Is nuclear energy a jackpot or Russian roulette? Nuclear energy is sometimes promoted as the only rational replacement for fossil fuels, and sometimes is nay-sayed as a choice even worse for the environment. The decision of whether or not to use nuclear fission for our electricity purposes is painted with many colorful topics such as: sourcing of fuel, advantages of nuclear, if nuclear is low cost, who’s paying, previous nuclear failures, and the threat of terrorism. Overall, nuclear energy has a fascinating history, and an excellent point of discussion.
A fundamental point of nuclear energy is fuel sourcing; no fuel means no energy. The radioactive materials necessary for reactor function are available at relatively low costs with little price fluctuation. Contrast that with oil - which can either be very cheap or very expensive depending on various variables. Additionally, the fuel comes from reliable allies, such as Canada and Australia. Current estimates place the supply of nuclear fuel as enough for another few centuries. Consequently, nuclear fuel does not seem to be going away anytime soon, and the price of the fuel seems rather stable. Nuclear fuel can be given a clean bill of health in the case of fuel sourcing.
Is reliable fuel sourcing the only thing nuclear energy
…show more content…
Nuclear power plants are perfect targets for a few radicals to make a statement. Most plants store at least some of their waste in on-site cooling pools, and no permanent secure storage location presently exists, nor is one likely ever to be built. Nuclear power plants exhibit the best civil engineering presently employed (emphasis on “civil”). All it takes is one gallon of radioactive waste to put the whole world above safe levels. Therefore, a nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere. Will our radioactive house of straw stand when the world blows? It is too great of a risk to