Is Nuclear Energy a Good Energy Source?

Hello, debaters.

To draw attention to the nuclear energy debate featured on the forum, I'd like to start the discussion a little. Now, would anybody have something to add to my arguments? Or would you like to start a rebuttal?

____________________________________________

Is Nuclear Energy a Good Energy Source?

What comes to mind when you hear the word nuclear? Do you think of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, the Chernobyl disaster, and weapons of mass destruction? Most people do. Furthermore, those people also think of death and radiation when they hear the words nuclear energy due to inaccurate media hype listing its cons. However, nuclear energy is making its long overdue comeback. I strongly believe that nuclear energy is a safe and effective energy source and will replace coal power plants in the future. For many reasons, nuclear power will benefit our country, as it is drastically better for the environment; it is safe for the health of the public; and it has inexpensive, reliable means of producing energy.

To begin, the amount of pollution produced by fossil fuel power plants is reaching a hazardous level. Coal, gas, and oil burning power plants make up half of America's air pollution and are leading causes of acid rain, smog, global warming, and health-risking air toxins. Coal-based energy powers 39% of the planet despite the fact that, annually, one coal power plant produces 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide, 500 tons of dangerous airborne particles, and 170 pounds of mercury. On the other hand, one nuclear power plant provides a million kilowatts of electricity, produces almost 50 times less waste than a coal power plant, and has a very low chance of causing any deaths, injuries, or illnesses. A very common misconception of nuclear energy is that it is highly radioactive, yet coal power is significantly more radioactive. As a result, a coal power plant emits more radiation than a nuclear power plant. Moreover, the fission of a uranium atom generates 10 million times more energy than the combustion of an atom of carbon from coal. Consequently, nuclear energy requires less natural resources and causes less pollution.

Second, nuclear energy is a safe way to obtain energy despite the common fears of the public. The results of a technical problem can be damaging, but the precautions that prevent one from happening almost eliminate the chances. As a matter of fact, nuclear power is one the safest methods of producing energy. Every year, 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal. In contrast, no Americans have died or have been seriously injured from American nuclear power plants. There are several safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low; to illustrate, numerous thick protective barriers separate most radiation and heat from the outside world. The outer layer, the dome, is designed to withstand extreme natural disasters or even explosions. There are also omnipresent sensors that can detect increases in radiation or humidity. In addition, in the event of a malfunction, there are a number emergency procedures that keep any radiation from leaking outside the plant and trap it within a safe area of the facility.

Lastly, nuclear power plants are one of the safest and most reliable ways to obtain energy. First and foremost, international relations that are difficult to maintain seldom affect the reactors' supply of fuel because uranium is evenly scattered across Earth. To get this uranium, mining is necessary. One disadvantage of uranium mining is that it leaves the residue from the processing of the ore, which leads to radon exposure to the public. On the contrary, mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. The mining of the uranium required to operate a nuclear plant for one year will avoid about 300 deaths. Coal burning leaves ashes that will increase future radon exposure and kill 30 people annually. It is thus safer to use nuclear fuel than to burn coal. According to estimates, fossil fuels will be burned up within fifty years at our current rate of usage. Although, there are large reserves of uranium for nuclear energy that will last hundreds of years, and with breeder reactors, we can supply energy for billions of years.

In conclusion, nuclear energy may be the answer to the world's increasing energy problem. Nuclear energy is of little contribution to pollution; it has barely any effect on the health of the population; and it is reliable and inexpensive. Nuclear energy may in fact be the most certain future source of energy. For now, since "greener" energy is out of our reach, we should turn our heads to nuclear energy to supply our electricity. Although, if we really want to help the environment, we should act by reducing our electricity consumption.