Nuclear energy is our next topic, which was suggested by Archit. Your colleague had the following questions related to the topic in mind when choosing this topic: whether or not we should promote nuclear energy considering the past incidents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, countries, after gaining access to nuclear energy, might use them for destructive purposes. Therefore, is it safe to promote nuclear energy or should we look for other alternatives like hydro power?
In order to form a knowledgeable opinion on this topic, Archit selected the following excellent articles for you to read:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128,
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2252&issue_id=54, and
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/nuclear-weapons.html.
You have until next Wednesday, November 12 to read the articles (I would like to discuss this topic through as well during our discussion meeting), and until Friday, November 14, to create your wordlist and post your comment.
Thanks, and take care,
Kinga
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Nuclear energy is a very efficient form of energy compared with traditional forms and fossil fuels. As much advantages as it has over other energy forms, it also has its disadvantages. The advantages according to the articles are that it is cheap, produces immense power outputs, and is environmentally clean. The disadvantages mentioned in the article include that it is a sustainable energy source and dangerous. The articles fail to explain each advantage/disadvantage in detail, and thus falsely lead you to believe that nuclear energy absolutely right. But, it is not, not really…
The article demonstrates that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, right? Not really, the article fails to mention a lot of disadvantages: a) Nuclear waste is really hard to dispose and even properly disposed of, contaminates the earth, b) it requires a lot of manpower and energy to power, thus it is not “that much” cheaper than conventional fossil fuels, not to mention that a “2nd generation” reactor is easily worth 4 billion dollars and an additional 200million yearly operational costs which equal roughly thirty six million barrels of oil, which equals roughly about 4 million oil barrels saved comparing power output. This data clearly portrays that “yes,” nuclear energy is cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels but clearly, not that “much” to make it the perfect energy source.
However, the disadvantages above are not the main disadvantages: the main one is that plutonium, uranium and cadmium are rare elements needed to power the nuclear reactors. Current estimates show that these materials will be depleted nearing the end of the century with current consumption rates and thus why invest on expensive plants when the materials to power them won’t be around for long? Another main advantage is the danger nuclear plant represents: a) the number one type of danger is sabotage, nuclear energy plants are easy targets to cause a major devastation force by terrorists or any unhappy group of people, b) nuclear reactor overheating is rare with current technology, but Chernobyl is a great example of what can go wrong. Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded in 1986 in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus border directly killing 116 people, infecting ½ million people with fallout effects and indirectly increasing cancer rates by 22% on the contaminated zones. So when the article says that nuclear energy is perfect for developing nations, I say “if a world power was unable to correctly handle a nuclear plant, how do we expect unorganized & undeveloped countries to not make the same mistake.
Nuclear energy is great because industrial nations do not have to depend on energy imports to keep up their industrial output, but its negative effects outweigh its positive effects. Maybe, the third generation reactor currently being jointly developed by Germany and France promises enough improvements on efficiency, safety and eco friendliness that might make me lean more towards nuclear energy. But for the time being, solar photovoltaic energy seems to be my preferred energy source.
I am for promoting nuclear energy. While reading these sources, I enjoyed the answers of Peter Hodgson, a nuclear physicist. Finding ways of satisfying our energy needs is such an urgent problem that we must consider all possible sources. We have to take into consideration not only how rich we are now, but worry about the next generation. We are living in a special period in human history when oil, gas and coal are readily available. At present rates of consumption, the oil and gas will be gone in less than 100 years, and coal in about 200-300 years. Fossil-fuel burning will then cease and alternatives will have to be found. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we not only pollute the Earth and initiate global warming, we also deprive future generations of these valuable materials. Would it not be better to solve these problems now, using nuclear power, instead of waiting until it is too late?
Nuclear power is a well tried and reliable source. Ofcourse we dont know what will happen in future, how politics will affect the science and nuclear energy. I am against nuclear weapons! I am for nuclear energy, as an energy source. For instance one can kill someone with a knife, but at the same time one can save someone's life by using the same knife. It is like nuclear energy, it depends on what is our target. Nuclear weapon is horrible, it definitely must not be used evermore! But nuclear power is a safe source of energy, and we shall use it.
Nuclear energy sure has its tremendous benefits to us, as it is already having a huge impact upon international relations. However, I still doubt that mishandling nuclear power would lead to result that we could never imagine.
It was like a miracle that Einstein discovered that the energy an object contained/ locked within it is so enormous that it equals to its mass times the square of the speed of light. Unlocking the energy and developing nuclear power/weapons was another story. However, personally, I believe that we could not fully understand this huge power the nature/ god granted us that is built in ourselves as well as our surroundings. Therefore, I don’t suggest doing things that we don’t have a fully understand of. If we can’t cure or explain how the nuclear radiation would defect human beings, why would we take that risk.
I believe promoting nuclear energy is a great idea. The global environment has been suffering nonstop because of exploiting natural resources, creating harmful gases and then burning them, causing immense pollution. It's time for a change in the commonly known, pollution-creating energy sources. At least time to try the energy source commonly known and used in many demanding countries, like France and U.K.
Yes, nuclear energy can be dangerous, as their have been several harmful explosions in the past. It also creates wastes and can cause pollution. Also, the fact that people can use this energy in negative ways, to create mass-destruction nuclear bombs, leads to fear of such a powerful source. But living in fear will not allow us to move forward and improve the current economic crisis. Being more efficient than conventional energy, it's proven to be of great success in these countries. Why can't we take advantage of this source as well?
I do believe we can find a better, less contaminating, and maybe even more efficient energy source, but until then, nuclear energy should be taken into serious consideration.
