Views on Nuclear Energy




The use of nuclear energy in the world today is so important that if we woke up tomorrow and the energy of a nuclear reaction vanished from world, then the world would have ceased to exist, such as we know it. The peaceful use of nuclear energy sources is the basis of industrial production and life in countries such as France, Japan, Germany and the UK, the U.S. and Russia. And if the latter two countries are still able to replace nuclear energy for thermal power plants , for France or Japan, it is simply impossible.

The use of nuclear energy poses many challenges. Basically, all these problems are related to the fact that using it to benefit the binding energy of the atomic nucleus (which we call nuclear energy), the person receives a substantial evil in the form of highly radioactive waste that can not be simply thrown away. Waste from nuclear sources of energy is required to process, transport, dispose and store a long time in a safe environment.


Pros and cons, the benefits and harms of the use of nuclear energy

Consider the pros and cons of the use of atomic, nuclear energy, their benefit, harm and importance in the life of Humanity. It is obvious that nuclear power is needed today mostly in the industrialized countries. That is, the primary use of peaceful nuclear energy is mainly in locations such as factories, processing plants, etc.If it is energy-intensive industry, far from sources of cheap electricity (such as hydroelectric power plants ), then they need to involve nuclear power plants in order to strengthen their internal processes.

Agricultural regions and cities too need nuclear energy. It is quite possible to replace the thermal and other stations. It turns out that the acquisition, receipt, development, production and use of nuclear energy for the most part aimed at meeting the needs of our industrial products. Let’s see what kind of production: automotive, military production, metallurgy, chemical industry, oil and gas, etc.

Modern man wants to drive a new car? Wants to dress in fashionable synthetics, synthetic eat and pack everything in synthetics? Wants bright products of different shapes and sizes? Wants all new phones, televisions, computers? Wants to buy a lot, often to change equipment around you? Want to eat delicious food from chemical colored packages? Wants to live in peace? Wants to hear the sweet voice from the telescreen? Wants to have a lot of tanks and missiles and cruisers, and even shells and guns?
And he gets it. Never mind that at the end of the discrepancy between word and deed leads to war. It does not matter that its utilization also need energy. As long as that person is calm. He eats, drinks, walks to work, buys and sells.

And for all of this requires energy. And for that you need a lot of oil, gas, metals, etc. And all of these industrial processes need nuclear energy. Therefore, no matter what they say, as long as there is no mass-produced, the first commercial fusion reactor, nuclear energy will only grow.

The pros of nuclear energy, we can safely write down all the things to which we are accustomed. On the downside – the sad prospect of imminent death in the collapse of the depletion of resources, problems of nuclear waste, population growth and the degradation of arable land. In other words, nuclear power has enabled man to even stronger start to master nature, raping her beyond measure so that he overcame decades threshold reproduction of capital resources, running between 2000 and 2010 the collapse of a consumer. This process is objectively no longer depends on the person.

Everyone would have to eat less, live less and less to enjoy the natural environment. Here lies another plus-minus of nuclear energy, which is that the countries that have mastered the atom can better redistribute themselves under increasingly scarce resources of those who has not mastered the atom. Moreover, only the development of nuclear fusion program will allow humanity to survive elementary.


Here are the views of some experts in this field,regarding the nuclear power:

According to Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, “More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions—or nearly 10 percent of global emissions. Of which, CO2 is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for climate change.” Nuclear energy is a cost-effective method that can supply power to meet our growing demand. In 2004, the average cost to produce nuclear energy was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour. There are currently more than 103 nuclear power plants in the United States. When it comes down to it, coal causes more harm than nuclear power. With development underway and lessons learned from the Japanese meltdowns, we are learning ways to make these plants tremendously safer. However, the comfortable relationship between our government and big oil companies has been a large impediment to the wide-spread use of nuclear power, a trend that will hopefully reverse, in spite of Japan’s recent tragedy. .

“We already have an energy source that is relatively cheap to use and that produces less environmental and public health impact than fossil fuels. That source is nuclear energy.” In the following viewpoint, Mario Salazar,an environmental engineer and a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency, argues that the dangers of nuclear power have been greatly exaggerated while those of other energy sources have been downplayed. Using a gas leak accident in Bhopal, India, as an example, he maintains that far fewer people have been harmed by the nuclear industry than by other industries and energy sources. Disaster scenarios, he says, do not acknowledge that, like all other energy sources, nuclear power is relatively safe and environmentally viable, given its low-carbon emissions. In addition, Salazar contends that using breeder reactors rather than traditional reactors is a potential solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal.

The world’s leading spokesperson for the anti-nuclear movement, Dr. Helen Caldicott is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and the recipient of the 2003 Lannan Prize for Cultural Freedom. Helen Caldicott’s look at the actual costs and environmental consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear industry propaganda. Caldicott “reveals truths,” Martin Sheen has said, “that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make a difference.” In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there’s simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long-term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits. There are alternative sustainable energy sources that are the key to a clean, green future.

Areva, the French nuclear plant operator, for example, offers that 70 percent of the cost of a kWh of nuclear electricity is accounted for by the fixed costs from the construction process. In the forward to the book, Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Studies at the University of Greenwich in the UK, states that “the economic realities of rapidly escalating costs and insurmountable financing problems… will mean that the much-hyped nuclear renaissance will one day be remembered as just another ‘nuclear myth’.”


New York Times’ Matthew L. Wald analyzes the argument put forth in the “Doomsday Machine” book that “even if global warming science was not explicitly invented by the nuclear lobby, the science could hardly suit the lobby better”. He comments, “In fact, the nuclear industry continues to argue that in the United States it is by far the largest source of zero-carbon energy, and recently began a campaign of upbeat ads to improve its image.” Finding the claim that “In almost every country — usually for reasons completely unrelated to its ability to deliver electricity — there is almost universal political support for nuclear power” is “probably an exaggeration” in the case of Japan post-Fukushima and Germany, Wald agrees that “two countries with enormous demand for electricity and not much hand-wringing over global warming, are planning huge reactor construction projects”. Wald notes that, even in Japan, the “catastrophe plays in some quarters as a reason to build new reactors”.



Mark Lynas, Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, says “there is a tremendous amount of misinformation about nuclear out there. There are books and papers galore that appear to be credible citing all the reasons nuclear is a bad idea. I could probably spend the rest of my life investigating them all. Those reports that have been brought to my attention I’ve looked into and, after a fair amount of effort, found them not to be persuasive. Did you know that there is more than 100 times more radiation from a typical coal plant than a nuclear plant, yet the nuclear plant is perceived by the public to be a radiation hazard.”



Dr. William O. Beeman , Brown University’s Middle East Studies program professor, who spent years in Iran, says that the Iranian nuclear issue which recently had been very frequent in media, is a unified point of their political discussion: “The Iranian side of the discourse is that they want to be known and seen as a modern, developing state with a modern, developing industrial base. The history of relations between Iran and the West for the last hundred years has included Iran’s developing various kinds of industrial and technological advances to prove to themselves—and to attempt to prove to the world—that they are, in fact, that kind of country.”


Leave A Reply