Will Nuclear Energy Help Slow Climate Change?
by Srivani Ganapavarapu
Imagine looking outside and seeing an 6-legged deer in your window. Well, that deer and many other mutated animals surround the land around the Chernobyl power plant. The Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion and its consequences are known around the world, even a critically acclaimed TV series has been made about it. Explosions at places such as Chernobyl and Fukushima has caused a huge debate about the benefits of nuclear energy. Though nuclear energy is better for the environment than fossil fuel combustion, it has complicated safety and security requirements to prevent an explosion. Anything can cause an explosion, such as poor maintenance in Chernobyl or a tsunami in Fukushima, and they have detrimental effects to the environment.
Nuclear explosions release a large and deadly amount of radiation into the atmosphere. Radioactivity devices measure radiation in units called roentgen. The amount of roentgen that can kill you is about 1000, and about 15,000 was measured at Chernobyl! In addition to devastating health effects on humans, high levels of radiation can affect the environment. Radiation can result in the weakening of plant seeds and frequent mutations. This can kill off a lot of the vegetation, leaving excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In Russia, massive amounts of pine trees got destroyed, raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Nuclear energy also produces radioactive waste, and these materials can be thrown into the environment, causing large dangers.
Despite the horrible effects from an explosion, nuclear energy itself it actually beneficial to the environment. It does not create greenhouse gas emissions; in fact, the climatic impact of nuclear energy is similar to wind or solar energy! In the US, nuclear reactors have a large restricted area surrounding the plant and it is guarded by armed security. The nuclear reactors also have vessels designed to resist earthquake and flooding dangers. So, with extreme caution and proper policies, humans can take advantage of nuclear energy to save the environment.
As you can see, nuclear energy has its positives and negatives, and that is why it has been heavily debated. On one hand, nuclear energy may be greatly needed to reduce emissions and slow global warming. On the other hand, nuclear power plants pose a great danger if they are left uncontrolled or poorly managed. Though the risk is low here in the US, it can still happen. Nuclear reactor accidents may be 200 times more likely than previously understood, because the age pf the plant is a factor as well. If you live at around 50 miles from a power plant, you are at risk and must evacuate if it explodes. The wind can carry the radiation particles more than 50 miles from affected zone as well. So, nuclear energy has its share of benefits and consequences to the environment and our health.
Questions:
1. Do you think the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the costs if an explosion occurs?
2. Is nuclear energy the way to go when considering saving our planet from global warming, or should we focus on other alternative energies?
3. How do you feel about our town being nearly 50 miles within a nuclear power plant?
Sources:
20 comments:
Nuclear energy could be a good alternative to the fossil fuels we have been using. It is important for nuclear plant workers to be educated on the proper way to handle nuclear reactors and the steps needed to ensure nothing disastrous will happen. In Chernobyl, the workers did not handle the situation properly, and therefore the issues escalated. Now, we have a have a better understanding of nuclear energy and we can avoid another Chernobyl disaster. Geographic location can be another restriction, and we can take the tsunami at Fukushima into consideration on where to place these reactors. There is always the looming threat of another nuclear disaster, but with proper care we can utilize this energy for the better.
The idea that the man-made, nuclear energy, could have a devastating effect on the basic building block of all life, DNA, is pretty shocking. Even if the radiation doesn’t have a direct effect, it could destroy bodies of the environment accounting to a disruption in the food web and the destruction of vegetation. Although nuclear energy benefits the environment by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted, it clearly comes with its own side effects at the risk of an explosion such as a greater emission of CO2 gas! In the case of nuclear energy, we must be diligent in keeping our production safe in order to outweigh the negative impacts it expresses.
Nuclear energy is an answer, but I do not think that it will solve our energy problem. It could give humans a chance to catch up, but it should not be completely relied on. It is dangerous. Workers would have to be specially trained in order to avoid another Chernobyl. The location of plants must be planned correctly so that if something wrong does occur, people will not be harmed. The environment must also be taken into account because humans have already done enough damage to it. Our town being 50 miles away from a nuclear plant does not strike fear into me, but it does concern me because I know some of the risks of them even running. If a natural disaster were to occur, the plant and town would be affected.
I think nuclear energy is a really good option for developed and well off countries to look into. It packs a lot of punch, and has a lot of upside in-terms of sustainability. However, developing nations might not be able to make nuclear energy their source of energy any time soon. It takes a lot of capitol to build and run nuclear plants, and developing nations might not be able to provide that. Also, chances of nuclear spills are much higher in developing nations, as they do not have the reliable infrastructure that developed nations have while also having higher chances of the plants being targeted by violent forces. So, nuclear energy might help resolve the energy issue, but won’t be a quick fix as of right now.
Nuclear energy is a good fossil fuel, however, it shouldn’t be the only energy source to be relying on because its very dangerous to our humanity and the environment around us; for example, the nuclear explosion, Chernobyl. I think we should consider other alternative energies because it would be safer and help us more in the long run; we don’t want to face that nuclear disaster once again. If our town was 50 miles from a nuclear power plant, I would be nervous and concerned because I know the effects of it and I don’t really want the same disaster if it explodes.
Nuclear energy is a good fossil fuel, however, the downsides are concerning. It is scary seeing the impact radiation has, and if the plant were to explode, it would effect so many lives. The positive effect of nuclear energy is great for the environment, but better precautions should be taken to fully protect humans and animals from power plants. Knowing that a power plant is 50 miles away, is very scary. Knowing that it could potentially explode, is concerning.
