Why is nuclear power a necessary evil?

Page Nuclear power is one of the most important sources of energy used to satisfy human needs. The recently catastrophe in Japan could destroy its market. Countries have begun to ask again the question: to build or not to build? Maybe the answer has been there years. The situation is in extremely dangerous in Japan, which is the capital of the nuclear reactor market. The earthquake and the tsunami havent only caused thousands of deaths, but they could be the spark that ignites a nuclear disaster. A similar catastrophe was predicted by some after what happened at Chernobyl in 1986. For the nuclear reactor in Fukushima, the situation is unstable: the reactor three are already gone, the fourth is hardly under control. Although the Japanese scientists exclude a catastrophe like Chernobyl, the situation has caused a wave of panic in the world! While some panic, others say that the nuclear debate must be objective and that theres no space for emotions. But is that really true? Or even possible? Should this accident be excluded when we talk about projects for new nuclear reactors? Another problem concerns the nuclear market itself. Japan is the center of the nuclear energy market. Take for example the U.S.A., two of its 104 reactor are property of Japan! The disaster has had negative consequence on economy. The Tokyo Stock Exchange closed the 15th March, at - 6.18 % and economics say that investments in the nuclear sector are discouraged. Were actually in an uncomfortable situation. While Libya fight its war (its ownwar, because nobody is doing something, and this nuclear danger is stealing the attention for it ), its petrol source, which is important for countries like Italy, France and Spain, could become unreachable. In addition to this problem, theres Egypts rebellion. Egypt isnt petrol supplier, but is the transit-country of petrol. Of course nuclear power is the main alternative. It is more powerful than hydraulic energy, wind energy, biofuel energy, etc. But we need green energy, because it means no pollution, and no increase in global warming and never ending energy.

Petrol is the basis of our life, because plastic is everywhere. Nevertheless we can live without a big percentage of plastic. A more important problem concerns electronic pieces, for example, but we could concentrate the use of petrol to only where is strictly necessary. For this we need an alternative energy and we need a lot of energy. Since the 14th March theUnited Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination has been in Japan to help the government face the disaster. The United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon had a telephone conversation with the General Director of the International Atomic Energy Agent (www.iaea.org), who sad that the radioactivity loss was minimal and not dangerous. Also, the Japan Agency of Nuclear Power Security has extended the evacuation perimeter. We cant know how much radioactivity has been dispersed in Fukushima, but the danger has forced countries to think about future nuclear programs.

Gnther ttinger, the Commissioner for Energy in European Commission, encourages the security control of old reactors, but he also lays stress on the importance of green energy. The Italian minister Stefania Prestigiacomo confirmed that Italy will continue with the nuclear program, but for example the Cgil (Italian General Confederation of Work) and I Verdi (the green) didnt agree. Decided to proceed is Bielorussia, who isnt touched by the Japan disaster and will continue its first nuclear project. The same goes for China (which has 11 reactors in activity). On the other hand Berlins government has the intention to close its oldest nuclear reactor, and maybe minimize the length of the life of a nuclear reactor (now 12 years old). In France a referendum against nuclear power has been proposed to the government. For the moment Switzerland has stopped all its actual projects and has begun a strong security control of the other reactors. 40 % of energy used by the country comes from nuclear power, hence there is actually a great debate about it. The United State of America, Finland and Austria worry also about security issues. England and Belgium havent confirmed a position yet.

In general, the EU countries are decided to begin a general security test on reactors. Middle Eastern countries have to face the rapid population growth, the United Arab Emirates, for example, has a project to build four nuclear reactors in Branka (Persians Gulf). Scientists have been thinking about green energy since the oil crisis in 1973. Countries have started to use water, wind, sun, hybrid energy, and nuclear energy. The last one is the most efficient. The last one has also the most dangerous negative effect: radioactive waste. A necessary evil, well, isnt it? Scientists know that nuclear reactors are safe, because mathematics dont lie. Heads of governments have to believe in them.

