There are quite a few concerns regarding Nuclear Energy. I have addressed several of these concerns including
costs and
waste, which can be found by clicking the wonderful underlined blue words "costs" and "waste". This post will mainly be covering Nuclear Proliferation, Nuclear Disasters, and Green Energy.
What is
Nuclear Proliferation? It's the spread of Nuclear Weapons Technology to more countries. Many people may say that due to M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) this is kind of a moot point as only a mad person would do such a thing as actually use Nuclear Weapons. However, there
is always that chance that some crazy will get behind the missile controls which means that the fewer countries that have Nuclear Weapons the lower the chance that we will be awoken in the dead of night to sirens.
I will not be arguing this point. Let's assume this is true. What does this have to do with Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear Energy is considered a stepping stone to Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Energy has several process such as
Reprocessing which can directly result in fissile material. Namely Plutonium. The thing about Reprocessing, though, is that it can be used to take care of all that bothersome Nuclear Waste which critics of Nuclear Energy are always talking about. If this waste was removed it would also remove the possibility for this waste to be used to create Nuclear Weapons. The only real problem is that it costs twice as much to Reprocess Waste as it does to simply obtain more Uranium.
Reprocessing is currently illegal in the United States on the grounds that it will lead to Proliferation. I disagree. I believe that using and
getting rid of this Nuclear Waste is much more safe than letting it sit for years and years and years. We can already create Nuclear Weapons. It isn't the US that will be Proliferating. It will be other countries Proliferating it
from us. Therefore, since the other country's scientists are not likely dumb, they should be able to figure out fairly quickly what we have had figured out for a long time.
Let's get rid of this waste by making Reprocessing legal again. It is the only Nuclear Process that I believe warrants the use of National Government Subsidies mostly because as I have proven in the costs section, Nuclear Energy generates plenty of income naturally: thus disproving the many critics complaints about it being impossible to generate a profit through Nuclear Power without Government Subsidies.
Now let's go to the
3-Mile-Island Accident. Frankly, whenever this is given as grounds against Nuclear Energy I am astounded at the willingness of people to so willingly accept what people tell them without thinking.
The 3-Mile-Island Accident took place in 1979. The internet wasn't present until
1995 for full commercial use. I remember when my computer had dial-up internet, and used floppy-discs. Anyone else? Computers as we know them did
not exist.
Many present day technological advances did
not exist.
And yet, 34 years later, we still are worried about this Accident. We have been so scared spitless that we have not created a new Nuclear Power Plant in the United States since this disaster.
This Accident mainly occurred because a technician who was under-trained did not correctly interpret what his computer was saying. This caused him to release coolant when the power plant needed more causing this Accident.
Do you think a mis-reading of a computer would likely occur today? With properly trained personnel? Not likely.
At this point many people point to the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster as it supposedly shows that Nuclear Power Plant Catastrophes still occur and that therefore Nuclear Power Plants are still dangerous and should not be created. This is a faulty assumption. What we learned was something fairly obvious: don't build reactors on Fault lines or Coasts.
Now, there are many things that critics like to say: such as use Green Energy. Green Energy is not inherently bad. I believe it may be good and useful. However, the current costs and returns are simply not worth it.
Solar Panels have a max efficiency of 33.7% efficiency. This is of Sunlight. You are obtaining roughly a third of the energy of the light at best. That's not very much. Technically, if you take the solar panels and put layer after layer after layer you can get higher, but this would take even more money.
It would require
1,200 windmills or 20 square miles of solar panels to equal one Nuclear Power Plant. Tell me people aren't insane when they argue that that's better for the environment.
Like I said, Green Energy is not bad. It's just not at a point yet that it makes sense to invest exorbitant amounts of money in it.
Hopefully, this helps you to view Nuclear Energy in a more positive light as a viable energy option.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html
http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/12/nuclear-waste-disposal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/why-nuclear/clean/
_________________________________________________________________________________
