Nuclear Policy as an Environmental Solution
Nuclear power looks as if it should be the answer to our energy problems. It has negative sides, but in the long run it is the best future image. We are running out from carbon fuels, and we need a better energy source. Nuclear energy is the solution for this problem.
The main greenhouse gas released from human activities (though of course building the power station produces a lot of CO2).
They say nuclear power is safe, and that nuclear accidents have killed massively fewer people than the oil and coal industries. So we could be afraid of accidents but boats with oil sink every day and an accident like Chernobyl is very rear.
Nuclear power does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. And it is very important to decrease the pollution nowadays because in 5 years cars’ number will be twice as much as now, because in for example Japan, China, India they start to use cars just right now.
They say it is affordable because plants could produce much more energy. A large plant generates about a million kilowatts of electricity – some more, some less. And it costs about the same as coal, so its not expensive to make. And it produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel.
But unfortunately there are some disadvantages, for example it is very, very dangerous, although not much waste is produced.
It must be sealed up and buried for many years to allow the radioactivity to die away. So the problem of radio active waste is still the most problematic question.
Nuclear power is reliable, but a lot of money has to be spent on safety. If it does go wrong, a nuclear accident can be a major disaster.
In conclusion in my oppinion it is a great idea to use nuclear power, but because of the disadvantages