Table of Contents
A. Table of contents. 1
B. Content: 2
Nuclear power-an alternative which cannot be justified 2
1. Introduction 2
2. Argument 2
2.1. Nuclear power: money-consuming 2
2.2. Nuclear power: environmental pollution 3
2.3. Nuclear power: a risk of human’s health 3
3. Counterargument and refutation 4
4. Conclusion 4
5. References 5
C. Materials 6
An alternative which cannot be justified.
From the very first years of 20th century, as the non-renewable sources of energy were running out, the human beings immediately searched for alternative sources of energy and nuclear power was introduced as an auspicious solution to cope with energy crisis. Its advantages are undeniable, though, after the nuclear disasters in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima, it is controversial whether nuclear energy is safe or not. It is clear that nuclear is here to stay but we are paying the price for its consequences. In my point of view, nuclear energy should not be promoted for three following reasons.
First of all, the production of electricity from nuclear power is money-consuming. Apart from ordinary chemical reactions, nuclear energy is based on fission and fusion, two different reactions converting the matter from the nucleus into huge surge of heat and power (Raven, Berg & Johnson, 1998). Therefore, the hi-tech facilities are needed to hold them in check. In 1998, Raven et al stated that to keep a nuclear power plant running as long as possible, people had to spend a tremendous sum of money on building, maintaining as nuclear reactors become old – fashioned. Currie & Skolnick (1998) also pointed that “the cost overruns have generally been double or triple the initial estimates” (p.319). For example, Washington State government spent $24 billion building nuclear plants rather...