After reading John McPhee’s “The Curve of Binding Energy” the dangers of nuclear power are evident to me. However, I feel that the positive aspects of nuclear power outweigh the negative, and that safeguarding can be improved in order to increase global safety while still benefiting. Although I do not support nuclear weaponry, I feel that nuclear energy as a power source is a better alternative to those currently in use.
Nuclear weapons have shown great destruction and another detonation on civilians would be an unthinkable tragedy. For this reason I feel the Atomic Energy Commission needs to improve safeguarding and realize the threat posed by stolen nuclear material. If this is done effectively, many global issues can be solved regarding the energy crisis.
The global energy crisis consists of different components. It includes over-consumption of oil which leads to pollution, health concerns, and global climate change. We’ve depleted our resources so much that the cost of oil is rapidly increasing, affecting the economy and leading us into wars over control of it. It is evident that we are in need of an alternative energy source, one that is easier on the environment, affordable and in vast supply.
An example of a nation that has embraced nuclear power is France, who in my opinion has shown great success. They are not reliant on foreign oil and they emit a smaller ratio of greenhouse gasses per capita than other nations. They also have among the lowest electricity costs in Europe. Public opinion on the matter shows that 70% of the citizens of France approve of nuclear power and express minimal fear of it.
So far France seems to have mastered nuclear power and utilized it in a positive way while keeping potentially lethal nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. I feel France is setting a good example for nations to follow, in successfully establishing an efficient and clean power industry.
When discussing the issues regarding the safety of nuclear power, the example of Chernobyl is a prevalent argument. However, there are common misconceptions involved with this argument. It is important to understand that nuclear power plants only need 3% enriched uranium in order to sustain power while an atomic bomb requires 98% enriched uranium. Therefore, it is virtually impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode because of nuclear material.
The tragedy at Chernobyl occurred because of a loss of coolant accident also known as LOCA, as well as human error. Since then, we have analyzed these errors so that another accident like this will not occur. I don’t think this event should keep us from forging ahead in utilizing an effective energy source, rather we should learn from past mistakes and use caution as we do with many other industrial entities.
Over all the positive aspects of nuclear energy outweigh the negative, just as long as the Atomic Energy Commission establishes effective safeguards.We should not let opportunity pass because of the possible fear of something. Instead, we should overcome obstacles in order to improve our lives.
Nuclear weapons have shown great destruction and another detonation on civilians would be an unthinkable tragedy. For this reason I feel the Atomic Energy Commission needs to improve safeguarding and realize the threat posed by stolen nuclear material. If this is done effectively, many global issues can be solved regarding the energy crisis.
The global energy crisis consists of different components. It includes over-consumption of oil which leads to pollution, health concerns, and global climate change. We’ve depleted our resources so much that the cost of oil is rapidly increasing, affecting the economy and leading us into wars over control of it. It is evident that we are in need of an alternative energy source, one that is easier on the environment, affordable and in vast supply.
An example of a nation that has embraced nuclear power is France, who in my opinion has shown great success. They are not reliant on foreign oil and they emit a smaller ratio of greenhouse gasses per capita than other nations. They also have among the lowest electricity costs in Europe. Public opinion on the matter shows that 70% of the citizens of France approve of nuclear power and express minimal fear of it.
So far France seems to have mastered nuclear power and utilized it in a positive way while keeping potentially lethal nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. I feel France is setting a good example for nations to follow, in successfully establishing an efficient and clean power industry.
When discussing the issues regarding the safety of nuclear power, the example of Chernobyl is a prevalent argument. However, there are common misconceptions involved with this argument. It is important to understand that nuclear power plants only need 3% enriched uranium in order to sustain power while an atomic bomb requires 98% enriched uranium. Therefore, it is virtually impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode because of nuclear material.
The tragedy at Chernobyl occurred because of a loss of coolant accident also known as LOCA, as well as human error. Since then, we have analyzed these errors so that another accident like this will not occur. I don’t think this event should keep us from forging ahead in utilizing an effective energy source, rather we should learn from past mistakes and use caution as we do with many other industrial entities.
Over all the positive aspects of nuclear energy outweigh the negative, just as long as the Atomic Energy Commission establishes effective safeguards.We should not let opportunity pass because of the possible fear of something. Instead, we should overcome obstacles in order to improve our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment