Chapter 13 discusses how nuclear power works, some of the history invilved, and a few of the positives/negatives for using this form of energy.
We know that nuclear power is a very efficient way of producing large amounts of energy. Although it may not be cheap to start-up, it can meet the energy needs of any developed or developing nation. It requires less resources than many other forms of energy production. If treated carefully, there is little to no waste product that effects the environment. The risk however is that the waste is product is very potent, and has a long lifespan (up to 2000 years). There is a low probability of immediate environmental impact, but the possiblities could be disasterous.
How do you feel about Nuclear power? Is it the most logical option for our needs?
We need to start looking at alternatives to fossil fuels. Should Nuclear power be used at least as a stepping stone? Justify your answer/opinion.
Responses must be submitted no later than Thursday by 12:00 P.M.
16 comments:
On the environmental plane as a whole, I am a bit of a pessimist. I would be perfectly content with the continued use of fossil fuel until depletion becaus eit would be sufficient for my lifespan. After I die, I really don't care about the state of the world. I'd be dead. Hovever, I do wholeheartedly support the use of nuclear power, mainly because it would decrease energy prices. The only real downside of nuclear power (in my opinion) is the perceived threat of a terrorist attack, and the catastrophic disaster that follows an accident. Even then, these risks do not outweigh the rewards. As long as we are mindful of safety, these concerns are all but null. So a terrorist attacks a power plant. We get a revolution, yay! So there's a leak. We get another nature reserve, and some people die. On a global scale, one or two accidents are not that bad. Once popular support shifted to nuclear, the technology would become increasingly safer. That's why I like the concept of nuclear power. But keep in mind, I have no concern for the state of the world past ~50 years from now. I welcome all comments and will answer as best I can.
I feel that it is a great starter energy source for countries that don't have enough natural resources to use like water power, wind power or any of the primary energy sources.But it isn't something that bigger more developed countries should depend on. The waste and chances of a leak are to big of problems when we could use a number of safer energy sources.
Nuclear energy makes me feel warm inside...
In the long term, nuclear fission is not a viable energy source because of the toxic waste it produces. While it is true that it uses much less material than conventional power generating technologies, the toxicity of the waste makes the long term use unviable. To compound the nuclear waste problem, there is also nowhere to store this toxic waste. While 30-50 tons of radioactive waste per reactor per year isn't all that much compared to coal power, it is still a lot of radioactive waste, and it requires a huge, geologically stable dump to store the waste in. This repository is something we still have not resolved, and there is no way to know how stable the site we end up choosing really will be for the next 100,000 years. That's a long time to store toxic waste.
However, in the short run, there is no shortage of uranium, and nuclear power provides a clean way to establish a huge base power supply for a developing country without the need to import the massive quantities of oil or coal for an equivalent conventional plant. Because of this, I see nuclear energy as a probable alternative to coal plants in the near future for the rest of the world.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't think nuclear power will make a comeback in the United States no matter how safe it really is because of the perpetual NIMBY attitude. We have been ingrained to think of nuclear as bad, and nothing can change this public perception. Whenever anyone says nuclear, the inevitable first thought is nuclear bomb, and all subsequent opinions are colored by this association. For the US, nuclear power will only see a revival if its public image can be divorced from the atomic bomb and the Cold War.
I believe that nuclear power is a positive step for our country. It would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and is a much cleaner alternative to coal. Pollution is not as great an issue as the only pollution associated with it is thermal. Also, nuclear energy would benefit developing nations and nations that have no natural resources to exploit. Though security is an issue and a single, well planned terrorist attack could cripple us, with an increase in security it would be just as safe as any other potential risk to homeland security. The radioactive waste is an issue, but America should take a hint from France (painful, I know) and recycle wastes. Though we cannot completely refine a product to a point where there is no waste, we can reduce it. After that, we are back to where we are now, dumping in the mountains of Nevada. I don't see a problem with this plan. If we can find a stable, safe, deserted part of our country and put it to use, we should insted of leaving our wastes around an inviting disaster. For these reasons, I support nuclear energy for the United States.
Nuclear energy has proven to be an incredibly efficient source of power, as one pound of uranium and something like 100,000 pounds of coal produces the same amount of energy after their respective conversion processes. Nuclear power generation also has far fewer and less intense environmental effects. The mining of uranium is far less detrimental than coal mining. In addition, nuclear plants produce no dangerous emissions. Honestly, I have not decided whether nuclear power is a good/safe source of energy or not because of its possible consequences. Beyond the risk of radiation exposure from accidents or leaks, there is the risk (in countries such as the US especially) of terrorist attacks on a plant, most noteably its wet waste containers which are not as heavily protected as reactors. I would argue that for smaller countries trying to get a foot up, nuclear energy may be an appropriate starting point because of its enormous returns. As for the US, I think that if we were to transition away from fossil fuel, using the nuclear infrastructure we already have may be appropriate as a "stepping stone" but that it probably should not be a lasting source because of the potential for disaster.
Nuclear energy...if you asked me about the issue before this class I would have answered as many Americans do, that is is awful and bad. This is not want I think now though, I believe that nuclear power is needed to be at least a stepping stone to make the world rid of its dependency with fossil fuels. Nuclear power clearly demonstrates that it does no harm to the environment if no LOCA happens and it provides a greater amount of energy with less emissions to the atmosphere.
Terrorist attacks can happen, but so can many other factors can happen to power plants and to worry about something that cannot be avoided is wasting time. Not saying that I would not put safety measures into nuclear power plants, but the benefits out-weight the risks. The nuclear waste problem I do think should be addressed, but the practice of not in my back yard makes it hard.
Nuclear energy is a stepping stone for advancements to other alternative energy source because a country cannot become dependent on just nuclear power. Those that are opposed to nuclear energy should study the facts because I bet that many don't know the benefits of it. Many are afraid of technology that they do not understand.
okay sure... nuclear energy is super effective, and cheap in the long run. but the possibilities of disaster are waaaayyyy to dangerous for us to depend on it as a energy source.
we talk alot about sustainability... providing a future that is safe for the next generations, and i understand that coal is contrary to sustainability. but using nuclear energy as an alternative to coal is no more responsible. if something should go wrong, due to a faulty pipe, a negligent worker, or terrorist attacks, the repercussions would last lifetimes, and cause extreme environmental damage.
and as for the waste that is produced with nuclear energy:
while it is small in comparison to coal, it has to be stored for an inconcievable amount of time. if anything is to happen to that waste or the land around that waste, or a climate cahnge, earthquake, or other natural disaster, the nuclear waste could cause radiation and other problems for the future. not to mention essentially killing the land where it is held. if any nuclear waste is spilled on land, it becomes unusable and dangerous.
nuclear energy sucks ass.
it seems good in the short run, but long term it could cause disaster.
like streaking.
or eating two dozen dounuts.
As I read the chapter, at first I wondered why we weren't using nuclear energy more, as it is cleaner, and produces more energy than our current methods do. I continued reading and remembered why I am opposed to the use of nuclear power.
I realize that the biggest drawback is the consequenses of if something goes wrong, but that situation seems too real to me. In this age where terrorist attacks are a very real threat, it is worrying that a terrorist can harm so many people by just blowing himself up in a nuclear power plant. Hightened security could help this, but what about a malfunction in the system, similer to Chernobyl. If a few of these happen, our world, ecosystem, and civilization could take a huge hit.
