I think that nuclear energy could be a good temporary source of energy, but I don’t think that it could be a viable long term solution. At the moment, nuclear energy is needed if we have any hope of reaching net zero emissions. However, although nuclear energy doesn’t not produce a significant amount of emission, it still produces radioactive waste. If the world begins to rely on nuclear energy, then I think that the waste will definitely cause problems in the long-term. Furthermore, I think that there is also a substantial ethical issue on where nuclear power plants should be built. The disasters in Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that nuclear plants can be very dangerous, and the people surrounding these plants are at risk. Nuclear energy may become a better option if scientists can better ensure the safety of people living near plants.
Month: October 2021 (page 1 of 3)
Nuclear energy could potentially be very useful because of how powerful the infrastructure is, so it would be a robust enough energy source to supply energy to large areas. However, the byproducts of creating nuclear energy can be very harmful to surrounding environments if it is not disposed of properly. The current method of disposal is typically putting the waste products in big steel containers. However, this method is temporary because if these containers leak, it can be detrimental to the surrounding ecosystem.
My knowledge about nuclear energy is not extensive by any means. However, in today’s world, we are stuck between choosing nuclear or carbon-heavy fossil fules. I know that there are risks that go with nuclear energy, but it can also be an affordable way to make green energy happen quick. The consequences of not switching to nuclear far outweigh the risk. In my opinion, it is vital that we use nuclear energy so that the transition to carbon-free energy happens fast.
With my limited understanding of nuclear energy, I believe it to be good. This is because it appears to be carbon neutral. Furthermore, Europe uses it to supply lots of its power carbon-free, and they rarely, if ever, have safety issues. Nuclear is a great transitional energy that can be used now to prevent emissions while the costs of other renewable sources can be researched and reduced in price. Nuclear energy is also still relatively undeveloped. Its actual efficiency and potential have yet to be discovered and one day could power the world if given the time of day and research. Nuclear is one of the only affordable carbon-neutral sources of power the world has today and needs to be expanded upon.
I personally do not know a lot of information about nuclear energy off the top of my head. I do know that nuclear energy is a renewable source of energy. I also know that nuclear energy has the potential to be very dangerous. However, after doing more research on nuclear energy I found out that nuclear energy is formed by splitting uranium or plutonium atoms through chain reactions in a nuclear reactor by a process called ‘nuclear fission’. From this process, the energy released from splitting the atoms is used to heat water into steam. This steam then turns a turbine, which creates usable electricity. I also found it very interesting that nuclear energy is relatively cheap after the initial fairly high cost of building the nuclear power plant. Nuclear energy does not really have high operating costs. Also, nuclear energy does not produce any carbon emissions. I found an interesting statistic that nuclear electricity production prevents 528 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere annually. Overall, nuclear energy seems like a good renewable energy source, but I do know that nuclear energy is one of the most controversial energy sources we have, so it is important to think about the potential risks associated with nuclear power.
The different source I’ve read about nuclear energy indicates that it’s really expensive. It also explains that the energy obtained from a nuclear charge has a low carbon emission which is what we need for our environment at these hectic time. In definition a nuclear energy is the energy released when the nucleus of an atom is broken in the process of nuclear fission. These nuclear fission is controlled by a series of machine called nuclear reactor power plant. The fuel used in the reactor is pellets of the element uranium. The uranium in the reactor is forced to break apart on the process releasing the fission product. The fission starts the chain reaction which creates heat. The heat then warms up the cooling agent, since it’s an exothermic reaction it releases steam. Thus these released steam is what turns the turbine or drives the generator that creates electricity(nuclear energy).
I, like a lot of people, don’t know much about nuclear energy. I’ve heard arguments for nuclear energy and that’s the only way that will allow for a smooth and reliable transition towards sustainable energy consumption. However, I’ve also heard that nuclear energy isn’t that sustainable and that it is only a little less harmful than gas with lots of issues of its own. Nuclear energy has to be released from an atom, but there are huge amounts of energy. European nations like Lithuania, France, and Slovakia obtain most of their energy from nuclear energy. They also do not pollute the air with greenhouse gases, which many people want to check off their boxes in moving towards a more sustainable future. We have already established that wind and solar will not generate enough electricity for the world, but nuclear energy might get us to a more sustainable future faster.
Personally, I don’t know too much about nuclear energy. I think the idea is good, but I would have to know more. After doing a bit of research, I found that while nuclear energy is renewable itself, some materials used in nuclear power plants are nonrenewable. Uranium is the main material in nuclear energy plants that is unsustainable. One of the downsides of Uranium is that it can become highly radioactive and hazardous to human health. In addition, nuclear power plants are quite costly, and they can cause major damage if a meltdown occurs (Chernobyl). These things make nuclear power plants a risky option. Overall, I think that keeping people away from using fossil fuels will be difficult. While fossil fuels are convenient and plentiful, we can’t rely on them due to their effects on the climate. Not enough people are aware of the environmental impacts that will come as a result of this. Nuclear power is one potential alternative to the issue of nuclear power. There would need to be other ways in which nuclear energy could be used that don’t require Uranium or other harmful resources.
Through my current understanding, I believe that nuclear power is an underrated clean and sustainable source of energy. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce any carbon emissions, making it a viable sustainable source. However, many accidents have happened in the past that put a negative spotlight on nuclear energy, and for good reason, as they have been disastrous events. Many people are quick to condemn nuclear energy and cite these events, but what is overlooked most of the time is that they are a result of human error. With industries converting to autonomous work and cutting down on workers, it would also eliminate human error in operation. Nuclear power plant jobs involve many people doing specific roles, and this can easily be adapted to robotic machines fulfilling human tasks with no chance of dangerous mistakes. I believe that nuclear energy is viable for the future because it’s an efficient power source that produces zero emissions. If the nuclear operations field is autonomized, it would allow for completely safe operation of plants and the manufacturing of nuclear energy.
The news source I chose was Vice. The reason I chose this was that in high school my Environmental Engineering teacher consistently referred to their articles when it came to learning about current environmental events and analyzing environmental issues. Hence, I wanted to have a better understanding of the possible reasons why my teacher specifically used Vice the most when it came to learning about environmental issues. When investigating the bias of Vice, I learned that they are principally focused on a progressive liberal perspective that’s left-centered. Likewise, I learned that they tend to have an anti-Trump tone interwoven within their news writing. This can be seen even after Trump was no longer president in one of their most recent articles called, Doctors Are Injecting Bleach to Treat COVID in Bolivia. Yet, overall they are ranked as “mostly factual” because when it came to Vice’s fact-checking that was a sector in which they failed, according to the media bias website. Further, when investigating more about Vice, I was surprised to learn that they were accused of sexual harassment and misconduct of their female employees. Assuming that Vice principally supports liberal causes, as it was highlighted on the media bias website, I recall in the past reading some of their articles that seemed to have disapproved of the issue of sexual harassment and misconduct of women in the workplace. However, for this to be happening in their offices astonishes me as I thought these would be issues they would try to prevent in their own workplaces.