• Nuclear energy benefits may seem like a step towards a better energy future but they are not in reality


• Radioactive waste can carry risks for centuries or longer, and using this material can not be done in a completely safe manner


• The potential for weapon use and environmental damage outweighs any nuclear energy benefits

There is an ongoing nuclear energy benefits debate, and there are many people on either side of the issue. Whether it is safe to use this type of power plant is the source of debate, as well as just how green and environmentally friendly this type of facility can be. With global warming becoming worse and the effects on the earth becoming more severe, the discussion over alternative energy sources which are safe and renewable without causing environmental harm is heating up. Nuclear energy benefits are available, because a small amount of material can create a lot of electricity, but these facilities can not provide fuel or other types of energy that is needed around the world, making the benefits limited with this type of power plant. A substantial amount of water is needed for the transfer of heat, and the process is not the most efficient. This can lead to water waste, and does not make effective use of all the materials in the process.

Another of the nuclear energy benefits is that the greenhouse gas emissions present from coal power plants, and other types which use fossil fuel, are not present in nuclear power plants. The disadvantages of this type of energy plant are also numerous as well though, and definitely outweigh the benefits involved when the pros and cons are carefully evaluated. This is because the danger that can be present with radioactive material is enormous. A malfunction at the facility or during the fission process can have devastating consequences. Look at Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in Russia. Some radioactive material may stay that way for thousands of years, or even longer. A small amount of nuclear waste can have a very large impact on vast amounts of the world, and a big enough reaction at a facility could destroy the world and everything on it. Just because greenhouse gases are not emitted does not mean that this power generation process is safer than other methods available. Nuclear waste is produced, which can last far longer than other harmful waste products.

No matter what nuclear energy benefits these power plants may offer, the drawbacks are too enormous to even consider nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuel use. One of the biggest threats to safety when it comes to this type of power generation is the weapons of mass destruction potential that nuclear waste has. Terrorists and third world dictators pose the biggest threats, because these groups could sneak in and take over the nuclear reactors, with the potential for widespread contamination, destruction, and death. Surprise inspections at these power plants have turned up security problems time and time again. When the consequences of a mistake or intentional misuse could affect thousands or millions of people, and wide areas of the world if not the entire planet, these risks greatly outweigh any nuclear energy benefits that may be had. There are too many ways that this type of energy generation could be used to damage the environment and the population of the earth, as well as destroy the earth. There are many other alternative renewable energy sources that can be utilized, which do not carry these very serious risks and dangers. Trying to generate power by taking advantage of nuclear energy benefits would put everyone in the world at risk. It is not possible to completely secure these facilities and prevent any mistakes from being made. Fossil fuel dependence must be eliminated, but not at the high risks that nuclear power generation poses. The future of power may be a number of different alternative sources, but nuclear power does not play a role because it is not safe or friendly to the environment.

3 Responses to “Nuclear Energy Benefits Debate: Safe or Not?”

1. 1
   MBA Templates Says:
   

   Wonderfully engaging article that is right to the point with a lot of great suggestions.

   September 7th, 2010 at 9:04 am
2. 2
   Red Craig Says:
   

   You describe this as a debate, but it isn’t a debate at all. It merely is a recitation of anti-nuke misrepresentations, without any attribution. For facts about nuclear energy, please look at “The Case for Nuclear Energy”. Then you can have a real debate.

   I can respect your support of renewable energy. In truth, it will take all the renewable energy we can manage, all the nuclear plants we can build, and more conservation than anyone wants to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. To spread misinformation about nuclear energy because you see it as a competitor against your favorite energy sources is misguided.

   June 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
3. 3
   anon Says:
   

   The threat from a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant is far less than scores of other targets.

   You have to get over those horrible cold war movies. Radiation is not some mystical dark magic that kills anyone it comes in contact with, it is a dose related phenomenon. Even with Chernobyl, for instance, only a few dozen deaths were proven from the contamination, despite years and years of environmentalists trying to add every cancer death they possibly could to the total.

   The nuclear threat, like the terrorist threat, is overblown by people that demand your obedience. All you need to free yourself is to apply evidenced based thinking to issues that you are told never to do so with. One of those things is the dangers of radioactive contamination.

   June 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

You Can Use This Form to Leave Your Feedback or Ask Additional Question

You must be logged in to post a comment.