vincere
Feb 28, 2014
Writing Feedback / ACADEMIC WRITING Nuclear Energy: Boon or Bane? [2]
Read the passage below and :
Prepare a paragraph critiquing this essay below in terms of claim and evidence
Nuclear Energy: Boon or Bane?
A recent editorial in the local press with the headline 'Nuclear energy: The time has come' points to nuclear energy as the solution to the energy crisis that the world has to confront. After Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is crazy that a journalist in such a high position would still hold such a position, a stance that has been discredited by scientists and researchers all over the world in recent years. Allow me now to jump into this ridiculous discussion on the boons and banes of nuclear energy, and why we need to think more clearly if nuclear energy is our only way out.
The costs of nuclear power stations are colossal. Due to the stringent safety regulations that must be put in place to prevent a nuclear disaster, governments, or rather, taxpayers have to pour in huge amounts of money to set up these installations. To me, these amounts of money could have been better utilized by investing in research and development of alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, most nations are dragging their feet in researching and developing alternative energy as nobody wants to empty their wallets to do so. Why?Because everyoneknows that oil and gas are still cheaper in comparison to the money needed for research on alternative energy.However, fossil fuels will soon become scare, and my personal bet is that necessity will force us to cut down on energy consumption and tap into alternative energy sources sooner or later. If governments were prepared to put the huge level of resources into research and development of alternative energy sources that have now been going into developing nuclear energy, the prospects of alternative energy will largely increase and even materialize in the near future. In any case, blame it on the unreliable predictions of reports in the 1970sthat projected that fossil fuels would run out in two decades. Although this hasn't come true, there's no reason for us to be complacent and continue to fall back on fossil fuels instead of looking out for alternative sources.
As I've mention in the beginning, Chernobyl and Fukushima pollute the atmosphere and leave a radioactive legacy that will hang around for generations to come. Is this the kind of world we want to leave behind for our children? Polluted rivers, contaminated forests, tainted food, rampant diseases? Chernobyl's the best illustration of such catastrophes caused by nuclear energy plants. Decades after the industrial accident of 1986, strips of Ukraine near the disaster site continued to record horrific cancer rates. Outside the region, the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere led to contamination of places as far as the upland farms of Scotland where sheep are reared. Even after the farms were declared radioactive free by authorities many years later, the stigma that their farm produces are contaminated remain. Such tragedies are waiting to repeat themselves if we allow nuclear power stations to continue to stay in business.
Everybody knew that nuclear waste isn't biodegradable and hence threatening to all living creatures. Nuclear waste today is generally stored in concrete basins filled with water, and such wastes remain radioactive for thousands of years. We need to think twice concerning Dr. Xenon's claim in Cars magazine that nuclear energy produce little pollutants (he can keep his nuclear-powered cars to himself). Unlike Homer Simpson who lives in Springfield where a nuclear plant is located, I am sure few people in real life would like the idea of living in the vicinity of one. Truth is after decades of well-funded and thorough research, we still do not know how to get rid of high level radioactive waste safely. So what if nuclear energy is carbon free and produce more electricity than solar and wind energy? Other fans of nuclear energy like to outline its cost effectiveness as the most attractive factor to start generating nuclear energy.No doubt, compared to coal, wind and solar energy, nuclear energy can produce more kilowatts of energy for much less.But if you factor in the total costs of building nuclear plants with all the stringent safety requirements, the maintenance cost of nuclear plants, the decommissioning cost of old power plants as well as the tedious efforts and high cost of storing nuclear waste and disposal, the benefit of cost effectiveness quickly diffuses And in the event that there is leakage or theft of nuclear materials and these fall into the wrong hands resulting in the making of dirty bombs, the cost in terms of human life as a result of terrorist acts will render any talk of cost effectiveness invalid and redundant.
