Q: At present we rely on oil for most our energy needs. However, oil is a fossil fuel and causes air pollution, and it will eventually run out. Nuclear energy is the only practical and clean source of energy for the world. In what extent do you agree and disagree?
The world now have recently faced serious air pollution and power shortage. The statistics shows that fossil fuel such as gas and oil is reaching the exhausted peak. It is argued that nuclear power is the most feasible alternative source which can solve pollution issue. However, I strongly disagree with this view.
First of all, although nuclear energy can deal with the exhaustion, lots of great dangers lie behind this source due to the fear of contamination. Statistic illustrates that the number of disasters which are caused by radioactive waste in the recent decades is not small. Take for example, the latest disaster Fukusima. The whole large area was severely contaminated; as a result, the citizens were completely moved to another place. This raises the question of the safety of nuclear power.
Then what are the alternative forms that are more comparative? Many other sources of energy such as solar and windy as well as biofuels power are possibly potential to exploit in the near future. Despite relatively large setup costs, these source are evidently proved to be cost-effective and sustainable in the long run. In addition, as they are definitely endless, we never mind that one day they will ultimately exhaust. These source can also solve the environmental issue which is the biggest drawback of the nuclear power.
The facts outlined above, when taken together, are in the favor of the view that nuclear is not the future energy alternative. The question is now whether government policies is strict enough in order to encourage power companies to invest more in new sources of energy.
The world now have recently faced serious air pollution and power shortage. The statistics shows that fossil fuel such as gas and oil is reaching the exhausted peak. It is argued that nuclear power is the most feasible alternative source which can solve pollution issue. However, I strongly disagree with this view.
First of all, although nuclear energy can deal with the exhaustion, lots of great dangers lie behind this source due to the fear of contamination. Statistic illustrates that the number of disasters which are caused by radioactive waste in the recent decades is not small. Take for example, the latest disaster Fukusima. The whole large area was severely contaminated; as a result, the citizens were completely moved to another place. This raises the question of the safety of nuclear power.
Then what are the alternative forms that are more comparative? Many other sources of energy such as solar and windy as well as biofuels power are possibly potential to exploit in the near future. Despite relatively large setup costs, these source are evidently proved to be cost-effective and sustainable in the long run. In addition, as they are definitely endless, we never mind that one day they will ultimately exhaust. These source can also solve the environmental issue which is the biggest drawback of the nuclear power.
The facts outlined above, when taken together, are in the favor of the view that nuclear is not the future energy alternative. The question is now whether government policies is strict enough in order to encourage power companies to invest more in new sources of energy.