Nuclear energy is definitely a better alternative to fossil fuels, but should not be our main source of energy. First, nuclear energy, as shown by events such as Chernobyl, is dangerous and difficult to harness. If done incorrectly, it could wipe out life in the surrounding areas and prevent life returning to the area for years to come. Also, nuclear energy, unlike solar and wind energy, uses a limited resource, uranium. Uranium is crucial in the process of nuclear fission, but is also a rare metal. Thus, if we relied on nuclear energy, we will come back to the same problem of depleting our energy sources.
It’s scary to think about a nuclear plant exploding. Although Nuclear energy is a very clean source of energy I do not believe it's worth it if it explodes spewing radiation everywhere. If we can find a way to securely protect ourselves from a nuclear failure then i believe it is the future of energy for humanity. The way i feel about a nuclear plant located near flower mound is pretty scary, but if i grow a third functioning arm, i’m not complaining.
I think that in some ways that nuclear energy cam outweigh the costs if an explosion occurs because as you said in the passage that nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gasses."It does not create greenhouse gas emissions; in fact, the climatic impact of nuclear energy is similar to wind or solar energy".If we could find a safer to way to save our planet instead of resorting to nuclear energy blasts I think the solution where we don't blow up anything would be better.I feel that we are not safe on occasions but in some ways we could be because of the protection that they have to secure nuclear energy from the public.And as you said in the passage that more than 50 miles of the area is affected by radiation so in the same case I don't think we are safe."The wind can carry the radiation particles more than 50 miles from affected zone as well."
Obviously, if an explosion occurs, the benefits of nuclear energy do not outweigh the risk. However, If practiced In a small-scale and isolated way, nuclear energy might be a beneficial method of energy for our planet. Other alternative energy methods, on the other hand, prove to be expensive which further renders countries without money. Nuclear energy is not as expensive as the cleaner, solar and wind, energy methods. With a nuclear power plant so close, I would not feel safe. However if farther away, I would be indifferent.
Although nuclear energy sounds like a viable way to solve our energy issues, the impacts it may have on our environment greatly outweigh the energy we could obtain from this. If an explosure was to occure, the environment and any life form around its radius would greatly suffer. While this is one of the most inexpensive form of renewable energy we have found, its consequences could alter the life of many. If we were able to find a way to contain this energy safely and efficiently tho, it could solve our energy problem.
No because even before the explosion occurs it it harmful to the environment and once it does it only adds on to the environmental complications. We should focus on alternative, renewable, and nondestructive energy sources that do not harm wildlife in the way that nuclear power plants do. It is shocking to hear that our homes are so close to such harmful power sourcesbut in a way I expected it after reading this article. Our world is already very polluted by many other sources of radiation and this only adds to it.
Nuclear energy could potentially be a good option as an energy source due to the fact that it doesn’t create greenhouse gas emissions. However, nuclear energy is very dangerous, and shouldn’t be put into the wrong hands. I don’t believe that the benefits outweigh the costs because if an explosion were to happen, much more would be destroyed than saved. Nuclear energy could be the way to go when considering global warming. I would not feel safe being in a town around 50 miles within a nuclear power plant, and I wouldn’t want anyone that close to a nuclear power plant Incase it explodes. If there were to be power plants, they should be a safe distance from any city.
Using nuclear energy is a dangerous and arduous decision that governments are faced with. Evaluating the pros and cons of nuclear energy, in my opinion, show that nuclear energy has more detriments than benefits. It’s dangerous effects on regions are catastrophic and are seen even decades later. I believe that it is in government’s best interest to instead pursue solar and wind energy. Using these renewable energy sources are both better economically in the long-term and healthier for the environment.
I feel as though the benefits do not outweigh the costs in the case of a nuclear power plant. I also feel like we should put forth effort towards alternative energies more than nuclear. I feel as though i am in slight danger weigh the power plant 50 miles from us. What if something goes wrong? We would pay the price for the mess up.
Nuclear energy is a potential energy source to be used in the future, but it does not come without its drawbacks. Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, but only if it is managed in the right way because if it is not managed properly, it will cause harm for humans as of right now and for generations to come. Humans will have to take necessary precautions if they want to change main energy courses from fossil fuels to nuclear energy.
The costs of a nuclear explosion can be incredible, and it can take years to decades to recover an environment from a nuclear explosion. Even though we might get a large amount of power that does not contribute to global warming, the dangers of nuclear energy to the environment is too large. I feel unsafe at the fact that there is a power plant within 50 miles of me. I tells me that I should be ready to move away in case of a nuclear explosion.
Nuclear energy seems like a better option to fossil fuels, however, the effects are consequential. It might benefit the environment, but it could be a danger to us if something goes wrong. We can't have a source of energy based on a possibility. I think we should still find other sources of energy that are eco-friendly and not a threat to us at the same time.
Even though we might get a large amount of power that militates global warming, the dangers of nuclear energy to the environment is too large. The effects could be catastrophic. It is important to continue looking for safe renewable sources in order to decrease our carbon footprint.
No matter what, there will always be a thin line between prosperity and nuclear catastrophe. It is important that we look beyond nuclear energy. Looking at the disaster that hit places like Chernobyl (due to negligence) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cost of human life is too big to put all our eggs in one basket. While it is a better alternative to fossil fuels, we can't risk the possibility.
Post a Comment