The use of nuclear energy is one of the issues that are debated by environmental scientists, economists as well as engineers. Numerous risks of these technologies are often discussed in various academic works. However, at the same time, it can be a valuable source of energy for many countries that are strongly dependent on fossil fuels. This paper is aimed at discussing the consequences of developing nuclear power in a country. It is possible to argue this source of energy remains a viable option provided that proper safety precautions are taken. This is the main thesis that should be discussed in more detail.
The opponents of nuclear energy point out that the failure to address safety concerns can result into an environmental catastrophe; in particular, one should speak about the release of radiation, or thermal pollution. Secondly, one should not forget about waste disposal (Nersesian, 2010, p. 25). On the whole, the incidents at nuclear power stations can pose a dire threat to human health, wildlife, vegetation, soil, and so forth. One can provide various examples of such disasters, but the most notorious cases are Chernobyl disaster and the explosion at Fukushima.
They differ in several ways; for instance, the meltdown Chernobyl can be mostly attributed to the flawed design of the power station, human error, and inefficiencies of the Soviet government (Turk & Bensel, 2011). In contrast, the Fukushima incident was caused by earthquake and tsunami. Nevertheless, this event demonstrates no country is fully safeguarded against the risk of nuclear disaster.
Moreover, the construction of nuclear power stations is time-consuming and expensive, and the opponents of these technologies believe this form of investment is not very efficient (Turk & Bensel, 2011). These are the arguments that are put forward by the critics of nuclear power.
Nevertheless, there are certain advantages of nuclear power that one cannot disregard. First of all, nuclear power station release smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, and they do not contribute to the greenhouse effect (Nersesian, 2010, p. 25). Additionally, this technology can help many countries reduce their dependence on fossil fuels natural gas, petroleum or coal. Furthermore, nuclear power stations can generate more power that those facilities which are based on the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the cost of nuclear fuel is much more stable, especially in comparison with the prices on natural gas or oil.
It has to be admitted that other energy sources also have some limitations. For example, the use of hydropower can be associated with such risks as the loss of land and the destruction of natural habitat. Furthermore, dam failure can result in the deaths of many people. In particular, one can refer to the collapse of the Banqiao Dam in China. This catastrophe killed more than 100,000 people (Nersesian, 2010). Nevertheless, this tragedy does not attract so much attention of the mass media.
Therefore, one can argue that the extensive use of nuclear energy certainly entails many risks. However, one should not disregard the benefits brought by these technologies, especially their ability to substitute fossil fuels. The disasters that have been discussed in this paper should serve as a warning to policy-makers, scientists, and engineers. Yet, they do not imply that the use of nuclear energy should be abolished completely. Such a decision can hardly be called rational.
Reference List
Nersesian, R. (2010). Energy for the 21st century: a comprehensive guide to conventional and alternative sources. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Turk. J., & Bensel, T. (2011). Contemporary Environmental Issues. New York: Bridgepoint Education.