Nuclear Energy Cons

Would you really enjoy a dystopia in which nuclear leaks that cause animals to have mutations, And children born with defects, are frequent? How about an energy system that also provides an ineffective economy and more frequent terrorist attacks? Those could possibly be the results of a switch back to Nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not a viable source of energy for the future, although it does produce massive amounts of energy capable of powering industrial and city needs. My arguments against this are that it is very dangerous, it is expensive, and there are much better options. Nuclear plants, or places which are constructed in order to perform nuclear fusion to create energy, were abandoned about a decade ago for a reason. Not to mention, …show more content…
Most people argue that nuclear energy is the healthiest for the atmosphere because of less CO2 emissions, but fail to realize how it’s still emitting CO2, and that other options emit little to none of it. (Buzz, Triplepundit.com) These alternatives include, but are not limited to; wind, photovoltaic (PV effect), geothermal, biomass/waste, algae-based biofuel, hydraulic, solar heating and cooling, tidal power, solar thermal method one; using solar panels to collect heat, solar thermal method two; amplifying the sun 's heat to create high temperatures, and fuel cells via hydrogen. (Methods found at http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/energy-storage-systems-pros-cons/). These methods are nearly harmless, are not nearly as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as nuclear energy plants are, emit little to none CO2, and cost a significantly less amount of money. When we bring all of these efficient energy methods together with, perhaps, private businesses, we get an immaculate, environment-friendly, and economical energy source that will supply us with an ample amount of energy for the whole country; especially if amplified by CHP, or Combined Heat and Power, which squeezes more usable energy out of fuel (http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/combined-heat-power-pros-cons/), and more jobs and a better economy (we all know how badly we need to fix our economy …show more content…
My support is that although it produces massive amounts of energy, it is dangerous, costly, and there are much better alternatives than it. Why would we go back into using such an inefficient, exorbitant, dangerous, and an inferior energy production method, in which we have already nearly abandoned? Not to mention how the cost of building facilities has risen over the years, and the amount of uranium in the ground is limited. And, with new technology exponentially growing, the energy produced by the alternative methods will vastly increase. Maybe new types of enzymes can create more efficient biofuel, or sun farms will grow and advance, or more advanced sun thermal energy amplifiers will be built, or maybe even super technological advances not yet available such as gravitational pull increase in selected areas, to make water heavier to push turbines faster and faster, creating more electricity. And the best part is, advancements are already taking place, like the new compressed air energy storage system that has saved around 70% of energy that is lost due to inefficiencies, according to Steve Crane, Co-founder and CEO of LightSail Energy on treehugger.com. (http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/new-compressed-air-energy-storage-system-delivers-double-efficiency.html) The possibilities are really endless, and there is such a bright future in every method of energy