The Counter Argument
Question:
Discuss the importance of nuclear energy over the other energy sources.
The Nuclear power and its uses are one of the growing discussions in modern period of technology. The nuclear energy is growing up as a major alternative to various things, but there are various factors, which support its growth as well as oppose it (De Groot et al. 2013). There are certain countries that are in opposition with the use of this nuclear energy as there are several problems related with its usage. However, there are countries that support it and consider it as the best energy option for a global solution to fossil fuel cost sustainability and environmental pollution problem. This essay will elaborate on support of this statement and the main aim of this essay is to contrast the importance of nuclear energy over the other energy sources.
Counter Argument: Nuclear power is considered as too uneconomical and dangerous. Like the fossil fuels, nuclear energy is a non-renewable resource (Stoutenborough, Sturgess and Vedlitz 2013). Hence, in case there is an accident with the nuclear fuel, a large amount of radioactive elements would be released into environment. In the year 2011, the Fukushima disaster in Japan (Kim 2013) has clearly shown the world that the nuclear power is very unsafe. Also, the worst was the melting down of the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant. With the same, the production and the maintenance of the nuclear power and the total cost of storing the radioactive waste are also very expensive. There are many other accidents due to this nuclear energy, such as the 1979’s Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania (Goldenberg et al. 2017) and the Chernobyl in USSR.
Refutation: Although the nuclear energy is dangerous and considered to be hazardous, it is definitive and reliable in concerning environmental impact, efficiency, sustainability and cost when it is compared with the other sources of energy. It is safe and is getting more and more safer. The Fukushima was a very old plant. Safety is one of the biggest concerns at the time of considering the nuclear power. However, what do you mean by the term nuclear meltdown? It is not as critical as it suggests. Meltdowns are usually a whir word that is related to t occurs when there is a huge amount of heat inside the reactor than that is removed by a coolant mechanism. When it happens, the nuclear fuel melts through the reactor and resulting in damage of the reactor core, which creates a possibility of fuel escape from the reactor (Zinkle and Was 2013). They are captured and contained within a restraint structure, which is particularly designed in order to prevent the radioactive materials from polluting the atmosphere and this only happen at the time when the restraint structure gets damaged, as it was in the case of Fukushima earthquakes. The modern technology has designed the modern nuclear power plants with different precautions. The modern generation of the nuclear reactor plan and designs are less prone to meltdown. With the same, tsunamis and earthquakes that have caused the Fukushima disaster are less likely to occur in Australia. Considering the Chernobyl incident, it took place due to the fault in designing of the nuclear reactor (Rana 2014), which has resulted in explosion that has burnt for several weeks and has led the radioactive particles escape into atmosphere.
The Refutation
Argument (supporting thesis): Depending on the fossil fuels such as coal and oil for the energy needs is now increasingly impractical. The decrease in supply and the rise in cost of these fuels with concerns about their impact on global warming means there is a high need for an alternative. Nuclear energy is a good option and is an excellent alternative. In addition, it has proven to be the most economical and cleanest energy source. Unlike the fossil fuels, the nuclear fuels do not create carbon dioxide in the nature. In addition, it is a much better option than the coal. Coal produces a huge amount of waste, which goes back to the nature and harms the environment (Larcher and Tarascon 2015). These wastes are very difficult to contain, whereas in the production of nuclear power, the wastes are easily seized and contained. This ensures that those wastes will never be released into the nature. The production of electricity through the nuclear energy has consecutively reduced the amount of energy that is generated from the coal and oil (fossil fuels). Using less amount of fossil fuel ensures that there will be low emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In recent days, human beings are consuming fossil fuels in greater amount than the nature is producing it. Hence, this will ultimately result in reduction of their presence in the near future, which on the other hand will increase their price. The cost of producing nuclear fuel is 20% of the total cost of energy that it generates. With the same, the nuclear power plant is producing near about 90% of the annual time. They reduce the cost volatility of the other fuels like petrol as well.
Counter argument: It is generally agreed that there is a need for renewables and nuclear-free world. Nuclear energy is non-renewable and renewables are there to take the place of nuclear. By the year 2050, 100% of the total energy would be producing from the renewables (Connolly, Lund and Mathiesen 2016). In fact, the technology for this is already ready in the market- especially if the investments for the fossils and the nuclear are cut. With the same, even in the current days there are few countries like Iran, which are developing civilian nuclear programme, which analysts warn. It could be made in use for a hidden nuclear weapon ability. It is said that in order to make a nuclear-free world, every country must commit to completely abandon the use of nuclear technology as it is considered that the consequences of Nuclear energy as an alternative form of energy could be very dangerous to the world.
