The Chernobyl disaster, widely cited as the reason not to build nuclear power plants, happened in the Soviet Union where safety standards were notoriously lax. The nuclear power stations can be targeted by terrorism. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. But it brings huge benefits that more than compensate for the negative aspects.
First, requiring less land. It is estimated that it would take a wind farm the size of Texas to provide for the power needs of Texas. The inefficiency of alternative energy technologies make them impractical as solutions for large-scale energy needs. Hydroelectric usually needs building a large dam which floods an enormous region behind the dam, displacing tens of thousands of people. For example, the Three Gorges Dam project in China. It destroyed 30,000 hectors of farmland. If you take these requiring land cases into your consideration, nuclear power should be valued regardless of its potential dangers.
Second, environmental friendly aspect. Nuclear power is significantly beneficial to environment. Dams requiring huge area can devastate the eco-system of wide areas. Burning fossil fuels is highly polluting. Build-up of carbon dioxide is believed to accerarate the greenhouse effect, causing global climate change. Nuclear power energy does not emit carbon dioxide unlike fossil fuel.
In conclusion, there is no other power than nuclear power. Only nuclear power can supply our energy needs.
1 comment:
It is quite doubtful whether nuclear power outweighs the danger or not.
First of all, even though proponents argue that newly designed neclear power plant has different structure than classical Chelnobyl type, the basic concept is totally the same.
Second, even if the new nuclear plant is claimed safe, this story has stood on the premise that all parts are made with good quality. But actually, to reduce the production cost, electricity companies would outsource its production to some third parties, then that company which receives the order, then again outsources, and this sequence goes on and on, so finally, the quality of parts would rather decline, which makes nuclear power plant more proune to the accidents.
Even in Japan, once there was such an accident. The thermometer which was built into some part snapped, then radioactive fluid rushed into its hole, then leaked outside of the reactor.
If we put double or triple safeguards of shell surrounding the reactor, I believe the nuclear power is safe enough, but unfortunatelly due to the nature of nuclear power generation, at the production stage, nuclear costs more than conventional power generation, so for the electric company the only one way to survive is just to reduce the cost of safety system---additional outer shells, production of genuine parts, earth quake resistant structure of the plant, education for its staffs, security guard etc. Imagine, if all of these factors are very poorly provided, what would happen?
Third of all, even though people have been made to believe that nuclear power plant never releases carbon dioxide, actually it is not true. Nuclear power plant does release huge amount of carbon dioxide, so in total what is a good point of nuclear power? Who benefits?
For these reason above, I never believe that nuclear power produces benefits that outweighs its potential dangers.
Post a Comment