Are new nuclear plants a good idea?

Yes

1 of 3

by Matt Shipley

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

With increasing concerns about global warming due to the emissions released from non-renewable energy sources, nuclear power provides a great opportunity to ease concerns of environmental advocates about the environment. Power plants that burn fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which in turn traps in heat. According to historical data, the earth's average temperature has continually risen and will eventually have a menacing effect on coastal communities, agricultural regions, and bodies of water. Nuclear power is a safe and reliable, emission-free energy source, therefore it should be more widely implemented to reduce worldwide atmospheric problems.

The world's massive dependency on fossil fuels has been creating problems for years, and nuclear power can help resolve these issues. As the world population increases in the future so will the demand for electricity. When fossil fuels run out in one country, the demand for fuels from other countries increases. If there are no changes in alternative power production, the amount of greenhouse gases will continue to suffocate the earth's atmosphere and create chaos around the globe. The track record for nuclear power is relatively good considering only a few accidents in over thirty years. It is estimated that one thousand people per year are killed by gas and coal power plants, while one-thousand people are killed every fifty years by nuclear power plants. Nuclear advocates declare that new nuclear plants will help minimize the dependency on foreign oil, and enhance energy security while saving the environment for future generations. France, Belgium, and Switzerland are a few foreign countries that have been using nuclear power for a long period of time without major accidents. There has been no publicity about how these countries are threatening the world with a dangerous source of electricity production. In fact, France produces more nuclear power per capita than the United States. China is also in the development phase of increasing it's nuclear power productivity. With other countries successfully generating mass quantities of nuclear power, the United States should take notice and implement these strategies into means of clean and safe power.

Many people who oppose the use of nuclear power claim that is unsafe in many aspects. On the contrary, nuclear power is much safer than the majority of other power sources. There have been two incidents that have tarnished the reputation of nuclear power: Chernobyl nuclear facility and Three Mile Island. There were thirty-one people reported dead due to the Chernobyl meltdown and no casualties in the Three Mile Island incident. What goes unpublicized are the hundreds of thousands of people each year who die due to coal and gas plant malfunctions. In 2005, a gas plant refinery in Texas City exploded due to improper maintenance, killing fifteen people. This is just one of many plant accidents that happens every year, and still there are no state or government officials demanding that gas and coal plants be shut down due to the extreme dangers. The infrastructures of nuclear power plants are enclosed to the outside air, and this reduces the risk of accident causing harm to the general vicinity. The nuclear waste is kept inside as well and can be moved to a secured storage area when needed. This is not the case for other power sources which leave their contaminants exposed to the outside atmosphere at all times.

While gas and coal-burning power plants pollute the airway with large amounts of noxious gases, nuclear plants only emit innocuous water vapor into the air. Nuclear power seems to be the only reasonable alternative to non-fossil fuels that can produce enough power for large cities and industrial corporations. Hydroelectric and solar power are efficient but lack the concentration to power largely populated areas. Researchers are conducting meticulous tests on a new wave of nuclear reactors that will make accidents identical to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nearly unimaginable. Strict regulations regarding design, equipment, procedures, and training do not allow workers in a nuclear facility to fail at their particular job. Every worker is responsible for upkeep of the facility. A terrorist attack on a nuclear facility will not result in a massive nuclear explosion, because the plutonium is not in a metal form, along with many other steps, that allow the explosion to occur.

Many speculators argue that the waste from these nuclear plants will contaminate all life forms when it goes into waste storage. Even though, the half-life of plutonium is estimated at ten thousand years, there are a number of other radioactive elements that have a half-life of two hundred years or less. While "half-life" is the standard in informing the general public of the deterioration rates, the number of years before the radioactive elements are considered safe is considerably less. The total amount of radioactive waste over thirty years is estimated at about 40,000 tons, which substantially less than the waste produced by gas and coal plants. The spent fuel rods, which contain the radioactive waste, will be sealed in steel canisters about one thousand feet below the earth's surface. The waste facility will be sealed off to surrounding matter, and it will be located one thousand feet above an aquifer that feeds areas of Nevada to reduce the probability of water contamination. This will allow engineers time to develop methods of replacing the canisters to maintain a contaminate-free facility. The transfer of waste from the nuclear facility to the waste facility will likely be by trucks fitted with secure, airtight containers transporting the waste. France has pioneered a nuclear recycling program intended to reuse a larger percent of the spent fuel. This creates a more efficient nuclear facility, as well as, creating less nuclear waste to be stored. While the United States is not presently participating in this recycling program, this would be a great way to maximize productivity of existing nuclear plants.

It is a given fact that in the near future the earth's population will skyrocket, placing a gigantic strain on the power industry. Some countries are countering this surge with increased nuclear production. This will help relieve gas and coal plants and also help the environment. With the increase of nuclear power over the next decade, gas plants will be relieved from some of their duty, and also make homes more efficient with gas powered furnaces instead of costly electric units. Also, the gradual replacement of coal-burning power plants with nuclear plants will help save fossil fuels for research being done to turn coal from a non-renewable source to a more environmentally-frie ndly source, this process is called coal gasification. Gas is more versatile than electric power in that it can be applied at a desired time and location. This is useful in homes, as well as, large corporations due to precision-controlled operations. Nuclear plants can aid in this by freeing up coal-burning plants and replacing those with gas powered plants. Opponents of nuclear power say that hydroelectric, solar, and wind power would be a better alternative compared to nuclear power. Hydroelectric is a good source of electricity, but it has limited areas of production. There are only so many rivers that can be converted into power, and with those, if the flow of water is upset too much it can put the ecosystem in jeopardy. Solar power can produce large amounts of energy but the area needs to have ample sun year-round. Also, solar power does not have the capabilities to store energy. The power produced by the sun has to be put on the power grid instantly; otherwise it will be wasted energy. Wind power is unreliable, because nature is in control of when and how hard the wind blows. Also, to be effective in producing electricity, wind turbines need to be amassed in huge groups close to a power grid so that the power produced by the wind is efficiently reaching power lines. This is a difficult task due to the large wingspan of the wind turbines. Both gas and coal plants produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide and many other toxins that are harmful to the atmosphere. Also, gas and coal plants do not contain their emissions, so every minute out of the day these plants are polluting the atmosphere, while nuclear power plants are the silent heroes protecting the planet. If the media would get off their high-horse and do some research about nuclear power and it's opposition, maybe they too will realize that nuclear power is the most sound answer to the ever-intensifying burden of saving the planet as well as the people living on it.

In conclusion, despite the negative media towards nuclear power, it seems to be the only logical answer to powering the world's demands, as well as, allowing future generations to experience life's trials and tribulations. If nuclear power were to be more widely implemented around the world, it would greatly reduce strain on the atmosphere and create a sense of altruism in citizens that could possibly radiate around the globe. Nuclear power is the only effective power source to replace the traditional sources of coal and gas and could possibly help generate research to convert other power sources into the more economical source of nuclear power.

Learn more about this author, Matt Shipley.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.