It has come to my attention that Pennsylvania would like to build another power plant in the East Pennsboro Township. This idea puts a dreadful image in my head. When I had found out that the government was thinking of this, I immediately thought of all of the negatives of building a power plant. There are significantly more negatives than positives that support nuclear power plants. Think about Chernobyl as well as Fukushima, they were both traumatic nuclear disasters. Five hundred seventy- three people died at the Fukushima meltdown and 4,000 at Chernobyl. That is completely horrific. The fact that the government wants to do this in our state makes me think that they want another disaster to happen. Who thinks that it is okay to risk people’s
…show more content…
That is incorrect since nuclear power actually does pollute the environment. The burning of uranium releases pollution into the atmosphere. It isn’t as much pollution as fossil fuels would produce, but it is still polluting the environment. Radioactive waste from the nuclear power plants can lead to eutrophication, initially harming aquatic life. People also say that we should use nuclear power noticing that it is semi-renewable, and that is true. The problem with this statement is that uranium is greatly scarce, and nonrenewable. Additionally, it is only available to some countries, and that makes it difficult for those without uranium to produce nuclear …show more content…
It could cost up to $4 billion to build the nuclear power plant. That is the same amount of money we could use to install solar systems in 391,772 households. In my opinion, the second option sounds more efficient in view of the fact that the East Pennsboro Township has a population of about 20,000. We could power the entire township for just a fraction of that whopping $4 billion, and we wouldn’t cause any of the polluting nuclear power does. Of course, these aren’t the only expenses you are going to find in the nuclear power process. After the company builds the plant, they need to transport and store the radioactive waste they produce which is quite expensive. The company is required to dismantle the nuclear power plant once 50 years of service are up. In other words, you are throwing away all of the hard work, time, and money you put into building the power plant.
It is highly difficult to store radioactive waste. In order for it to be in a safe place where no one can be harmed by it, the radioactive waste has to be stored up to 5,000 meters below ground level. After it is safely placed in its spot, it needs to stay there from 30 to 24,000 years. This is known as the half life. It is a realistic idea, but there has to a better way. When everyone relies on nuclear energy, where are we going to store it when we produce more waste than the amount that is manageable?
That is incorrect since nuclear power actually does pollute the environment. The burning of uranium releases pollution into the atmosphere. It isn’t as much pollution as fossil fuels would produce, but it is still polluting the environment. Radioactive waste from the nuclear power plants can lead to eutrophication, initially harming aquatic life. People also say that we should use nuclear power noticing that it is semi-renewable, and that is true. The problem with this statement is that uranium is greatly scarce, and nonrenewable. Additionally, it is only available to some countries, and that makes it difficult for those without uranium to produce nuclear …show more content…
It could cost up to $4 billion to build the nuclear power plant. That is the same amount of money we could use to install solar systems in 391,772 households. In my opinion, the second option sounds more efficient in view of the fact that the East Pennsboro Township has a population of about 20,000. We could power the entire township for just a fraction of that whopping $4 billion, and we wouldn’t cause any of the polluting nuclear power does. Of course, these aren’t the only expenses you are going to find in the nuclear power process. After the company builds the plant, they need to transport and store the radioactive waste they produce which is quite expensive. The company is required to dismantle the nuclear power plant once 50 years of service are up. In other words, you are throwing away all of the hard work, time, and money you put into building the power plant.
It is highly difficult to store radioactive waste. In order for it to be in a safe place where no one can be harmed by it, the radioactive waste has to be stored up to 5,000 meters below ground level. After it is safely placed in its spot, it needs to stay there from 30 to 24,000 years. This is known as the half life. It is a realistic idea, but there has to a better way. When everyone relies on nuclear energy, where are we going to store it when we produce more waste than the amount that is manageable?