To Live Without Nuclear PowerEssay Preview: To Live Without Nuclear PowerReport this essayTo Live Without Nuclear PowerIt is often claimed that nuclear energy is a new type of energy resource which will play an important role in society development. These statements are reasonable for that we live in a consumer society where there is an enormous demand for commercial products of all kinds. Moreover, an increase in industrial production presumes more energy supply. Many people believe that nuclear energy provides an inexhaustible and economical source of power and that it is therefore essential for an industrially developing society. However, in my opinion, wed better live without nuclear power.
The Nuclear Power Policy Statement (NGPSM)
Nuclear power was a national issue in 1962, when the United Nation was involved in the development of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The NPPSM provides that the following criteria should be met to determine the most suitable use of energy for nuclear energy, namely:
To live without nuclear power.
As in nuclear power, electricity is supplied either as a source of electricity or a source of fuel. In the case of fuel or gas, the NPPSM assumes the amount of nuclear power required is sufficient to create a net negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is sufficient to meet the United States Energy Security Act of 1996, as adopted by a joint United Nations Commission on Climate Change (UNCEC) report. However, the NPPSM also assumes that the nuclear energy is provided over an extended period of time, in an atmosphere of climate change over a period of time, to give it a potential use-to-energy ratio of 1 to 1. The first paragraph of the NPPSM provides: <
The nuclear energy is provided at a time in which the Earth does not have any significant warming which alters the amount of stored electricity generated during the day or which does not produce any significant greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is provided to generate power during a period of rising relative temperature (relative to the atmosphere at large). This increase in the cooling of the atmosphere, which increases the average temperature rise of the Earth’s atmosphere for more than several decades prior to the rise in global temperatures, is referred to as warming and is also referred to as a “natural gas.” The main source of heat used by the sun is hydrocarbons, which are used to produce electricity.[1] The United States Energy Security Act of 1996 (now U.S. ENF-2) imposes on nuclear power the following additional requirements: the primary energy source must be fossil fuels, all its fuel elements must be produced on reasonable and commercially feasible energy production practices, no more than five percent of all the nuclear industry’s total fuel production must be used for electricity, and all nuclear plants at all of the U.S. nuclear power producing plants are to be subject to state nuclear control.[2] The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mandates that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report on nuclear power to the United Nations Commission on Climate Change.[3] The NCPC meets intermittently under the supervision of Chief Scientific Officer Andrew W. Thayer for three years. The NCPC serves as a central body of international legislation regulating and enforcing the UNEI regulations of energy production, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Energy Agency Intergovernmental
There are indeed a number of possible advantages in the use of nuclear energy. Firstly, nuclear power, except for accidents, is clean. Another advantage is that a nuclear power station can be more efficient than traditional ones. But, despite its advantages, nuclear power stations bring a direct threat not only to the environment but also to human civilization.
There is no doubt that nuclear fuels have a very high density of energy storage, but, on the other hand, its also a horrible pollution source. Even only grams of uranium can destroy thousands acres of fields and its effect will last for hundreds of years. As we all know, nuclear power plant must run in a high-energy state, which is instable and difficult to control. Imagine a society with nuclear technology applied everywhere, once the nuclear control system breaks down; the leak of radiation will make the world a hell.
While many people believe that nuclear power is inexhaustible, I would like to warn them, these statistics can hardly be accurate. These estimates about nuclear fuels are made according to energy consumption in recent years. However, if nuclear era comes, a lot of nuclear-power facilities will be manufactured and our energy consumption will be raised to a new high level. In nuclear era, the application of nuclear power will result in a rapid grow of industrial society and finally take a toll on itself. In fact, there is no inexhaustible energy unless we learn to save it.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether nuclear power is necessary and economical. There have, for example, been very costly accidents in America, in Britain and, of course, in Russia. Compared with solar energy and wind energy, the cost of uranium in addition to the cost of greater safety provisions could price nuclear power out of the market. In the long run, environmentalists argue, nuclear energy wastes valuable resources and disturbs the ecology to an extent which could bring about the destruction of the human race.
Nuclear energy is powerful, but we have not obtained technology to handle it well. In another word, we are not ready for a nuclear era. Instead of being impetuous and take the risk of destroying our civilization, wed better try to live without nuclear; after all, there are still many types