Refutation: Nuclear energy has the potential to solve all the energy needs of human. The nuclear fusion is potentially strong enough to solve the global problem of fossil fuel cost (Sinn 2015). The solar and the wind energy could serve as a good alternative for fossil fuels but the question is- Is it sufficient enough to continue supplying the needed energy in order to continue civilization? Hence, the conservation of them is highly required. The sun and the wind will also be there but the amount of energy is not appropriate enough for powering the planes or the skyscrapers and therefore, the need to opt for the nuclear power arises. Nuclear energy is unlimited. It is a very valuable field of research, which could guarantee ample of clean energy. Nuclear fusion produces large amount of energy without any kind of chemical waste (Cowley 2016). Neither does it create any sort of polluting gas as well. The isotope found in seawater named deuterium powers the nuclear fusion. Deuterium is neither harmful, nor reactive. It is non-poisonous as well. Hence, it is worth expending in the nuclear technology and continues making the use of it without abandoning it.
Supporting the Thesis
Argument: The technology has highly developed ever since the days of Chernobyl and Hiroshima. The nuclear energy can be easily recycled in order to produce alternative fundamentals for additional energy. The nuclear reactors have provided numerous military equipments such as ships, over many years but it is equally worthy in using it in residential equipments as well. It does not emit any kind of harmful gases such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide (Brook and Bradshaw 2015). One gram of uranium provides an amount of energy that is equal to one ton of coal and the waste that the coal supply is much more than one gram of uranium. Therefore, the nuclear energy relates to minimum amount of nuclear waste. In addition to this, the stakes of wastes that are produced from nuclear energy are easily placed in the geological sites, which serve as storages. This ensures only little leaks of the waste products into the biosphere and negligible impact on the atmosphere. The chemical damages such as mercury does not decay but the nuclear energy requires only one to two years in order getting decayed completely. The smoke coming out from the fossil fuels causes environmental pollution and results in acid rain (Stem 2014).
Hence, it should be clear by now that nuclear energy is a better alternative for the global solution to fossil fuels cost, sustainability and the environmental pollution. The above discussion is valid enough to support this statement. Profitably the fossil fuel trumps both the public health and unmatched advantages that accessible from the nuclear energy. The position therefore stands that nuclear energy is the future of our world and that it is the future our continued civilization in the international system. However, the more vital than the nuclear energy is the attainment of an economical and social system in which the human beings or the common people will be able to take that decision. In absence of such system, all energy is a potential weapons that are in hands of the high or the capitalist classes that they will use against the public interest, whether it is nuclear or not.
References
Brook, B.W. and Bradshaw, C.J., 2015. Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 29(3), pp.702-712.
Connolly, D., Lund, H. and Mathiesen, B.V., 2016. Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, pp.1634-1653.
Cowley, S.C., 2016. The quest for fusion power. Nature Physics, 12(5), pp.384-386.
De Groot, J.I., Steg, L. and Poortinga, W., 2013. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33(2), pp.307-317.
Goldenberg, D., Russo, M., Houser, K., Crist, H., Derr, J.B., Walter, V., Warrick, J.I., Sheldon, K.E., Broach, J. and Bann, D.V., 2017. Altered molecular profile in thyroid cancers from patients affected by the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. The Laryngoscope.
Kim, Y., Kim, M. and Kim, W., 2013. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 61, pp.822-828.
Larcher, D. and Tarascon, J.M., 2015. Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy storage. Nature chemistry, 7(1), pp.19-29.
Rana, M.A., 2014. The Chernobyl reactor accident: Some selected facts. African Journal of Engineering Research, 2(1), pp.1-7.
Sinn, H.W., 2015. Introductory Comment–The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side View of the Climate Problem. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(2), pp.239-245.
Stern, A.C. ed., 2014. Fundamentals of air pollution. Elsevier.
Stoutenborough, J.W., Sturgess, S.G. and Vedlitz, A., 2013. Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 62, pp.176-184.
Zinkle, S.J. and Was, G.S., 2013. Materials challenges in nuclear energy. Acta Materialia, 61(3), pp.735-758.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