Who's to say that uranium, which is needed for the production of nuclear energy, will not run out some day? Worst, whether by coincidence or deliberation that nobody knows, uranium mining is often carried out in lands belonging to traditional communities or indigenous people in parts of the world, including North America and Europe.The greedy industrialists, working in tandem withmercenary local and national officials, not only displace these people from their lands but by building nuclear plants on these lands or in the vicinity, are essentially culpable of genocide when the indigenous people develop and die from cancer due to contact with hazardous nuclear materials.Despite these ugly truths, the champions of nuclear energy still argue that uranium is more reliable than solar and wind energy. They claimed that in places where the sun is not shining or when the wind is not blowing, these alternative energy forms can come to a halt. This may be truth but we can at least say that no human rights were trampled on in the building of wind mills, solar panels and hydroelectric dams.
There is evident that the advocates of nuclear energy done so not because they are serious about solving the energy crisis but because they recognize that whoever leads in nuclear development has an edge politically and militarily in the world stage. Developed nations pour in money to help underdeveloped nations develop nuclear power technology not for altruistic reasons but to make these poorer nations indebted to them and to control them. Less developed countries with nuclear power stations actually have higher safety risks because these are the countries with "little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." These are the shrewd observations of Professor Peter Bradford. Militarily, the development of nuclear power in turn fuels the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is a zero sum game for all parties involved. Indeed, Jim Green has reported boldly that of the 10 nations that have developed nuclear weapons, "six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program - India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea and France."
The world faces an energy crisis, this nobody can deny. It's hard to see how 'alternative' sources of energy will fulfill growing power needs but we must not be fooled into believing that nuclear energy is the way to go. The inefficiency of alternative energy technologies may make them impractical as solutions for our energy needs, but the threat posed by nuclear power to human existence makes alternative energy sources the safer and more viable way to go. The pros and cons of nuclear energy have been outlined in this discussion and the question whether nuclear energy is the answer to our energy crisis is left to the reader's own discretion. The detrimental effects of nuclear power on humans, the environment and wildlife especially aquatic life are clear for all to see. It would be unwise to add problem to problem, but wise to adopt solutions that will serve the greater good, and could sustain in the long run.
Read the passage below and :
Prepare a paragraph critiquing this essay below in terms of claim and evidence
Nuclear Energy: Boon or Bane?
A recent editorial in the local press with the headline 'Nuclear energy: The time has come' points to nuclear energy as the solution to the energy crisis that the world has to confront. After Chernobyl and Fukushima, it is crazy that a journalist in such a high position would still hold such a position, a stance that has been discredited by scientists and researchers all over the world in recent years. Allow me now to jump into this ridiculous discussion on the boons and banes of nuclear energy, and why we need to think more clearly if nuclear energy is our only way out.
The costs of nuclear power stations are colossal. Due to the stringent safety regulations that must be put in place to prevent a nuclear disaster, governments, or rather, taxpayers have to pour in huge amounts of money to set up these installations. To me, these amounts of money could have been better utilized by investing in research and development of alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, most nations are dragging their feet in researching and developing alternative energy as nobody wants to empty their wallets to do so. Why?Because everyoneknows that oil and gas are still cheaper in comparison to the money needed for research on alternative energy.However, fossil fuels will soon become scare, and my personal bet is that necessity will force us to cut down on energy consumption and tap into alternative energy sources sooner or later. If governments were prepared to put the huge level of resources into research and development of alternative energy sources that have now been going into developing nuclear energy, the prospects of alternative energy will largely increase and even materialize in the near future. In any case, blame it on the unreliable predictions of reports in the 1970sthat projected that fossil fuels would run out in two decades. Although this hasn't come true, there's no reason for us to be complacent and continue to fall back on fossil fuels instead of looking out for alternative sources.