I think nuclear energy is great source of energy as it is one of the most efficient sources of energy that has been discovered so far. One of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas. They will last quite a while but will probably run out or become harmful in tens to hundreds of years. Solar energy will also work but is not much developed yet except for special applications because of its high cost. This high cost as a main source, e.g. for central station electricity, is likely to continue, and nuclear energy is likely to remain cheaper. A major advantage of nuclear energy (and also of solar energy) is that it doesn't put carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. How much of an advantage depends on how bad the CO2 problem turns out to be.
Nuclear energy is undoubtedly the most efficient source of energy discovered so far. Most of the earlier sources of energy like coal and petroleum are depleting very fast and hence there is a dire need to find new sources of energy. Considering the increasing need for a source of energy that will serve the world after coal and petroleum reserves run out, there is no point in discouraging the use of nuclear energy.
Although, the dangerous consequences of nuclear energy can't be ignored, discouraging its use especially when it can solve the biggest problem the world is facing now, is definitely not a good idea.
The rate at which we are currently using the fossil fuels will finish all the reserves within the next 70-80 years. What will happen next?
Are we going to live without fuel?
Our needs are obviously going to increase. I think that this is the time to use nuclear energy so that we don't feel handicapped in the future. In the meantime we must try finding out new and better forms of energy.
Even though nuclear energy has some disadvantages, such as dangerous nuclear waste products, there is no doubt it is one of the most important energy sources in the present. It is powerful, reliable, environmental friendly, and most of all, cost effective. However, as the other limitedness fossil fuels, nuclear is not a boundless energy source. To generate nuclear energy, elements as plutonium and uranium must be keep requiring. Unfortunately, these elements are pretty rare, and resent report said these elements will be depleted in a century; or less than a century with the rapidly increasing amount of energy consumption.
The current assignment for the human being is to find alternative next generation energy source, which is more reliable and cost effective than the nuclear energy. Many other energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydrogen, were suggested, but currently none of them can replace the nuclear energy. Some of them have technical issues to overcome. The others need to be improved their efficiency. Till then, human being will keep depending on nuclear energy.
Nuclear Power is a very useful resources, and as a high technology, it always has two sides for people. So what we should pay attention on is how to use this energy. In my point of view, we should promote this energy though it is also dangerous if it is used illegally. We shouldnot giveup doing things which is dangerous. In fact, most of things in our life has danger, as a child, even walking is dangerous. But when I child manage to walk skillful, walking is no longer a dangerous thing for him/her. Similar to the nuclear issue, what we should pay more attention to is to enhance our ability of handling nuclear power. But diffculty also exists, while trying to make nuclear power more reliable , we should not stop our steps finding other controllable form of energy.
There is no certain conclusion that nuclear energy is good or bad. Like a coin has two sides, of course, as a advanced tecnology, nuclear energy, produce tremendous power in energy markets. Energy markets in the industrial countries are maturing, and may even peak and decline with continued improvements in energy efficiency. So nuclear energy cannot be avoid.
On another side, nuclear energy is not so perfect. Only some big countries control it. But in some developing countries, where billions of people have hardly enough energy to survive. People worry about nuclear weapons that the vast destructive power of nuclear weapons makes a mockery of efforts. So i think nuclar energy itself has no dangerous effort. It is important at the way how people use it. To avoid the abuse of nuclear energy may be the safety way we can do now.
Nuclear energy is powerful in a constructive way and a destructive way. And as long as it is used in good use, there is no problem. There are many ways to keep a country or an organization which tries to use Nuclear energy in a bad use. The first one is making international organization that controls trade of Uranium. With this organization working properly, providing Uranium to each country and making sure all of uranium is used in energy production. The second solution would be using satellite. The production line of the nuclear bomb, cannot be very small. Since we have technology to watch over everything on the surface of the earth, it is possible to prevent the production of nuclear bombs beforehand. Since Nuclear energy, which has potential to be dangerous, is effective to solve the problem of rising energy cost, then we just have to think of ways to make sure it is not used in destructive use.
The discussion and debate about nuclear energy has never stopped since the very first time it was invented half a century ago. Without any doubt, nuclear energy is the most efficient method we had for commercial use right now. It's property of high production and less pollution than the fossil fuel makes it more and more popular nowadays. However, the excess pollution of inappropriate processing of nuclear power and the abuse of it with military purpose were the most threats everybody are facing.
Considering those threaten, some people may get a conclusion that we should abandon, or limit at least, the use of nuclear power. From my point of view, this consideration was unacceptable, but not necessary. First of all, using nuclear power to produce electricity is a mature technology. The tragedy of Chernobyl nuclear reactor explosion was s accident, just like air crash. We do not abandon airplanes due to air crash, why do we do that to nuclear power? Secondly, as long as the human race exists, the war cannot be eliminated, if the use of nuclear weapons were banned completely, some day people will invent other powerful weapons as well. So, it is not the nuclear power we should blame to the decimation, it is the people or political force that use it as a military tool.
Nuclear energy is a new kind of resources with the advantage of environmental protection and highly active which we should use to release the fuel shortage. And we should abolish using it because we, as most experts said, can not control it. Actually there is no resources we can keep it under control. Fire for example, a natural resource which we had been used for over million years, but when it causes disaster we cannot stop it at once. we use natural gas to make our dinner, we can also use it to blew up our neighbors’ house. But no one had been stopped us using the stove to stewing soup or baking cake. Thus when we talk about nuclear energy, we should pay more attention on it virtue. Nuclear energy is not equal to nuclear weapons, we can use this energy to bring benefit to human without destroy the planet Earth.
Post a Comment