'Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power? Essay\r'

'1. Many professors, scientists, researchers, and even governments, consent been debating over the issue on the use of thermo atomic proponent as a principal(prenominal) aught source. In Taking Sides, dickens creators who be luxuriouslyly narrow-minded state their debates on this critical issue. Allison MacFarlane, author of â€Å" thermo atomic Power: Panacea for Future aught Needs?”, believes that thermo thermonuclear origin should be revived. She argues that nuclear cater get out provide sufficient push button, go at the same time reducing carbon copy dioxide emanations. On the other hand, professor Kristin Shrader-Frechette, author of â€Å" pentad Myths About nuclear Energy”, argues that nuclear force out is too high-ticket(prenominal) and unsafe for the milieu, when there atomic number 18 renewable muscularity sources that are better for the environment and scrimping. I agree with Shrader-Frechette because she proves the five myths appro ximately nuclear slide fastener wrong using extremely sound arguments, which exist to prove that nuclear office is non the best option for an energy source in our society.\r\nBackground\r\n2. In â€Å"Sm all(prenominal) Recactors Make a Bid to Revive thermonuclear Power”, the Obama nerve and the Energy Department are working on making America the leader in modernistic nuclear technology and manufacturing (Biello 2012). They are considering switching the macroscopic reactors, which are currently the predominant technology, to small reactors, which allowing save money. These reactors would contain enough power to power to a greater extent than 200,000 U.S. homes for a year (Biello 2012). This strategy provide cause less nuclear waste and forget increase safety issues as well. In other article, â€Å"Time to revive, not kill, the nuclear age”, it is give tongue to that a world without nuclear power would be less secure.\r\nNeither fossil furnishs nor renewa ble resources will be able to replace the 14 percent of global electrical energy generated by nuclear reactors ( pecuniary generation 2011). This article sides with MacFarlane by saying the Chernobyl diagonal was dark, exactly since then things hurt im be. The major(ip)ity of the existing reactors were built a long time ago, and the ones that were recently built, establish umpteen more safety features, such as passive cooling systems to prevent overheating, which will greatly reduce safety risks. It is agreed that there is whatsoever(prenominal) more research needed, but reviving nuclear power is necessary in order for energy security.\r\nArgument For Nuclear Power\r\n3. 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 impress a breather carbon dioxide, and that this is a major advancement in technology. She states that there are two path styluss for handling the spent nuclear fuel generated by power reactors: the open air cycle and closed cycle. The cost associated with the construction of new nuclear reactors may be the main reason for the inhibiting 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.\r\n4. Allison MacFarlane argues that nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide to produce electricity because their fuel is uranium-based. Nuclear power saved somewhat 13 percent of annual emissions of Carbon dioxide, kernel that by 2050 emissions could be reduced by 15-25 percent. Since the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the overall global safety character 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 farther in containing the nuclear waste, and hopefully will overlay in the future. 5. Although nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide directly, nuclear power is not emission free.\r\nCarbon dioxide is emitted during nuclear power production, during the mining, milling, and fuel fiction processes. No countries have opened a high-ranking nuclear waste disposal facility, so all of the nuclear waste is currently sitting in storage facilities. If nuclear power expands, these high-level wastes will increase. A catastrophic nuclear accident could go out in compensation costs of hundreds of billions of dollars, and currently 236 of the 436 direct 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.\r\nArgument Against Nuclear Power\r\n6. 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 to body forth her position opposing nuclear power. She talks about how nuclear power is unclean, expensive, unnecessary to address temper change, unsafe, and how it will increase the proliferation of weapons. 7. This whole argument, in my opinion, is strengths, negative 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 vacate glasshouse gases. Nuclear power generates at least 33 grams of carbon-equivalent emissions for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.\r\nNuclear wastes are stored at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, which poses severe problems for the future. As high-level radioactive wastes increase, the availability o f storage space decreases, and painting rises. Exposure to nuclear waste can potential cause fatal cancer, which risks are very high for. 8. The weaknesses of Shrader-Frechette’s argument are very extraordinary in my opinion. She discusses the emissions of carbon dioxide, stating that they are frequently higher(prenominal) 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 babys room 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.\r\nWeighing the Arguments\r\n9. I agree with Kristin Shrader-Frechette in just about every aspect. She gives amazing facts and statistics to nourish her argument against the revival of nuclear power. The five myths encouraging nuclear power are all false. Nu clear 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 proliferation of weapons slightly the world, which I believe will lead to more war.\r\nConclusion\r\n10. 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 cheape r and safer, and the use and proliferation of weapons will increase. Both authors have sound arguments; however I feel that Shrader-Frechette’s is more valid and will sacrifice the economy and environment better in the end.\r\nBibliography\r\nBiello, D. (2012). Small reactors make a bid to revive nuclear power. 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 edict (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, Technolog y, and federation (pp. 89-94). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.\r\n'