As I've mention in the beginning, Chernobyl and Fukushima pollute the atmosphere and leave a radioactive legacy that will hang around for generations to come. Is this the kind of world we want to leave behind for our children? Polluted rivers, contaminated forests, tainted food, rampant diseases? Chernobyl's the best illustration of such catastrophes caused by nuclear energy plants. Decades after the industrial accident of 1986, strips of Ukraine near the disaster site continued to record horrific cancer rates. Outside the region, the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere led to contamination of places as far as the upland farms of Scotland where sheep are reared. Even after the farms were declared radioactive free by authorities many years later, the stigma that their farm produces are contaminated remain. Such tragedies are waiting to repeat themselves if we allow nuclear power stations to continue to stay in business.
Everybody knew that nuclear waste isn't biodegradable and hence threatening to all living creatures. Nuclear waste today is generally stored in concrete basins filled with water, and such wastes remain radioactive for thousands of years. We need to think twice concerning Dr. Xenon's claim in Cars magazine that nuclear energy produce little pollutants (he can keep his nuclear-powered cars to himself). Unlike Homer Simpson who lives in Springfield where a nuclear plant is located, I am sure few people in real life would like the idea of living in the vicinity of one. Truth is after decades of well-funded and thorough research, we still do not know how to get rid of high level radioactive waste safely. So what if nuclear energy is carbon free and produce more electricity than solar and wind energy? Other fans of nuclear energy like to outline its cost effectiveness as the most attractive factor to start generating nuclear energy.No doubt, compared to coal, wind and solar energy, nuclear energy can produce more kilowatts of energy for much less.But if you factor in the total costs of building nuclear plants with all the stringent safety requirements, the maintenance cost of nuclear plants, the decommissioning cost of old power plants as well as the tedious efforts and high cost of storing nuclear waste and disposal, the benefit of cost effectiveness quickly diffuses And in the event that there is leakage or theft of nuclear materials and these fall into the wrong hands resulting in the making of dirty bombs, the cost in terms of human life as a result of terrorist acts will render any talk of cost effectiveness invalid and redundant.
Who's to say that uranium, which is needed for the production of nuclear energy, will not run out some day? Worst, whether by coincidence or deliberation that nobody knows, uranium mining is often carried out in lands belonging to traditional communities or indigenous people in parts of the world, including North America and Europe.The greedy industrialists, working in tandem withmercenary local and national officials, not only displace these people from their lands but by building nuclear plants on these lands or in the vicinity, are essentially culpable of genocide when the indigenous people develop and die from cancer due to contact with hazardous nuclear materials.Despite these ugly truths, the champions of nuclear energy still argue that uranium is more reliable than solar and wind energy. They claimed that in places where the sun is not shining or when the wind is not blowing, these alternative energy forms can come to a halt. This may be truth but we can at least say that no human rights were trampled on in the building of wind mills, solar panels and hydroelectric dams.
There is evident that the advocates of nuclear energy done so not because they are serious about solving the energy crisis but because they recognize that whoever leads in nuclear development has an edge politically and militarily in the world stage. Developed nations pour in money to help underdeveloped nations develop nuclear power technology not for altruistic reasons but to make these poorer nations indebted to them and to control them. Less developed countries with nuclear power stations actually have higher safety risks because these are the countries with "little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." These are the shrewd observations of Professor Peter Bradford. Militarily, the development of nuclear power in turn fuels the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which is a zero sum game for all parties involved. Indeed, Jim Green has reported boldly that of the 10 nations that have developed nuclear weapons, "six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program - India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea and France."
The world faces an energy crisis, this nobody can deny. It's hard to see how 'alternative' sources of energy will fulfill growing power needs but we must not be fooled into believing that nuclear energy is the way to go. The inefficiency of alternative energy technologies may make them impractical as solutions for our energy needs, but the threat posed by nuclear power to human existence makes alternative energy sources the safer and more viable way to go. The pros and cons of nuclear energy have been outlined in this discussion and the question whether nuclear energy is the answer to our energy crisis is left to the reader's own discretion. The detrimental effects of nuclear power on humans, the environment and wildlife especially aquatic life are clear for all to see. It would be unwise to add problem to problem, but wise to adopt solutions that will serve the greater good, and could sustain in the long run.