Attention Governments! Nuclear power is not the solution


EAP2, Writer’s Workshop
February 23, 2007


Outline


Attention Governments! Nuclear power is no the solution

Thesis: Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
I. Introduction
A. The world depends on nuclear power.
B. Disadvantages of nuclear power.
C. Thesis: Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
II. Background:
A. What is Uranium?
B. Nuclear power caused cold war between countries.
C. Competition between countries about who will build more nuclear power plants.
III. Main Arguments:
A. Nuclear power is dangerous and it can cause health problems for human and can cause environmental problems.
1. Cause cancer and disease.
2. Radiation can spread thousands miles.
3. The diseases may be in long term.
B. Is nuclear power plants are very expensive.
1. Expensive to build.
2. Save money if the governments did not use it.
3. Nuclear power is nonrenewable source.
C. Nuclear power takes long time we need to build one nuclear energy plant.
1. 20 year and still not secure.
2. Governments are continuing nuclear tests and the results are negative.
IV. Conclusion
A. Three reason to stop it.
B. Government should care more about this issue and they should stop it.





Abstract
The topic of this paper is nuclear power. It argues that nuclear power should not be used as alternative energy source and should not be supported. There are three reasons for this argument. The first one is nuclear power very dangerous for human being, and the second one is nuclear power is very expensive. Finally, nuclear power plant takes long time to build.



Nuclear power

About 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power. All the energy in the world depends in these percent. However, there are a lot of disadvantages of nuclear power. In "Nuclear power is dangerous. Expensive even outdated. There are much more modern energy sources" Rifkin (2006) says that " with a minimum price tag of 2 billion each, new generation nuclear power plants are 50 percent more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants" (para 3). The author mentions here about how nuclear power plants are expensive, but is this just the only disadvantage of nuclear power? Of course no because there are a lot of disadvantages that nuclear power should not considered as alterative energy source because it is very dangerous to human body and for the environment, also it is too expensive to extract and make useful power from nuclear energy. Finally, it takes long time to build nuclear power plant and this time is waste. Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.

Scientists discovered before 20 years ago about new power, huge amount of power, they found a significant constituent called Uranium, which is formed in stars. Old stars before thousands of years ago exploded, then the dust and the rest of these shattered became together and this formed our planet, the Earth. Now days, all the world become interesting to these power and the Uranium became an important constituent and most find and use. In addition, there is a cold war now between countries about nuclear power plants. United Stats refuse Russia and Iran to build nuclear power plants because they use it for nuclear bomb. In fact, in "could nuclear power give coal a challenge" the author tell us "Russia plans to build more than fifty new nuclear power plants and china plans to add between 20 to 30 new plants by 2020" (Energy Publishing, 2007, Para 13). So the danger from this power it is possible to use it to make nuclear bomb.

First, nuclear power is dangerous and it can cause health problems for human and can cause environmental problems. If the explosion happened accidentally the radiation can spread three thousands mile, it is like the whole Australia. Moreover, it changes our environment. For example, Goodman (2006) says that "The revival of interest in nuclear energy is linked directly to concern about global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide…" (para 7). Goodman shows here how can nuclear power effect the environment and be the main cause for global warming. According to Gilbert (2006) says "global warming is among the most pressing concern. It's estimated that a three fold expansion of nuclear power worldwide by 2050 could contribute significantly to preventing climate change. An expansion of nuclear power on that scale would avoid 1 billion to 2 billion tons of carbon emission annually"
In addition, it can be dangerous to human body in many ways and it can cause long term diseases. Until now the scientists did not safe way to transfer. According to Rifkin (2006) " 60 years into nuclear era, our scientists still don’t know how to safety transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste" (para 4). In conclusion, the danger in nuclear power can effect our exists and our environment so we should not use nuclear power as source of energy.

The second reasons that should not use nuclear power as energy source is nuclear power plants are very expensive. To build one nuclear power plant we need to spend 2 billion. According to Elston (2007) said that " In Ontario, the McGuinty government has committed more that $40 billion for nuclear construction and the refurbishing of the province's existing fleet of aging reactors" (para 2). We can use this money on many other things that can benefit us. For example, we can invest other type of energy like Biomass, Natural gas or Solar-hydrogen because it is cheaper, renewable sources and not toxic. In conclusion, the high amount of money we use it to built nuclear energy we need to use it in other things that can use as good source in energy.

The third reason is the long time we need to build one nuclear energy plant. More than 20 years and until now they could not build nuclear power plant 100 percent safe. According to Rifkin (2006) "In the United State, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material."(para 4). So they tried to make it safety as much as they can and they depend on the long term but it still perilously. Also, it is waste time which is should be used to do for another things like build more sources like hydro power, and it take much less time than nuclear power. In conclusion, the time is very important, rather than waste time on testing new things like nuclear power plants we should build new plant that depend on other sources like hydro power, wind, coal and solar. Governments are continuing nuclear tests and the results are negative. They need to look for the real solutions which are in other resources.

The opponent of using nuclear power as alterative energy source says that the energy we got from this source is much more than any another source and this will help the world to used more energy. Unfortunately, the energy we get from nuclear power is huge, but we get it after many levels. For example, extracting Uranium from the earth waste heat and this heat is so important to keep the constituent crude and useful, but when Uranium transfer to nuclear plant will be a high percentage of that heat gone. In addition, anytime uranium divided in wrong way the operation will fail. So it needs high quality of machines and experts should be very intelligent. So any defects will ruin the process. In conclusion, the huge amount of energy we get from nuclear power will help the industry, but the process to this energy require containing a lot of problems not solved yet.
In conclusion, nuclear power should not be used as alterative energy source. We need to keep the world save from any danger and nuclear power is one of the causes of these dangers. Money we spend to build nuclear power should be used to build other sources of energy. The world is moving fast in the revolution and we do not need to waste any time. Nuclear power is taking a long time in build and process. The author try to show how nuclear power is will help the revolution and industry and this is good. However, what is the point if we have good industry and bad environment? Government should care more about this issue because the industry would to complete the nuclear power projects. In the same time we will lose the environment and we will cause a lot of dangers in this world.




Reference:
Rifkin, J. (2006). Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive, even outdated. There are much more modern energy sources. Los Angeles Times, no. 43, pp 11. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Brown, G (2006). Nuclear power will aid the crisis. Media News Group, no. 9. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Goodman, J (2006). The nuclear option. DBA Governing Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Bove, J (2006). Is nuclear power an answer? Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Could nuclear power give coal a challenge? (Jan 22, 2007) Energy Publishing. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis