Nuclear energy: should we renounce it, or deploy it selectively? Is its non-emission of CO2 make the risk of accident worth considering?
To me, nuclear energy is too dangerous to use on a wide scale or as our nation's main power source. Although the amount of electricity that can be generated from such a small amount of uranium makes it incredibly efficient, the dangers that come with nuclear energy tend to outweigh the benefits. Chernoybyl really scared the world away from nuclear energy and it is not hard to see why. Had that catastrophe gone differently, much of eastern europe would be a hazardous radioactive wasteland and the damage done to the environment would have been much more devastating. It was a miracle many more people didn’t die and they were able to control the situation. Before this no one really knew just how deadly nuclear energy could be and how deadly nuclear energy in the wrong hands can also be.
Seeing as how many nations could not even be trusted with nuclear energy, it doesn’t seem to be the logical choice for energy production globally. Also with renewable energy becoming cheaper and more widespread, the need for nuclear energy is decreasing. Although it does not produce CO2, nuclear waste still exists and will likely exist for thousands of years after being produced, something you do not have to worry about with renewable energy. Nuclear energy is like a cheat code with really bad consequences. Aside from human related accidents, weather is becoming more unpredictable and the risk of something like Fukushima happening is going up. The energy production just isn’t worth the potential environmental toll. As something that is supposed to save the environment it doesn't do much good if it’s polluting our ground and water with radiation. Although the risk of nuclear meltdowns are low, why take that risk when we have so many different renewable energy options. I can understand a situation in which renewable energy somehow isn't an option; then I can see how nuclear energy would be a better fit and still has less of a toll on the environment than fossil fuels, so long as nothing goes wrong. I don’t think the world is responsible enough to handle nuclear energy and it is because of this mistrust that i say nuclear energy is not a viable solution to our energy problems.
Semester total: 20
I absolutely agree with you. The current system is not responsible enough currently to not cause mass extinctions, let alone use literal nuclear power. The cause for Chernobyl was poor management and handling by the government of Ukraine. With the example of the way our government handles crisis such as the current pandemic, I would absolutely not trust our government with that kind of power.
ReplyDelete(Sorry about the unedited mis-wording of that question, glad you grasped its sense anyway.) The appeal of nuclear, of course, is (we want to believe) that it would allow the American lifestyle of perpetual and growing consumerism to continue unabated and uninterrupted... if we could be confident that no serious accidents might occur. We can't.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the world is not responible enough for nuclear energy. You would think that the accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and then Fukushima, that nuclear power would not be seen as a viable option. While overall it's use is declining, TVA brought a second reactor online at their Watts Bar plant in east TN in 2016.
ReplyDeletehttps://slate.com/business/2016/05/america-is-getting-new-nuclear-plants-in-tennessee-and-georgia-we-need-more.html