A more immediate issue is that of the nuclear waste. We are running out of places to store such waste, and the fact that it takes thousands of years to not be harmful worries me. In the short term, one can instate laws forbidding people to drill near a nuclear waste site, and precautions can be taken. There is no guarentee, however, that a government will remain stable for 12000 years. It is easy to safeguard, place security around and forbid trespassing on waste sites now, but there is no guarantee that these regulations will be held in the long term.
there are other ways of obtaining energy, such as solar and wind energy. Utilizing these resources instead is a better option than using nuclear energy.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of Nuclear Energy. While i realize that it does have its benefits over fossil fuels (which are not renewable and emit pollution), I fall into the category of people who cannot seem to get over the radioactivity factor. Until we can find a safe and secure place to hold nuclear waste, and until the safety hazards have been fully addressed (Leaks, overheating, terrorism etc) I feel that it is best to use other forms of energy. Once these precautions have been taken into effect, I believe I would be much more comfortable using Nuclear energy as a main source.
Almost any energy source will look good in comparison to coal, simply because coal does such unbelievable damage to the environment. There are undeniably many advantages to switching to nuclear power - most of which have been mentioned above - like significantly less waste, no emissions, a large amount of power from a relatively small amount of fuel, etc. And for developing countries that would have difficulty obtaining the resources to use other forms of energy, I would say that nuclear could be a great option. But for us, I'm not so sure.
My main concern is that, though the wastes produced by nuclear power plants are minimal compared to coal plants, everything that is produces must be stored essentially forever. This means that even if the government can get states to agree to start allowing long-term storage within their borders, the problem is not solved. We have a finite amount of space. Even if it is filled slowly, it will be filled, and then what do we do? Nuclear energy is obviously not a long-range solution.
So why not use it as a stepping stone? An environmentally-friendly way to wait out the advancements we need in other forms of energy? This would make sense if the cost of starting a new nuclear power plant were not so high. But between the immense cost and the length of time it takes to build a new facility, it is very difficult to justify using nuclear energy as a short-term solution. Not to mention the fact that decommissioning a nuclear facility costs more than building it. If we are going to be paying a lot of money either way, why not set up a sustainable solution now? We have the technology to begin to move towards alternative energy solutions. Why wait?
Although nuclear energy is beneficial to the environment, i don't think the United States should increase it's production of nuclear power. By increaing the number of nuclear plants within the country, the chances of a terrorist attack on a plant would most likely increase as well. The U.S. is too much of a target for a terrorist attack to build more targets. Therefore, I think promoting more nuclear energy within the U.S. would lead to devestating consequences. Also, the issue of a radioactive leak would be evidently damaging towards the environment and population.
Less developed countries than the United States would be better areas to increase nuclear production because the possibility of a terrorist attack is not as likely. The environment as well as the counrty's economy would reap the benefits.The damaging emmissions in the atmosphere would be reduced, thus decreasing dependency on fossil fuels. I think a country that isn't as large of a terrorist target (as more developed countries tend to be) could use nuclear power as a way to jump start a beginning to the use of alternative enery sources. However, the threat of leaks and accidents still remain. There are both positive and negative aspects of nuclear energy which leaves me uncertain as to whether or not nuclear power should be used as a main energy source for any country.
In my opinion I do believe that Nuclear Power should become our most used source for fuel because the sources we are currently using are severely damaging our planet. Nuclear Power releases little to no pollutents into the air which is something we need to start taking seriously because the fossil fuels we are currently using is hurting our planet and what lives on it, and since we dont exactly have a spare planet to use when we have completely polluted ours we need to start taking into consideration different methods of getting fuel.
Although some of the risks of Nuclear Power worries me, we will just have to do all that we can to help prevent an mishaps from happening and as technology becomes more advance this will become much easier to do so.
Nuclear energy is in theory a great way of producing energy. There is enough uranium on earth to continue nuclear power for some time, and apart from the wastes (that we don't know what to do with) is mostly pollution free. However I think that nuclear power is not the way to go. Chapter 13 lists all the ways that nuclear power is better than coal power, but then in just one short blurb tells the one huge downside of this power source: accidents. Accidents in nuclear power can range from a small crack, to a global catastrophe. So why risk so many human lives when there are other ways? Chapter 14 tells about renewable energy sources, and shows that there are many other ways that we can create just as much power if not more without these risks. Nuclear power has many advantages, but why choose a power source so dangerous when there are safer renewable sources out there?
