Nuclear Energy As Clean And Pro-nature Power

Recently, we often encounter the concept of nuclear energy on television and on the Internet. While some resources can’t finish counting the benefits of nuclear energy, some sources talk pretentiously about the damages of nuclear energy. So what is nuclear energy and is it advantageous enough to tolerate the damage? Nuclear energy is the energy in the nucleus, or core, of an atom (National Geographic Society, 2012). In the article, Over Time, Nuclear Power would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleum, Boyle (2013) says that usage of nuclear energy is less harmful than fossil fuel usage. As stated by to James Hansen’s publication (as cited in Boyle, 2013) nuclear energy decreased air pollution and deaths from air pollution. According to the article, there are serious health and environmental concerns regarding the storage of nuclear waste, but the main point is that nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels. The article provides information from a variety of sources and scientists on the benefits of nuclear energy, but does not provide solutions to problems that may arise during the production and storage of nuclear energy. For that reason, I partially agree with the article because nuclear energy is cleaner and need to be supported but at the time of a problem, in a short term nuclear energy is more dangerous than sources than belch carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The article is quite justified that nuclear energy is greener than petroleum. Usage of nuclear energy in place of carbon sources has foreclose 2 million pollution-related deaths and could save millions more lives in the future according to James Hansen (2013). Also based on James Hansen’s 2013) researches nuclear power has stopped 64 gigatons of greenhouse emissions and would stop the equivalent of another 80 to 240 gigatons, again depending on which fuel it replaces. As we know, fossil fuel use is very common in the world. Fossil-fuelled power plants burn carbon fuels such as coal, oil or gas to return to large turbines that generate electricity. However, carbon fuels produce large amounts of carbon dioxide, which causes climate change by burning. They can also produce other contaminants, such as sulphur oxides, which cause acid rain. As of 2007, the carbon dioxide density in the atmosphere was 379 ppm and has continued to rise since then. Before the industrial revolution, the density of carbon dioxide was around 280 ppm. More carbon dioxide means more heat around our globe. Raised heat keeps many results. With the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, only the temperature and the water level of the seas do not increase. More carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean, consequences more carbonic acid, which shrinks the pH of the ocean. High acid injures many aquatic organisms, containing coral reefs and causes climate change (Lewis, 2017). Besides all these, unlike fossil fuels, nuclear fuels do not produce carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. If we compare 1 kg of coal and nuclear fuel, we can see that nuclear fuel produces a million times more energy than coal. A nuclear fuel pellet weighs about 0.1 ounces (6 grams). Whereas , a metric ton of energy can give energy same to that manufactured by coal, which makes it more effective (Sen, 2019). Intelligibly the article is right in the use of nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels. As stated in the article, nuclear energy is more green in terms of both use and damage to nature than petroleum sources.

Another issue where the article is correct nuclear energy should be supported state and private institutions. The article defends that politicians should increase nuclear energy, rather than continuing addiction on fossil fuels. The disaster at Japan’s nuclear plant should not deter governments from expanding nuclear power, according to Hansen (2013). On the contrary, nuclear power will prevent further deaths from air pollution, they argue. Even taking the disaster at Fukushima into account, they calculate that nuclear energy has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths since 1971. The most important reason for supporting nuclear energy as mentioned in the article, first of all, because it produces energy with nuclear fission

rather than chemical burning, it produces baseload electricity with no carbon throughout, the terrible element of global warming. Secondly, nuclear power plants are working on higher capacity factors than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels. The capacity factor is the percentage of time a plant actually produces. A difficulty for all irregular energy sources. The sun does not endlessly shine, nor the wind is forever lit, nor the water perpetually falls from the turbines. Thirdly, nuclear energy release less radiation to the environment than any other main energy source. This phrase can be ridiculous for many reader, since it is not completely known that non-nuclear energy sources emit any radiation into the environment. The biggest criminal is coal that involves uranium and thorium, which is an important part of radioactive elements. Burning coal gasifies its organic ingredient and transforms mineral constituents into so-called fly ash. Our planet is burning so much coal and so many fly ash is produced that the coal is in reality the most important radioactive source of the environment (Rhodes, 2018). Another reason why nuclear energy should be supported is availability. The availability is particularly cost-effective for private institutions. Uranium is one of the most efficient energy sources. According to Gicobello (2013), uranium can be recycled. Conversely, fossil fuels cannot be renewed. There is a big decrease in energy reserves because of our addiction on them. Again according to Giacobello (2013), it needs 1.92 cents to produce a kilowatt-hour of nuclear power. 1.88 cents for coal-fired plants; for natural gas power plants; and 3.77 cents are required to generate the same amount of energy for oil-fired power plants. As can be seen from these examples, the use of nuclear energy instead of fossil fuel use is more profitable in terms of both cost and availability in terms of state and private organizations.

The point where I completely disagree with the article is that nuclear power plants are safe enough. Nuclear accidents may occur in nuclear power plants. There are so many nuclear accidents in the world such as Kyshtym nuclear complex (Soviet Union), Windscale nuclear reactor (UK), Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USA), Fukushima Daiichi power plant (Japan) (Faure & Skogh, 1992, 499-512). As claimed by MacKenzie (2011), accidents can also produce radioactive materials that can cause radiation diseases if they consequence from fire and explosions. Exposure to radiation above a certain limit causes acute radiation syndrome during exposure hours. Depending on the dose of radiation, it extends from vomiting, diarrhea and coma, to skin itching and rashes and death. Radiation damages especially DNA. This means that tissues such as skin, bone marrow and intestinal lining are most at risk of harm. High doses ruin brain cells and these doses are always deadly.

In the end, I agree that nuclear energy is cleaner, more pro-nature, cheaper, more affordable than other energy sources, also should be supported but it can be very dangerous when the measure is mot taken. In my opinion, the state’s support and control of nuclear power plants is quite important at this point. The state should keep the private institutions that produce nuclear energy under strict controls and inform the public of any possible irreversibility. Disaster chambers should be created against a possible disaster, and materials with vital function such as water should be stocked.

References

1. Boyle, R. (2013, April 02). Over Time, Nuclear Power Would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleum. Retrieved from https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/departing-climate-warrior’s-latest-paper-nuke-power-less-deadly-petroleum
2. Faure, M. G., & Skogh, G. (1992). Compensation for damages caused by nuclear accidents: A convention as insurance. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance. Issues and Practice, 499-513.
3. Fossil fuels and nuclear power – Revision 1 – GCSE Physics (Single Science) – BBC Bitesize. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z2d2bk7/revision/1
4. Giacobello, J. (2013). Nuclear Power of the Future: New Ways of Turning Atoms Into Energy. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group
5. Lewis, J. (2017). Fossil Fuel vs. Nuclear Energy. Retrieved from Stanford University PH241
6. MacKenzie, D. (2011, March 15). Briefing: How nuclear accidents damage human health. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20244-briefing-how-nuclear-accidents-damage-human-health/
7. McLeish, E. (2017). The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group
8. National Geographic Society. (2012, October 09). Nuclear energy. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/nuclear-energy/
9. Rhodes, R. (2018, July 19). Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution. Retrieved from https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate
10. Sen, D. (2019, March 02). Nuclear Energy Vs. Fossil Fuel. Retrieved from https://sciencing.com/about-6134607-nuclear-energy-vs–fossil-fuel.html
11. Thompson, J., Thompson, Sharp, A., Souza, M. D., Meyer, C., Tousignant, B., The Canadian Press. (2018, December 10). Is nuclear energy the key to saving the planet? Retrieved from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/12/10/news/nuclear-energy-key-saving-planet