“In operation that is slowing, but surely doing damage

“In 2016, nuclear energy accounted for
59.9 percent of U.S. emission generation,” according to (greenpeace.org). This
is nearly as much carbon dioxide as would be produced from some 118 million
cars per year.  To think the United
States is funding an operation that is slowing, but surely doing damage to the
environment is profound. There are other options then to only relying on
hazardous nuclear energy as a source of power. Just by making the switch to
using renewable energy resources would cause the amount of pollution released
in the U.S to drop by a little over thirty percent, and the cost of production
would decrease by more than fifty percent of what it is today. Removing nuclear
power plants and implementing the usage of renewable energy resources
throughout the U.S. would be highly beneficial because it would cause less
damage to the environment, it would allow for a cost effective alternative
source of energy, and it would reduce the vulnerability of the public.

            To illustrate, the amount of pollution
that is created as a result of using nuclear energy is detrimental to the
environment. Since, “there is still no safe reliable solution for dealing with
the radioactive waste produce” (www.greenpeace.org),
the waste produced by nuclear power plants will remain hazardous eternally. All
current commercial nuclear power plants function through the process of nuclear
fission. There are a tremendous amount of nuclear power plants and commonly
they all convert energy into steam. As a radioactive element decays the
individual atoms spilt into two distinctive groups, but when this occurs the
reaction also releases energy. The element that is typically used during the
process is uranium. After just seven to ten years of use in a nuclear power
plant the element will have released enough of its energy to make it is so that
it is no longer functional in a nuclear reactor. Despite this the element will
still continue to emit energy for hundreds of thousands of years past their
removal. The only real way to dispose of such deadly matter would be to put it
somewhere, where it would be undisturbed and isolated forever. That is easier
said than done. No nuclear waste world-wide is currently being stored in what
is considered long term storage. Nuclear waste is mostly being stored in water,
which cannot protect the environment from extreme toxins, thus creating an indefinitely
hazardous situation that is destroying the environment. Using natural energy
instead of harmful nuclear energy would eliminate the dilemma of nuclear waste.
Natural energy resources such as hydro, wind, and solar power do not affect the
environment in any harmful manner in that they already exist in many
ecosystems. According to scientists, Patrick Moore and M. V. Ramana state that electricity
production accounts for more than one-third of the United States global warming
emissions. Nuclear plants do not directly produce the main greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide, but they do produce a series of other criteria pollutants, such
as nitrogen oxides, precursor of ground-level ozone and smog; sulfur dioxide that
creates acid rain, and particulate matter such as smoke (www.nei.org). Corollary, these gasses are
tranquil to the atmosphere and the environment. Not only to these gasses create
holes in the ozone layer but they also affect wildlife. The implementation of natural
energy resources would annihilate over one-third of all pollution that is contrived
in the United States.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            Moreover, adopting the use of natural
energy resources allows for a cost effective alternative source of energy. “A
2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from
$360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion
were realized (www.uscusa.org).”
 In areas all across the United States
where power plants are present taxes heavily increase. Despite the fact that the
funding of nuclear energy is prodigious it is still not enough. Every nuclear
plant under construction in the United States is well behind schedule and at
least $1 billion over budget. Not to mention the fact that the United States is
already enveloped in over $19 trillion of debt. The U.S government is forcing a
tax increase on citizens in every state to help fund the operation of nuclear
power plants. In reality, utilizing nuclear energy is not only fixating more
and more debt on the United States, but it is costing average citizens to have
to spend a greater amount of money in a developed but deficient and inadequate
economy. If the United States were to cut the funding of nuclear energy and
implement the funding of natural energy over $17 billion would be saved on
energy per year as you do not need to maintain expensive materials. In like
manner, writers of the Department of Nuclear Engineering California Berkeley,
John Smith and Samira Gonzales state “nuclear energy in the United States does
not promote economic growth. The cost of nuclear energy is actually depleting
the economy rather than building it up. Nuclear power plants may have to be
rebuilt after every ten to twenty years costing billions of dollars. The main
forms of natural energy sources are hydro, wind and solar energy. For example, solar
power is by far the cheapest source of energy costing $3.5 billion per year and
allowing for almost the same efficiency rate. In addition, solar energy is
sustainable and requires low maintenance, there would be no storage cost. Using
natural energy resources over nuclear energy would improve the economy.

            Sequentially the relationship
between risk perceptions should outweigh the willingness to pay for nuclear energy
power plants. Editor of the New York Times Mark Lynch states “nuclear power
plants introduce a great risk into modern society”. There have been seven major
nuclear energy accidents throughout history. In 2011, a nuclear reactor in Fukushima,
Japan after the Sendai earthquake and tsunami struck. The failure of emergency
cooling caused a massive explosion within the power plant killing only two
citizens but increasing the risk of cancer for thousands. As a result some
areas of Japan are proclaimed to be uninhabitable to this day and for many
years to come. If such a nuclear disaster were to occur in the United States
many more lives would be impacted and the risk would be far more devastating.
The ratio of risk to reward is not worth practicing nuclear energy. ­­­According
to Nuclear Specialist Edward Murphy “a surprise terrorist attack on a power
plant would corrupt society”. If a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant were
to happen millions of innocent lives would be in peril. All of the following
situations would be detrimental to society a massive release of radiation after
a nuclear plant is hit with a bomb delivered by truck or boat, a September
11-type attack using a plane as a guided missile to crash into a nuclear
facility, a sabotage at a nuclear facility by an insider or by intruders, and even
a ground assault on a nuclear plant by a commando team attempting to blow up
the plant. The most shocking part about these scenarios is that they are real
threats that have been call in. Thankfully they have all been false, but
threats are not to be taken lightly. Nuclear power plants are too dangerous to
have with in society.

            Despite the fact, critics of natural
energy often claim that using renewable resources instead of nuclear energy would
be less efficient. Alternatively, “nuclear energy provides for only 11% of the
world’s electricity,” (www.world-nuclear.org).
Residents of cities that employ smart growth technologies and transportation
systems have an easier time of getting around and getting consistent access to
solar power more so than nuclear power. Natural energy sources are easily accessible
in that they are easily transportable sources of energy.

            Overall, Natural energy is a form of
clean energy that is provided by natural sources present in nature. Natural
energy resources create a substantially lower amount of pollution than nuclear
energy as well as considerably lowering the cost of energy. Natural resources
are also much safer to use coupled with low liability. Natural energy resources
make for a prominent solution to an improved future. The refinement of using
natural energy as opposed to nuclear energy would allow for a better place to
live.

x

Hi!
I'm Homer!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out