Energy is one of the most precious commodities in this world. According to the scientific principle or energy conservation theory, the total energy available in the universe is a constant. Moreover, energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, but can be transformed from one form to another. At the same time, the requirement for the energy is increasing rapidly because of heavy industrialization and automobile use across the world. Until the conventional energy sources such as oil and coal catered the majority of the energy needs of the world. However, these conventional energy sources are nonrenewable in nature and are rapidly exhausting because of over exploitation. It is believed that the available oil resources in this world are sufficient enough only for a few decades more. “Running out of oil has much bigger consequences than just not being able to drive your car to work or not being able to watch TV” (McLain, 2012). Under such circumstances, it is inevitable for the world to find alternate energy sources and nuclear energy seems to be getting the first priority. Even though nuclear energy has many advantages over other energy sources, it has many disadvantages also. According to Ewall (2008), “Nuclear power is an expensive, polluting, dangerous, racist, depletable, and now a foreign source of energy”. The waste generated from the nuclear power stations is difficult to dispose properly because of its ability to survive thousands of years, liberating harmful radiations. Moreover, nuclear energy can be misused for destructive purposes. The third danger associated with nuclear energy exploitation is the limited life of nuclear reactors and the chances of accidents. This paper argues against the exploitation of nuclear energy. Why countries should not opt for nuclear power? The ability of nuclear waste, generated from the nuclear power plants to survive for thousands of years and to liberate harmful radiations is the number one problem. At the same time, advocates of nuclear energy argue that the amount of wastes or greenhouse gases produced from nuclear power plants are less compared to the wastes produced by other energy sources. It should be noted that oil and coal energy are producing many types of greenhouse gases and thereby causing environmental problems and global warming. “The only realistic chance of slowing global warming is to drastically reduce carbon emissions” (Dickson, 2007). According to George Monbiot (2011), coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. People like Monbiot believes that nuclear energy will help the world to counter the global warming and climate change problems (Green peace: factsheet, 2010) since it does not liberate greenhouse gases like the other energy sources do. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that even a small amount of radiating nuclear waste can cause larger problems than the ones created by other energy sources. Storing and disposal of nuclear wastes are big problems at present and many countries are currently disposing these wastes in oceans. “The UK now has enough radioactive waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over. There’s still no safe way to deal with it. The government plans to bury it deep underground - out of sight, out of mind, for now at least” (Green peace: factsheet, 2010). At the same time, even the scientists are sure about the safety of disposing nuclear wastes into the sea or in deep underground. Under such circumstances, it is better to avoid nuclear energy and search for other energy sources. Nuclear energy can be used and misused for constructive as well as destructive purposes. It is quite possible that the nuclear energy technologies will be exploited by the terrorists to conduct attack on enemy targets. The consequences of nuclear war would be extremely higher than one would anticipate. “One of the biggest risks from radiation is the psychological damage it causes” (George, 2011). Hiroshima and Nagasaki have already taught the world many lessons. The fear of repeating these incidents is causing a kind of psychological trauma in the minds of people, whenever, they hear about the misuse and accidents of nuclear energy. At the same time, supporters of nuclear energy argue that nuclear energy has the ability to solve the global energy crisis up to certain extent, if used properly. In their opinion, it is not easy for the terrorists to acquire nuclear energy technologies easily since the exploitation of nuclear energy involves a lot of complex tasks. However, it should not be forgotten that if terrorists strike on nuclear power stations, the consequences will be extremely high (Green peace: factsheet, 2010). Under these circumstances, it would be wise to forget about nuclear energy exploitation and think about other energy sources. The third danger associated with nuclear energy exploitation is the limited life of nuclear reactors. It should be noted that nuclear power stations are normally constructed near the coastal areas since disposing of nuclear power plants in sea would be easy, in case of an accident. Supporters of nuclear energy believe that the chances of nuclear accidents are limited since the modern technologies are capable of limiting the nuclear accidents very much. In their opinion, the overall death toll associated with nuclear disasters remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources (McKenna, 2011). At the same time Three Mile Island accident, that occurred on March 28, 1979, Chernobyl accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 and the recent Fukushima accident which occurred on 11 March 2011 (Should developing nations embrace nuclear energy?, 2014) are clearly underline the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to natural calamities and human errors. “The full fallout of Fukushima is still unknown. There has been a great deal of focus on the potential health dangers – understandable given the fears of local people, but easy to downplay in the wake of a wave that killed more than 10,000 people” (Bennett, 2011) Conclusions To conclude, countries should not opt for nuclear power because of the following three major reasons; nuclear waste has the ability to survive thousands of years and to radiate harmful radiations; terrorists can attack nuclear power stations and cause immense damage to a country and the life of nuclear power stations are limited and they are incapable of overcoming weather calamities such as tsunami. References Bennett, C. 2011. Fukushima shows us the real cost of nuclear powerThe Guardian. 23 March 2011. Dickson, D. 2007. Should Developing Nations Embrace Nuclear Energy? [Online] Available at: http://www.scidev.net/global/policy/editorials/should-developing-nations-embrace-nuclear-energy.html [Accessed 13 June 2014] Ewall, M. 2008. FACT SHEET: Against Nuclear Power. [Online] Available at: www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/ [Accessed 13 June 2014] Green peace: factsheet, 2010. Nuclear power- the problems. [Online] Available at: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems [Accessed 13 June 2014] George, A. 2011. Risk expert: Why radiation fears are often exaggerated. New Scientist Magazine issue 2805.  Monbiot, G. 2011. Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power. The Guardian. 21 March 2011. McKenna, P. 2011. Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power. New Scientist Magazine issue 2805. McLain, S. 2012. On the pros of nuclear power. The Guardian. Tuesday 27 November 2012. Should developing nations embrace nuclear energy? 2014. [Online] Available at: http://www.scidev.net/global/policy/editorials/should-developing-nations-embrace-nuclear-energy.html [Accessed 13 June 2014] Read More