Nuclear energy...I think that as we are looking for an alternative energy source, in the long run, nuclear energy would pay off and work. Although it does cost a lot up front, in the long run, the amount of money that we would save would pay for the initial cost and save us a whole lot more in the future.
On the other side, I have a couple concerns. In response to one of the questions, I don't think that it would work as a stepping stone between sources. Because for one, depending on how long we use it, the savings would necessarily pay back the initial cost. And also, if using it for an even shorter period of time, we would be left with all the wastes and their concequences for the next 10,000 years after only using that energy source for maybe 5-10 years until we get another sourve up and running. The chances of a leak (and its after math) on top of the wastes arent things that I consider good things when making a decision like this.
Sorry it's late- I hope being gone at Outdoor School will excuse the tardiness.
Honestly, before reading about nuclear energy in the textbook, I knew nothing about it. There was the image of a bumbling Homer Simpson and a cartoon three-eyed fish (created by nuclear waste pouring into a river) in my head, but not much else. As we've studied mainstream and alternative fuels and energy sources, I've become more and more convinced that we'd be better off without electricity.
Then again, I am probably an extremist when it comes to this issue. Nuclear energy requires mining for uranium. Sure, it creates a much smaller mining demand than say, coal, but I don't believe that depleting natural resources is a smart option. Since we're using a relatively minimal amount of uranium in comparison to how much coal we mine, uranium is often viewed as a resource without limit. This is simply not the case, as it takes much longer for uranium to be created than it takes for us to use it. Oil was once viewed in much the same way, and now that the majority of the world depends on it, we realize how quickly we are running out.
Every energy source has its drawbacks. Nuclear power, along with creating massive amounts of radioactive and thus hazardous waste, demands mining, has potentially disastrous results should an accident occur, and also creates a large bulls-eye for terrorist attack. Coal is an extreme pollutant, rips open the world causing habitat and land destruction, and due to unsafe working conditions, causes quite a few worker deaths. There are downsides to every form of energy, be it tidal, wind or oil.
In a world without electricity, I would not be typing this response. However, if we did not use electricity and reverted back to primitive methods of agriculture, we would not worry about destroying the environment. Sustenance farmers are much more concerned about preserving their land than industrial farmers. I'm sure that this kind of change would not happen unless some massive revolution or human destruction occurred which forced the human population to do so. We are comfortable with our plasma screen tvs, video-equpped cell phones, and pvc pipes. I could go on about anarcho-primitivism and it's benefits, but I've digressed enough already. I don't like nuclear energy, but when compared to coal I consider it the lesser evil.
At the present nuclear power is absolutely a logical option for the US. Many Americans are ignorant of the security systems installed in this type of power plant. Plants can and are built in exclusive locations with limited access. With available technologies such as satellite imagery and radar security, it would impossible for a terrorist attack to occur without warning. Let’s even say that a plane is successful in crashing into a reactor; there is no opportunity for a meltdown, because reactors are built with multiple feet of reinforced concrete in a dome shape. That doesn’t take into account the many fail safe systems that will shut down the reactor. The most successful scenario for a terrorist attack would be shutting down a reactor. The same goes for an accidental crack or mechanical malfunction. The plant would just shut down. There really is low, almost nonexistent probability of immediate environmental impact.
As for the toxic waste, France employs reprocessing for about a third of their waste with a 95% recovery rate. Once breeder reactors become commercially available, full potential reprocessing will be available.
Nuclear power can and should be used for developed countries as a “stepping stone” away from coal, but it shouldn’t be employed by developing countries. Nuclear power involves high levels of sophistication and wouldn’t be as safe in inexperienced hands. There is also a high cost and there is a risk that the waste wouldn’t be reprocessed.
Honestly though, it’s inevitable that a new, more sustainable source of power will be discovered. In the meantime I support a shift to nuclear power, with of course the strong safety measures and insurance that the waste will be reprocessed.
Post a Comment