Debate: Nuclear Power

1. I think nuclear power is only option to meet the rapidly growing energy demands with the growth of technology and population.
2. It is environmentally friendly as it fights global warming.
3. It posses no radiation effect on nuclear workers or nearby residents due to multilayer protection shield.
4. A proper Treatment of the radioactive waste minimizes the radiation issue.
5. Accidental history is negligible as compared to hydro power.

 According to a study, today more than 15% of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear power. The world energy demand is projected to grow by 50% by 2030. To meet the short-term demand, the use of coal and other fossil fuels will increases time to time and obviously pollution will also increases but if we use the nuclear power to complete this demand then it cuts the emission of CO2 and fights global warming.

According to a survey 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other sources. According to U.S. department of energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars. So nuclear power dramatically cuts emissions and fights global warming which is the major problem in today’s contrast.

As momentarily I told global warming is the major problem to be overcome. The main reason of global warming is the emission of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide and mercury by various power generating process/forms. On the other hand most proponents of nuclear energy say that as under normal generating conditions nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2 and NO2, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants directly which fights global-warming.

In 2008, the economist stated that “nuclear reactors are the only and only one proven way to make carbon-dioxide free electricity in large and reliable quantities.” Many experts and environmentalists, now believe that expanded nuclear generation is only way to reduce green house gas emissions which providing for current and future electricity needs.

Proponents of nuclear power argue that in comparison to any other form of power, nuclear power is the safest form of energy, accounting for all the risks from mining to production to storage. Accidents in nuclear industry have been less damaging than accidents in hydro industry.

According to a survey report of world nuclear association coal plants release more radioactive substances into the environment than nuclear plants, through the release of Thorium and Uranium in coal ash.

According to another report of world nuclear association if we make a comparison list of deaths from accidents in source of different forms of energy production, we get very surprising results.

According this comparison, deaths per Tera-Watt-Year of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydro power, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and only 8 for nuclear. It means nuclear power is the safest energy.

Now a major concern is what the long term effects of living near or working in a nuclear power station are. These concerns typically stay centered around the risks of cancer. But against ones expiation, many studies conducted by non-profit agencies have found no compelling evidence of correlation between nuclear power and risk of cancer.

In 2000 the University of Pittsburgh found no link to heightened cancer deaths in people living within 5 miles of plant at the time of the Three Mile Island accident. In the same year, the Illinois Public Health Department found no statistical abnormality of childhood cancers in counties with nuclear plants.

In 2001 the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering confirmed that radiation emissions were negligibly low at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.

And three other studies give the favor to the results obtained previously. So according to these studies we may construct a positive mind frame against the fear of nuclear power.

Now if we talk about safety concern the modern nuclear safety measures and technologies effectively eliminate the risk of nuclear disasters. We can put the success story of three-mile-island as an example. Its concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do as prevent radiation from escaping into the environment and there was no injury and death among nuclear workers or nearby residents.

If we take the safety record at a glance the Chernobyl was only accident that injured the public out of the many hundreds of reactor years of experience.

Now the next concern is about the treatment of the radioactive waste. As a latest technology a plasma torch, hotter than the surface of sun works on the principle of breaking down dangerous compound to safer basic elements. It is being developed with the prospect of being used to break-down radioactive nuclear waste and finally diffuse it.

And now the last and very sensitive concern related to nuclear power is terrorist threat. According to the safety measures the terrorist threat to nuclear facilities is manageable as nuclear facilities are designed to withstand terrorist attacks. The six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the nuclear contents from the outside as well as inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. Due to the multiple layer protection nuclear facilities are less vulnerable to terrorists than other targets as liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets.

So if we use the nuclear power as a fair option of energy it will never destroy the world. In contrary it dramatically cuts emissions and fights global warming.

Now on the basis of given fact, study and survey reports and multilayer safety measures we have to give it a strong favor for a better future. Now is your decision what your opt.

                                                                             All the best...