We shouldnt embrace nuclear energy?

Question

please help me my debate is next week...

im negativee (im saying we shouldnt)

HELPPPP

Answer 1

Here are some pros and cons.

I say we shouldn't.

ADVANTAGES

• Produces less pollution than fossil fuel plants

• Produces small amount of waste

• Small amount of nuclear elements can produce huge amounts of energy

• Does not produce greenhouse gases

DISADVANTAGES

• The small amount of weight produced can be highly hazardous to human health and has to be disposed off carefully

• Nuclear power plants are not highly safe and accidents are common

• Non-renewable and finite source of energy

Answer 2

I see many responders concerned about the Waste from Nuclear.  Most likely the same people complaining about the waste from automobiles and global warming.  Nuclear creates the least waste per energy unit used when compared to all fuel sources.

Answer 3

Talk about the over abundence of waste it creates. Then you also come into the problem of what to do with the waste. How can we store it? Talk about  how its really not helping the enviroment when we have to put nuclear waste back into the enviroment.

Answer 4

Power from nuclear energy can prevent many of the environmental consequences arising out of the use of fossil fuels. Below we discuss advantages of nuclear power vis-a-vis other energy options, especially fossil fuel:

(i) One of the greatest advantages of nuclear power is that it avoids the wide variety of environmental problems arising from burning fossil fuels - coal, oil, and gas. Nuclear energy does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Thus ‘global warming’ process can be minimized - changing the earth's climate, acid rain, which is destroying forests and killing fish; air pollution etc. Nuclear power checks degrading our quality of life; i.e., the destructive effects of massive mining for coal; and oil spills which do great harm to ecological systems can be prevented.

(ii) It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant using small amount of fuel.

(iii) Nuclear power is reliable. This technology is readily available; it does not have to be developed first.

(iv) Produces small amounts of waste. As the quantity of waste generated by nuclear power plant is very small, the disposal of radio-active waste can be easily contained so they can be buried deep underground. Also, more effective ways can be found out as our technology is improving at a very fast pace. Moreover, the quality of radio-active waste improved if we go for reprocessing of spent fuel and reuse of plutonium is incorporated.

(v) Nuclear power is also not so expensive as compare to power from coal. Reprocessing and reuse of plutonium from spent fuel makes it even cheaper than coal based power plant. The concern about proliferation should be taken out of mind as there are much easier, faster, and cheaper ways for a nation to develop nuclear weapons than through a nuclear power programm.

Discussions on future dependability for production of clean electric power :

(i) As observed from above, nuclear power has advantages in many areas, including some that have been traditionally viewed as problem areas. It averts the pollution, environmental degradation and above all retards generation of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. It also solves difficult waste management problems.

(ii) In my opinion, the generation of nuclear power should be given most priority, to combat environmental degradation and global warming issues. Wherever there is stagnation in implementing new nuclear power projects, those should be sorted out immediately to get the benefits of nuclear power and to mitigate the global warming process. Any step which mitigates the global warming process has to be adopted immediately, without wasting time, as we may not sustain any more the adverse impact of global warming. Survival of human race is at stake due to global warming.

(iii) In my opinion, if we can generate sufficient clean nuclear power so that our dependence on fossil fuel is reduced to shear minimal – whether for generation of electricity or for transport – the overall environment would be much cleaner.

(iv) Nuclear power may be supplemented by other form of clean energy such as wind energy and solar energy.

(v) For efficient community power backup environment-friendly Sodium-Sulfur (NaS) battery or equivalent should be used extensively along with nuclear power, wind power.

(vi) Transportation including motor vehicles should be run only on clean electric power.

(vii) Another advantage of producing enough nuclear power for the requirement of almost every industry and day-to-day consumption is lesser dependence on bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and other bio-fuel. Use of less bio-fuel means availability of agriculture for more food production – reduction of poverty.

(viii) Research activities should be enhanced in the areas of development of efficient environment-friend batteries and other aspects of nuclear technology.

(ix) As technology advances, we hope to switchover to more environment-friendly nuclear reactor – ‘breeder reactor’ – soon; reducing radio-active waste disposal problem.

(x) Moreover development of FUSION TECHNOLOGY successfully is also not very far; once we do that we have sufficient energy.

For further on the subject and other environmental issues you may refer my blogs: http://www.environmentengineering.blogsp... and http://www.coalandfuel.blogspot.com

Answer 5

It's very dangerous. Just look at Chernobyl and the nuclear meltdown there. It's also hard to demolish a nuclear plant. The amount of waste produced is also a big issue.

Answer 6

Aside from the possibility of a meltdown and disposal of the spent fuel (some of which can be made into tank armor piercing rounds, or simply shot into space). There really aren't that many downsides. Overall Nuclear energy is safe and pretty enviromentally friendly.

Answer 7

As the matter of fact, nuclear energy is one of the purest sources known if handled correctly ! With scientists working on fusion reactors it's just a question of time, when we'll be able to produce power the way sun does ! It seems to me you chose to defend the wrong position...Anyway, one can always come up with radioactivity issue, Czernobyl scenarios etc...I suppose they have a point to certain extend: nuclear energy shouldn't be used by the states with uncertain technological support !

Answer 8

Since you are arguing the negative, put together the total cost of gereration (plant construction, fuel delivery, waste handling) and compare it to the cost of other renewables. Sorry I cant give a source, but check with your power company as to why they are not building any new plants. They will tell you that aside from regulatory issues, it isn't cost effective. Add to this the risk of dissaster (see the link) and realize that it just isn't worth it.

Answer 9

you are against nuclear energy, but you don't know why?

OK let's talk about Chernobyl. a major catastrophe we all agree with a lot of casualties all at the same time. How many lives are lost in the oil industry? I'm not just talking about human lives either. How many lives have been lost in coal mines? How many lives were lost building the rail roads to move coal and oil? How many were lost building the Alaskan pipeline? How many lives were lost building Hoover dam? Lives lost in nuclear catastrophes are negligible compared to the lives lost over time building and maintaining other power sources.

Let's talk about the environmental impact. Spent uranium can be recycled back into useful fuel again. This technology has not been embraced by the US, but other countries are doing it, and doing it well. We don't need to bury it. Once coal has been used, it has changed forms to a state where we cannot reuse it. Same goes for oil, and crude oil based fuels. coil and oil based fuels impact a huge area...the whole planet. Since we bury the spent uranium in the US it impacts a small area. OK what about hydro-electric dams? Well building these dams require flooding a large area, and reduces the amount of water available downstream of the plant. It has a large scale impact, totally wiping out some ecosystems. Solar power...it has it's similarities to nuclear power in that the construction of solar panels, or heat exchangers require toxic chemicals, and have a by product that must be dumped somewhere. Where it is dumped the area becomes dead. Not a good trade off for an energy source that's not available 24/7 compared to the waste from spent uranium.

let's talk about over-all appearance. A nuclear power plant can be built in a way that is appealing to the eyes. It doesn't require a huge smoke stack. coal and oil power plants can be built in such a way also, but your still stuck with that ugly smoke stack. solar power for home use has come a long way. It can blend into your roof now. Large power plants using solar energy are not so appealing though. Wind power! we all love it, but think about it. Those windmills are ugly!!! and when the wind is not blowing they are useless. Hydro-electric dams: Hoover dam is quite a site to see, but it's not really an attractive one.

All things considered I think nuclear power is just as viable of a power source as any other power source if handled correctly. I'm sorry about losing the debate when I am supposed to be fighting against nuclear power, but educating yourself on the topic might be better than making a decision based on what everyone else thinks.