Nevertheless someone has to think about human error and the toll on nature, which mathematics can certainly not calculate. A catastrophe, like the one in Japan, was needed to move the governments to reopen the debate on nuclear power and think: am I doing the best thing, by filling up my country with nuclear reactors? Its not a simple question to answer. Nuclear is like oil, because of its negative effects, it one day could be abandoned for a new energy source, if scientists dont find a solution to repair its flaws. Thinking about present, nuclear is necessary. There are two possible consequences of building another reactor: either people will be in danger because of the radioactive waste, or scientists will discover how to eliminate the flaws of nuclear power. We cant know which road history will take. The nuclear market shouldnt stop, but it should be reduce. Fewer reactors and fewer catastrophes will occur (if we give in to the idea of reduction). But fewer reactors mean less electric energy. Can it obligate people to consume less energy? Why not? Why is nuclear power a necessary evil? People have been getting more and more lazy and spoiled. The government says that, to reduce pollution, we have to use more public transports? Well, well do it if governments bring down the price of public transport. Why? Because we dont want to give up the mobility and freedom that we receive with our own cars, without getting a lot of advantages in return. But if we discover, that we can save enough money, we might be able to give up just little bit of our independence. People adapt in the end. We dont forget, what weve been told for years: we must do something about pollution and about waste. When energy is lacking, people will start to do all that is necessary to save energy, without exception. Because sometimes extreme situation teach us that life is not easy and bring us to be more ingenious and to sacrifice a little bit of ourselves.

The man who fears God will avoid all extremes, Ecclesiastes 7:18 Speaking with Carol Massar and Matt Miller in a Bloomberg interview back in July 2010, former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said, (The United States) is a country whose economy has always been based on having plentiful, affordable supplies of energy. But one of the things we can do is develop more sources here at home not only in terms of developing more oil here, but also we need to build more nuclear power plants. We need to install more renewable energy sources that are domestic sources, so that we are not as dependent on external imports. Generally, Americans dont want nuclear power plants built nearby because of scenes like the Three Mile Island partial meltdown (USA, 1979); the Chernobyl complete meltdown (Russia, 1986); and various material leaks and structure damage that weve heard about. The good news, though, is we are getting better at operating and reinforcing nuclear reactors with each passing day; and the truth is, in spite of the real dangers, we need nuclear energy more than ever.

Carbon emissions released by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal accumulate in the upper atmosphere, acting as a blanket. In the same way that blankets provide us overall warmth by holding in our body heat, so the carbon (CO2) blanket' prevents the earths heat from escaping into space trapping it inside the atmosphere causing a global warming effect. Thus, we are witnessing rapidly melting ice caps and glaciers, and rising record-setting temperatures.

China and the U.S., the two largest carbon emitters, consider significant reductions in greenhouse gases a threat to economic growth. We are, therefore, subject to suffer increasingly miserable environmental conditions and further irreparable damage until we as a global community decide to make positive changes.

The event that will likely prod governments into eco-friendly action is mass migration due to fresh-water shortages caused by the disappearance of glaciers; insufficient crop production resulting from erratic weather conditions; and disruptive, destructive & deadly storms. We are already witnessing this phenomenon to a limited extent in certain areas of the world, which include China, due to desertification; Pakistan, struck by massive flooding, and the Southeast region of the U.S. pounded by intensifying hurricanes. To mitigate mass migration, the logical choice would be to implement as many clean-energy technologies as possible in order to buy the time to wean ourselves off carbon-emitting forms of energy. Here is a list I arranged of the Top 10 Carbon-Emitting Countries along with their level of Nuclear-Energy Use as a Percentage of Overall Energy Output:

And a list of the Top 10 Nuclear-Energy Use Countries as a Percentage of Overall Energy Output:

As conventional energy sources become harder to come by and more expensive to extract, without incremental use of nuclear energy, it will eventually mean higher energy prices or, a worst, systematic blackouts. There is no free lunch. We can keep the carbon party going by chucking more coal into the furnace and pouring more oil into the tank, but, as we are learning, this will result in hotter and hotter summers, leading to ever higher demand for energy output to power our air conditioners at rising cost spewing ever larger plumes of CO2 into earths atmosphere. Round and round the process goes.

Thus, our choice: A nuclear power plant in your area providing a sufficient supply of carbon-free energy toward an improved environment, or the peace of mind of having no threat of radiation exposure while we, and our carbon-emitting partners, continue to burn fossil fuels at a breakneck pace in an effort to quench our insatiable thirst for energy for a global population now approaching 7 billion, reaching 9 billion within the next 30 years a path of certain ecological calamity.

