Recent Post

Searching...
December 3, 2012

That the United States should continue to invest in nuclear power: Essay


That the United States should continue to invest in nuclear power
United States of America that is the now the gigantic nuclear power of the current world, now facing the challenging issues regarding its nuclear power domain and its related investment. The key catalyst notion that is propagated regarding the nuclear power is the nation safety and the alternate energy source. However, in the perspective of these notions, it should be borne in mind that nuclear power plants are on one side the gigantic generators of massive energy but on the other side these are the linchpins of disaster and deadly radiation, once they exploded or out of control.
There is no need to go back to history and to find the facts and figures about the Chernobyl reactor. Current tsunami disaster in Japan and the helpless gestures of the Japanese officials to cope the nuclear power reactor, that are failed and out of control because of this natural disaster.  This Japanese nuclear disaster that jeopardized not only the Japanese nation but also raised the big question that is nuclear power really the safe alternate for energy or not? ("Fukushima nuke explosion," 2011).
In that connection, the Green Peace expressed the interesting slogan at the occasion of 40th Anniversary of International Atomic Energy Agency by rephrasing as the 40 year of nuclear disaster. By keep citing its argument about the nuclear disaster, Green Peace stated that there are numerous incidents that are the outcome of nuclear reactors disorders but these did not bring in the limelight, furthermore, the Chernobyl reactor’s accident in the Ukraine is the factual evident that these nuclear plants are the catalyst of disaster than to just producing the energy. Because of its heavy cost, highly sensitive infrastructure and the catastrophes, nuclear plant are proved to be as dangerous and dirty choice for power generation ("no.nukes" ). According to the Green Peace “Many countries have now turned their back on nuclear power. In fact, 14 out of the 15 European Union countries either do not have any nuclear reactors, intend to phase out nuclear power, or have no plans to build new reactors in the foreseeable future. While in the United States, it has been 19 years since a nuclear reactor has been ordered, and Canada announced the closure of seven of its reactors for safety reasons in August 1997. However the IAEA continues to try to promote this outdated and dangerous technology, particularly to newly industrializing and developing nations, claiming it will solve all their energy needs. It will not. The few countries that continue to invest in nuclear power, with its environmental and economic problems, will find themselves increasingly disadvantaged by being saddled with such a dangerous financial burden”. ("no.nukes,")
Furthermore, in the perspective of nuclear disaster, the current nuclear accident because of the tsunami in Japan at the place of Fukushima is the another lesson that should be deemed seriously because its reaction could be the far-flung as the sourced is depicting that “As the nuclear crisis plays out in Japan, people on the west coast of the United States are buying up potassium iodide, a chemical that can help prevent radiation accumulation in the event of exposure. On both sides of the Pacific Ocean, they're preparing for the worst.  But the Associated Press has reported that radiation levels, which have been detected dozens of miles from the Fukushima nuclear plant, are still low enough that it would take three years of exposure to raise a person's risk for cancer. That's somewhat comforting, but Matthew McKinzie said that evaluating risk in this scenario is a little more complex than that” (“Reader”).
Therefore, it is the serious question, should US continue to invest in its nuclear plant or not?, In that connection, it should be noticed that there is another side of picture regarding the nuclear power plants, despite their jeopardizing factors and their characteristic to endanger the life and prospects of living things.
This side depicts that the key advantage of using the nuclear plant is its produced energy cost that is comparatively low then to import the fossil fuels. Furthermore, despite the high building cost of nuclear plant, its maintenance cost is very low that is the good sign for American economy because low maintenance cost means the lower tax burden and cheap energy bills for Americans. In economic term, this lower tax is the catalyst to increase the savings and that savings are the key factor of investment, the increasing rate of investment inside the economy is the barometer to gauge the economy performance (D. RICE, & BUTLER).
Furthermore, the nuclear powers are terrain independent and there are no any barrier to lock in geographical boundaries means that the key element that is used in the plants are uranium that is mined globally and easily transferable. Besides, the carbon discharge factor is also very promising and nuclear plants do not produce the carbon wastes ("Japanese nuclear disaster").
After having discussion on the pros and cons of nuclear power reactors, the positive aspect that could be used as supporting the notion to continue to invest in the nuclear power is its efficiency to produce the environment friendly energy (at some extent as describes earlier) with low operation cost but the question is that in Japan that is the developed and tech-savvy nation is totally became the helpless in front of uncontrollable natural catastrophe that not only shaken the whole Japanese nation but also the whole globe ("Reasons not to," 2008).
The alarming fact is that, the nuclear disaster at Fukushima is the outcome of not operating the cooling system of plant because of the power failure, and this failure was the catalyst of another catastrophe after the tsunami. The question is that, are there adequate measures in the USA to face these types of catastrophes. However, it is fact that natural disaster are uncontrollable, therefore, USA should invest in the nuclear domain but solely focus should be on the safety measures because there will be no any use to enjoy the decreased carbon discharge factors, if any type of Japan like catastrophe occurred. 


0 comments:

Post a Comment