Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power? Essay

1. Many professors, scientists, researchers, and even governments, have been debating over the issue on the use of atomic originator as a principal(prenominal) sinew source. In pickings Sides, two authors who be extremely narrow-minded state their debates on this critical issue. Allison MacFarlane, author of Nuclear Power Panacea for Future brawn Needs?, believes that thermo thermo atomic effect should be revived. She argues that nuclear power lead provide sufficient energy, enchantment at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emanations. On the other hand, professor Kristin Shrader-Frechette, author of five dollar bill Myths About Nuclear Energy, argues that nuclear power is too expensive and unsafe for the environment, when there atomic number 18 renewable energy sources that be better for the environment and economy. I agree with Shrader-Frechette because she proves the five myths virtually nuclear energy wrong using extremely valid arguments, which exist to prove that nuclear power is non the best option for an energy source in our society.Background2. In Small Recactors Make a Bid to Revive Nuclear Power, the Obama Administration and the Energy Department are working on making America the leader in advanced nuclear technology and manufacturing (Biello 2012). They are considering switching the lifesize reactors, which are currently the predominant technology, to small reactors, which leave alone save money. These reactors would contain enough power to power more than 200,000 U.S. homes for a year (Biello 2012). This strategy will cause less nuclear waste and will increase safety issues as well. In a nonher article, Time to revive, non kill, the nuclear age, it is verbalise that a world without nuclear power would be less secure.Neither fossil give the axes nor renewable resources will be able to replace the 14 percent of global electrical energy generated by nuclear reactors ( monetary generation 2011). This article sides with MacFarl ane by saying the Chernobyl accident was no-good, but since then things have im turn up. The studyity of the existing reactors were build a long time ago, and the ones that were recently built, have many more safety features, such as passive cooling systems to prevent overheating, which will greatly reduce safety risks. It is agreed that there is more than more research needed, but reviving nuclear power is necessary in order for energy security.Argument For Nuclear Power3. Allison MacFarlane argues that nuclear power is necessary and that it is nowhere near as bad as everyone thinks, and that it is actually very efficient. She believes that nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, and that this is a major advancement in technology. She states that there are two pathways for handling the spent nuclear fuel generated by power reactors the indeterminate cycle and closed cycle. The costs associated with the construction of new nuclear reactors may be the main reason for the in hibiting of the global expansion of nuclear power. She says that although nuclear power can be our main source of power, and very efficient, it will take many years before a considerable tot up of new plants are licensed and built.4. Allison MacFarlane argues that nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide to produce electricity because their fuel is uranium-based. Nuclear power saved about 13 percent of annual emissions of Carbon dioxide, subject matter that by 2050 emissions could be reduced by 15-25 percent. Since the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the overall global safety set down has been good, even though there have been some problems. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty guarantees that countries that do not have nuclear weapons are allowed nuclear energy technology, which is a great form of security for these countries. The open and closed cycles have been effective so far in containing the nuclear waste, and hopefully will have-to doe with in the future. 5. Although nucle ar power does not emit carbon dioxide directly, nuclear power is not emission free.Carbon dioxide is emitted during nuclear power production, during the mining, milling, and fuel fabrication processes. No countries have opened a upper-level nuclear waste disposal facility, so all of the nuclear waste is currently sitting in storage facilities. If nuclear power expands, these upper-level wastes will increase. A catastrophic nuclear accident could guide in compensation costs of hundreds of billions of dollars, and currently 236 of the 436 operating reactors are not even covered by liability conventions. Nuclear power is very expensive compared to other power sources, which is the biggest issue standing in the way of reviving nuclear power.Argument Against Nuclear Power6. Kristin Shrader-Frechette argues that nuclear power is clearly not the best option as a power source for many reasons. She busts the five myths about nuclear power believed by many people. She gives valid reasons t o support her position opposing nuclear power. She talks about how nuclear power is unclean, expensive, unnecessary to address climate change, unsafe, and how it will increase the proliferation of weapons. 7. This whole argument, in my opinion, is strengths, subtraction a few minor points. Although MacFarlane states that nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, Shrader-Frechette argues that the nuclear fuel cycle has eight other stages that do release babys room gases. Nuclear power generates at least 33 grams of carbon-equivalent emissions for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.Nuclear wastes are stored at Nevadas Yucca Mountain, which poses severe problems for the future. As high-level radioactive wastes increase, the availability of storage space decreases, and exposure rises. Exposure to nuclear waste can probable cause fatal cancer, which risks are very high for. 8. The weaknesses of Shrader-Frechettes argument are very precious in my opinion. She discusses the emissions of carbon dioxide, stating that they are oft higher than most people think, but MacFarlane stated that they are working on reducing them, and it will take many years before anything is set in stone. Per kilowatt-hour, Shrader-Frechette states that atomic energy produces only one-seventh the greenhouse emissions of coal. She believes nuclear power is not clean, however this statistic is in favor of reviving nuclear power by stating an opposing fact.Weighing the Arguments9. I agree with Kristin Shrader-Frechette in just about every aspect. She gives amazing facts and statistics to support her argument against the revival of nuclear power. The five myths back up nuclear power are all false. Nuclear power is not clean due to the greenhouse gas emissions during the nuclear fuel cycle. The government is providing way too much money to fund nuclear power, when there are cheaper, safer energy sources to fund. Also, nuclear energy will definitely increase the use and proliferatio n of weapons round the world, which I believe will lead to more war.Conclusion10. I sided with Kristin Shrader-Frechette because of her brilliant proof of her argument, which proved the five myths about nuclear energy wrong. Allison MacFarlane argued that nuclear power should be revived because carbon dioxide emissions are reduced, safety has improved since the last major incident, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty provides more security for nuclear power. Shrader-Frechette argued that there are more carbon dioxide emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle, the government is spending too much money funding nuclear power when they should be funding wind or solar power since they are cheaper and safer, and the use and proliferation of weapons will increase. Both authors have sound arguments however I feel that Shrader-Frechettes is more valid and will bewilder the economy and environment better in the end.BibliographyBiello, D. (2012). Small reactors make a bid to revive nuclear p ower. Scientific American, Retrieved from http//www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=small-reactors-bid-to-revive-nuclear-power. Financial Times. (2011). Time to revive, not kill, the nuclear age. Financial Times, Retrieved from http//www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f0321fb4-6e9a-11e0-a13b-00144feabdc0.html. MacFarlane, A. (2012). Nuclear power A panacea for future energy needs?. In T. A. Easton & T. College (Eds.), Taking Sides Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society (pp. 82-88). New York, NY McGraw-Hill. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2012). Five myths about nuclear energy. In T. A. Easton & T. College (Eds.), Taking Sides Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society (pp. 89-94). New York, NY McGraw-Hill.