As for me, as with investing, it is all about risk vs. reward. I prefer the low risk of radiation exposure for the probable reward of an improved environment to the disastrous ecological consequences now bearing down on us threatening our children with bleak prospects in a world in which livelihoods are growing frustratingly complicated. As testimony to my belief, I comfortably reside within an hours drive of the Tokai Nuclear Power Plant here in Japan; I own a home near the McGuire Nuclear Reactors in Charlotte, NC; and I firmly support the building and upgrade of nuclear power plants across the U.S. And you?

Yes, we need to ensure that new and existing nuclear reactors take into account every possible safety measure; and yes, we need to direct appropriated tax dollars toward the technology that reprocesses fuel rods in a way that reduces their radioactive lifespan from 100,000 years to 500 years for safer storage, instead of simply lying spent rods on concrete slabs near the reactors for future reprocessing. But for every day we delay the installation of nuclear power plants drop by drop of oil, and slack by slack of coal we are creating what is fast becoming unbearable living conditions on a global scale
Nuclear power is a necessary evil of the age. It's sort of a catch 22. If you use it you face some dire consequences, and if you don't you still run out of energy resources. The drawback is: nuclear power has very little chances of reducing carbon emissions worldwide and also is a potential for nuclear terrorism. A recent research paper published by Oxford research group (ORG) dealt with these issues. The authors Frank Barnaby and James Kemp have both written in the ORG 'Too hot to handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power'. According to the writers, the security issue of the nuke power can be somewhat managed. What cannot be managed is the effect on the environment. I do second this thought of the authors. Here's my take on the issue. I do agree that the nuke plants can be protected with considerable amount of investment in security. Nuclear power is extremely disastrous as we know. If this falls in the wrong hands, people might not live long enough. Also, if there's a third world war, entire human race will be completely wiped out from the effects of the nuclear energy. It is extremely crucial to protect this energy form, which is achievable. In order to protect this power, a lot of investment in industrial security is required. Most of the Western nations like US and UK have extensive security measures to protect their nuclear power plants. Armed guards, physical, barriers and detection systems are the systems that keep things intact in the West. However, the third world countries dealing with this kind of power is a headache to the West. This is becausesecurity infiltration becomes a big issue in this case. This is why the US, Russia and the UK are onto Iranian nuclear plants. They don't want the power

to fall in the wrong hands. When I take into consideration the environmental aspect of this form of energy, I feel terrible. This is because of the carbon emissions from nuclear power plant that's puncturing the ozone layer. What's happening ? Currently, nuclear energy is used as an alternative source for power. Most of the plants are relying on low grade uranium ores, which increases CO2 emissions from nuclear cycles. This cause rapid environmental degradation as the gas is released from the plants. According to stats, nuclear reactors emit 4 to 5 times more CO2 than fossil fuels. So once the damage is done to the environment from these reactors and the power plants, it becomes really hard to reverse the process and heal the environmental wounds. Therefore, I agree with the ORG paper which basically says that nuclear power is releasing more CO2 to the environment. Cheap and clean nuclear power is a myth as of now. Also, the more nuclear plants would increase terrorism threat. Image Credits: Guardian UK,Lightandmatter

Harnessing Nuclear Power for a Greener Future

The world would be a more dangerous place with nuclear weapons. Most of the nations in the world are now capable of converting uranium into gas commercially and are able to enrich that gas for fuel. These same facilities could be used to enrich...

Doomsday Prophecy: Global CO2 emissions increasing at faster pace

According to the Little Green Data Book 2007, just published by the World Bank, global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, with the world producing 16% more CO2 in 2003. The report further states that combined emissions from the combustion of.

Trees or Humans? - A Battle of Survival with Increasing CO2 Levels

How important is carbon dioxide for fertilization? The reply to this is pretty astonishing. A new finding reveals that forest productivity may be significantly greater in an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide. Researchers at the Department of...

Corn plants: Good for detection of CO2 Emissions

Humans have been increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in air by burning of fossil fuels, by producing cement and by carrying out land clearing and forest combustion. Fossil fuel burning leads to CO2 emissions, which leads to environmental...