Energy production is among the biggest issues America faces today. Although, when it must be faced, it should be solved in the best way possible. Energy production is the number one cause of a not-so-healthy environment and the answer to solving it, is nuclear power.
Nuclear power holds the key for lasting electricity, healthier life, and a healthier environment. According to Climate Nasa’s article on nuclear power, coal and gas are far more harmful to humans and the environment (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/) than nuclear power. Coal and fossil fuel burning emit harmful air-pollutants that have caused climate change and risked human life. In addition, replacing cheap energy resources with nuclear power plants can avoid tons of greenhouse …show more content…
(Nuclear Power Safety Concerns). U.S. based Public Citizen and Greenpeace claim that nuclear power is “slow-developing”, “expensive” and “illogical”. In detail, Greenpeace is an organization that revolves around the betterment of the environment, and help improve world round, global complications. These include deforestation, pollution, climate change etc. Yet, they are inflicted in supporting nuclear power which does not affect our vegetation, does not emit harmful pollutants and prevents climate change. Economically, research shows that nuclear power is actually cost effective. According to Nuclear Matters’ article, “Nuclear Power’s Cost Production Costs Are Low”, Nuclear energy is one of America 's lowest-cost electricity resource. Average production costs range at 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012. By comparison, electricity produced by coal was 3.27 cents per kilowatt-hour and natural gas 3.4 cents. (http://www.nuclearmatters.com/economic-engines/low-costs) That’s a a 0.87 cent difference between nuclear energy and coal, and a one dollar difference between natural gas and nuclear. Seemingly, not much of a difference all exempting the benefits nuclear energy has. Even so, building more of these plants may be costly as they accumulate, although they will employ many more people and the risks would decrease as they would monitor them closely and …show more content…
Human error has been responsible for the 1979 Three MIle Island accident in Pennsylvania and the design flaws in the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. Since then, associations such as the World Nuclear Association, says the western industry has employed a defense in depth approach with multiple safety systems including, high quality design construction, comprehensive monitoring, and repair resting and systems to prevent significant radioactive releases.(Nuclear Power Safety Concerns). Additionally, safety regulators in America are using highly complex mathematical techniques, had determined that the simultaneous failure of both the emergency shutdown systems built in nuclear plants, are very unlikely and would happen every 17,000 years or so, as they are strictly designed to prevent a core meltdowns. (At U.S, Nuclear sites, Preparing for the Unlikely) This clearly shows that even if there was an accident to happen, it would happen very rarely and possibly not at all. As opposed to the alternatives, which present risks at any moment as they are not as carefully monitored or handled. All the more reason to turn to nuclear power. In conclusion, the United States is constantly in turmoil over how to obtain energy, all while keeping the environment and humankind unaffected. The best solution to this problem is nuclear energy. In comparison to all the other
Nuclear power holds the key for lasting electricity, healthier life, and a healthier environment. According to Climate Nasa’s article on nuclear power, coal and gas are far more harmful to humans and the environment (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/) than nuclear power. Coal and fossil fuel burning emit harmful air-pollutants that have caused climate change and risked human life. In addition, replacing cheap energy resources with nuclear power plants can avoid tons of greenhouse …show more content…
(Nuclear Power Safety Concerns). U.S. based Public Citizen and Greenpeace claim that nuclear power is “slow-developing”, “expensive” and “illogical”. In detail, Greenpeace is an organization that revolves around the betterment of the environment, and help improve world round, global complications. These include deforestation, pollution, climate change etc. Yet, they are inflicted in supporting nuclear power which does not affect our vegetation, does not emit harmful pollutants and prevents climate change. Economically, research shows that nuclear power is actually cost effective. According to Nuclear Matters’ article, “Nuclear Power’s Cost Production Costs Are Low”, Nuclear energy is one of America 's lowest-cost electricity resource. Average production costs range at 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012. By comparison, electricity produced by coal was 3.27 cents per kilowatt-hour and natural gas 3.4 cents. (http://www.nuclearmatters.com/economic-engines/low-costs) That’s a a 0.87 cent difference between nuclear energy and coal, and a one dollar difference between natural gas and nuclear. Seemingly, not much of a difference all exempting the benefits nuclear energy has. Even so, building more of these plants may be costly as they accumulate, although they will employ many more people and the risks would decrease as they would monitor them closely and …show more content…
Human error has been responsible for the 1979 Three MIle Island accident in Pennsylvania and the design flaws in the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. Since then, associations such as the World Nuclear Association, says the western industry has employed a defense in depth approach with multiple safety systems including, high quality design construction, comprehensive monitoring, and repair resting and systems to prevent significant radioactive releases.(Nuclear Power Safety Concerns). Additionally, safety regulators in America are using highly complex mathematical techniques, had determined that the simultaneous failure of both the emergency shutdown systems built in nuclear plants, are very unlikely and would happen every 17,000 years or so, as they are strictly designed to prevent a core meltdowns. (At U.S, Nuclear sites, Preparing for the Unlikely) This clearly shows that even if there was an accident to happen, it would happen very rarely and possibly not at all. As opposed to the alternatives, which present risks at any moment as they are not as carefully monitored or handled. All the more reason to turn to nuclear power. In conclusion, the United States is constantly in turmoil over how to obtain energy, all while keeping the environment and humankind unaffected. The best solution to this problem is nuclear energy. In comparison to all the other