Renewable energy technologies can provide this much more speedily. Producing electricity by nuclear fission represents outdated 20th century technology.
Essay:Arguments against nuclear power
The future of electricity generation is renewable. Renewable sources of energy, especially solar and wind power, are capable of providing cheap, clean and safe electricity much more quickly than newly build nuclear reactors would. The claim that we need atomic energy as part of a mix of power sources is fallacious.
A number of studies have shown that renewables have the potential to provide most if not all of our electricity needs. Press Code We subscribe to the Press Code. E-mail Newsletters You choose what you want. News24 on Android Get the latest from News24 on your Android device. Terms and Conditions This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire News24 News.
Breaking News. In partnership with.
Is it time for nuclear energy for Australia?
Cape Town. Brought to you by:. Inside News Welcome to News Click here to upload your article Click here to upload your photo Click here to upload your video. Most Read. Top Lifestyle. Fitfluencers to follow for inspiration Got two periods in one month? These are all the possible reasons why California bans the sale of fur - here are all the fashion houses that have done the same Here are 5 things to know about Taraji P.
Traffic Alerts. Traffic Kommetjie PM. Cape Town AM. More traffic reports. Browse more Cape Town jobs Register your CV Politics is the opposite - there is little to no choice and while people vote in a market every day, it takes a very long time to get rid of incumbents. If the market had been left alone, free from gov't intervention and special interests who distort the market and turn it into a cesspool of corruption and special favors for the politically connected, we'd have had nuclear power LONG ago and we'd have cleaner air.
We might not even be in the middle east!!!! And then, maybe, our terrorist problems would be gone, or at least squashed to a minimum. But no - thanks to gov't regulations and special favors we remain addicted to oil and coal. This country got rich not through gov't, and NOT through gov't regulation but by free people pursuing their own interests, free of gov't coercion. Free of protectionism for the most part and free from absurd laws that stifle innovation and creativity and motivation. But you would have more of that, more "policy" from our great overseers.
You would drive this country into the poor house with your compassion. Compassion that leads to policies like welfare that keeps voters dependent on the state instead of self sufficient. So it is your assertion that it is better to be dead than poor? I have no idea what you think the direct connection is between keeping people alive and being poor unless it is you unfounded conclusion that the more people we have the more people will be poor.
This is patently absurd and has been shown to be absurd on numerous occasions. By your logic Americans, by the tens of millions, should be dirt poor. But alas, they are not. There is plenty of research and evidence in direct contradiction to this idea that of course has been spewed forth by "intellectuals" for decades, if not centuries, and they have always been shown to be dead wrong.
George April 2, AM. What about Hydro power I'd say it wins hands down. This study is fundamentally flawed in my opininon because it is making a comparison of two evils and chosing the lesser of them Glen April 4, PM. Hydro-electric power is bad for the environment because of how it disrupts fish habitat.
It has other problems as well. It also drowns out vast acreage and endangers those downstream with flooding. And more important, all the good spaces are used up, mostly. Jeremiah Brunkala May 4, PM.
- ANNETTE DOUGLAS TEXTILES!
- FOR nuclear power!
- introduction of interview in essay.
- Evidence for:.
- Critical Response Essay!
Wrong, daming actually decreases the chances of flooding. That was actually one of the original reasons for daming. Lee Thonus August 23, AM. Most hydro-electric dams do not serve a flood control purpose. Most flood control dams do not produce electricity. When a hydro dam fails, the results are much more catastrophic than "normal" flooding from excess rainfall, which happens gradually and can be predicted and responded to. Ask the folk in Johnstown. PA about the floods cause by dam failures.
No warning, thousands of people killed in hours as the wall of water headed downstream. Hayley Dunning April 5, AM. The problem is hydro is not everywhere, not completely reliable and essentially cannot, at present, take on our energy consumption. To do that, many many more dams would have o be built, which comes with their own consequences i. Of course, any energy solution comes with it's own issues e. Well, that's a little tangent, but the point is hydro cannot pick up the slack right now. So we need a transition fuel - something to use instead of fossil fuels while we wait for renewables to be good enough.
Nuclear is likely the best transition fuel we have right now - at least in terms of greenhouse gases, that is. Johnathon April 9, AM. In theory the world needs approximately The risks with nuclear can only be removed by doing it other wise everything else is speculation.
Chris Miller April 20, PM. Disposal wise i know universities and research groups around the world are searching for an answer" Actually, one disposal solution is fourth-generation nuclear. Remember that nearly all nuclear plants around are second-generation nuclear technology, which is relatively inefficient in converting fuel to energy, leaving large amounts of still radioactive byproducts as waste. A third generation includes reactors that use not uranium but thorium, resulting in far less in radioactive actinides left over.
Breeder reactors are actually designed, first of all, to be inherently safe: a failure automatically shuts down the reaction: the design makes a "meltdown" impossible.
More importantly, they are designed to recycle fuel, including any nuclear waste from earlier technologies. And when as much energy as possible has been wrung out of the fuel, what is left over has a half life not of millennia, but mere decades. And unlike the admittedly small danger of plutonium being stolen to make thermonuclear bombs or dirty bombs, the design of fourth generation reactors makes this impossible, and the waste itself is useless for any such purpose.
So the solution to one problem falls naturally out of the solution to another.
Nuclear Power is a Dangerous Waste of Time
Unimportant January 18, AM. In terms of waste, and many of the other problems with nuclear energy, I believe will be shoved with the advent of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. This reactor is uses Thorium - a material currently disposed of by mining companies as waste and three times more abundant that uranium, most of which cannot be used for nuclear energy anyways - and uses it as a fuel. The thorium is dissolved into a liquid salt solution and 'breeded' into uranium. This uranium then reacts and is split.
The biggest advantage of this system is that the fuel is contained in a liquid form, and so it does not need to be removed before it is completely used up, as current reactors have to because if they don't, the fuel rods may crack and release radiation. This allows the fuel to be used up more completely, estimated at about 99 percent even though that is a little optimistic as compared with current uranium's less than one percent.
Allowing the fuel to burn this long also breaks down radioactive wastes that are associated with nuclear energy as well, just to sweeten the deal. The next advantage associated with this reactor type is the safety features. Most reactors today have active safety features which must be switched on to function, such as backup generators in Fukushima, each most likely with a high probability of turning on, but they were wiped out, and so the reactor melted down. The reactor is built with two chambers, one to react in, and one empty one.
Meeting the world’s energy needs
The tube connecting them is plugged with frozen salt, which is kept cool by cooling systems outside of the pipe. If the power is shut off for whatever reason, then the plug melts, and the fuel drains into this drain tank, stopping the reaction. This safety feature will cut the risk of nuclear energy down I'm not exactly sure on this figure from it's already lowest out of any resource The major ones, at least. Of course, I don't know what the death rates for hydro or wind are, but they aren't exactly a feasible resource right now.
Maybe in the future, but not now.
Alex V May 16, PM. Matthew Galvin September 29, AM.
All forms of energy have flaws, and sources like Solar, Hydro and Wind are, in my opinion, the most preferable. But remember, while these may be two evils, there is no way to practically power the modern USA never mind world with them yet, the technology just isn't there. I'm not saying they should stop making them, they should do it more, make them better and better overtime until one day they can takeover. But until then, we need something to give us power.
Related persuasive essay nuclear power plants
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved