The Nuclear Power Debate
...energy source, favoured in place of increasingly scarce fossil fuels
which caused air pollution. Its initial use was welcomed by the general public,
as it was hoped to lower the price of electricity, and utilise nuclear power for
it's potential as a resource, not a weapon. However, as people became aware of
the long term dangers involved in storing nuclear waste, it's use was criticised.
Two accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, demonstrated to the world
the enormous risks involved in producing nuclear power.
Nuclear power provides 17% of the world's electricity but coal is the
main source, making up 39%. However, fossil fuels such as coal, require greater
quantities to produce the equivalent amount of electricity produced from Uranium.
The use of nuclear power opposed to burning fossil fuels has reduced carbon
dioxide emissions by 2 billion tonnes per year, minimising the global warming
effect on the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is responsible for half of man made
gases contributing to the Greenhouse Effect, and has sparked action from the UN
Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. Their consensus is a concern for the
environment in the next century if fossil fuels continue to be used, even at
present global levels. The Panel claims that for carbon dioxide to be
stabilised to safe levels, a 50-80% reduction in all emissions would be required.
The United Nations has predicted a world population growth from 5.5
billion to 8.5 billion by the year 2025, meaning demand for energy will increase.
Nuclear power is the only practical source, in consideration for the
environment, cost and efficiency. Coal-fired generation of electricity would
increase carbon dioxide emissions, and renewable sources such as solar and hydro,
are not suitable for large scale power generation.
Nuclear power is not without its own implications. The process includes...
View Full Essay
